Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[kentonio]

ARG! What is it with this doubleposting ****!

[Ben Kenobi]

I admit being fascinated by Orthodoxy due to their strident insistence in not following the modernist trends that the Catholics and Protestants went down. Anyways the discussion started when it was disputed that one (ie, Kid) could be a Christian without thinking Scripture is authoritative. I think it can be shown that some Christian denominations do indeed believe it - for whatever reason.

The Orthodox have the same position on this that we do - Scripture is authoritative.

Anyways, as I happen to fully identify as Protestant, I kind of have to believe in the authority of Scripture (though more in the inspired by God, not hand written by Him manner) .

Yeah, which is why I made the 'Fascinating' comment at your argument. I probably couldn't have made my counterargument much earlier...

As for 'no theological division', I'm not sure I'd say that. As Eastern Orthodox theologians woud state that the Roman Catholic Church is too focused on kataphatic theology instead of apophatic theology (the preferred theology of Orthodoxy). Also there is a difference in how to be a theologian - Western scholarship vs. Eastern experience of God (theoria through hesychasm), which is also why Bishops and Metropolitans came from the monasteries historically. Its an entirely different way to approach theology. Also, Catholicism has never been all that pleased with Hesychasm.

By theological division, I'm examining the content not the issues over interpretation and precedence. Doctrine. Most protestants equate doctrine = theology.

In addition, Orthodoxy does not believe in original sin as taught in Catholicism (humans inherit the consequences, but not the guilt of original sin)

We've had that discussion before. Again - this is a dispute not between Orthodoxy and Catholicism but between misunderstandings of both positions.

Immaculate Conception (Mary was cleansed of sin when Christ was formed within her).

And not the assumption? Who are you reading this argument from?

The Orthodox do not hold to Purgatory and have a different view of Hell than most Western Christians (Catholics included) - those who are "damned" are in the presence of God as well (Heaven and Hell exist in the same plane) but their spiritual condition makes them see it as a torment.

This isn't Orthodox theology either... This is universalism.

So, yeah... there are theological divisions aside from the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

I'd rather hear this argument from Elok, no offense. I find it's not very productive to be arguing divisions as presented by someone who is not of that faith.

[Ben Kenobi]

The constitution doesn't explicitly give immigrants the freedom to be annoying ****wits, yet you seem to have no problem with enjoying that privilege.

I'm a history teacher. It's my JOB to know these sorts of things. I thank Poly for immersing me into the intricacies of American jurisprudence...

[MRT144]

Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not steal.

Yes, Jesus's teachings have a place in civil matters. This includes marriage.

I dispute that gay marriage will be beneficial to society as a whole. I believe it will be profoundly harmful.

You know that such prohibitions on these things exist outside of Jesus. You're such a ****ing idiot sometime that it causes my physical pain to interact with you.

You only think it will be harmful because you're a ****ing idiot.

[PLATO]

I'm starting to change my mind on what I hole the outcome of the courts' decision is. While I think it would be a positive outcome to strike down DOMA and generally find Equal Protection to apply here, I think that it may well be better for the court to punt. I don't generally want the court to have a really strong role in deciding policy - while I feel they are there to support the downtrodden and defend their rights, if they don't have to do that I'd rather they not.

If they act, I think that will largely be the end of that - there won't be any more laws or whatnot on the matter, except maybe a few silly laws in southern states that are quickly struck down on precedent.

On the other hand, if they punt (neither agreeing nor disagreeing on Equal Protection), then I think there will be enough support for some law to be passed - either an anti-DOMA type law, or an amendment. The latter in particular would really be a superior solution all things considered. Amend the 14th amendment to include sexual orientation, and you end up with substantially better protections in other facets than just marriage.

DOMA IS before the court. I believe that for the court not to act that it would imply that DOMA is acceptable. From a State's rights and an Equal Protection standpoint, I think that could work out to be counterproductive.

[MRT144]

Honestly Ben, do you think that morality only exists because Jesus said so and anything outside of that purview is null and void?

[PLATO]

Ben...here is a question for you.

If you look ONLY at the Constitution and leave anything (i.e. religion or scripture or ANYTHING else for that matter) else out of it...Should gay couples enjoy the equal protection set forth in the Constitution?

And please..answer that question...do not twist it into another one.

[Kidlicious]

Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not steal.

Yes, Jesus's teachings have a place in civil matters. This includes marriage.

I dispute that gay marriage will be beneficial to society as a whole. I believe it will be profoundly harmful.

Jesus wasn't even married. In fact, didn't he tell someone who asked him if he could go get married before he followed him that he couldn't get married? Why are you putting so much importance on marriage? Jesus certainly didn't think it was important.

[Ben Kenobi]

Honestly Ben, do you think that morality only exists because Jesus said so and anything outside of that purview is null and void?

I have an expansive definition as to what counts as 'Jesus said so', because I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that there never was a time when he was not, etc. Ergo YWHW says is a trick "simon says" question.

So yes, I believe that all morality comes from God - even though people can be moral without understanding this to be true. See Romans 2 for a better take and understanding as to how this pertains to salvation, "The one who is without the law, who acts in accordance with his conscience, the dictates of the Law becomes a Law unto himself".

[MRT144]

I have an expansive definition as to what counts as 'Jesus said so', because I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that there never was a time when he was not, etc. Ergo YWHW says is a trick "simon says" question.

So yes, I believe that all morality comes from God - even though people can be moral without understanding this to be true. See Romans 2 for a better take and understanding as to how this pertains to salvation, "The one who is without the law, who acts in accordance with his conscience, the dictates of the Law becomes a Law unto himself".

It is ****ing lunacy to use the bible as a sole reference on morality and law.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you look ONLY at the Constitution and leave anything (i.e. religion or scripture or ANYTHING else for that matter) else out of it...Should gay couples enjoy the equal protection set forth in the Constitution?

Looking only at the constitution, I do not see a right to marriage inside of it. Ergo, equal protection via the 14th does not apply. I believe the state can restrict who can or cannot get married.

Is that a satisfactory answer?

[Ben Kenobi]

Jesus certainly didn't think it was important

Which is why his first miracle was at a wedding. Next?

[Kidlicious]

"The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."

Please accept the scripture as authority and never get married BK. The world will be a better place.

[Kidlicious]

As if BK has to be told not to get married. No one would marry him.

[DinoDoc]

Ben...here is a question for you.

If you look ONLY at the Constitution and leave anything (i.e. religion or scripture or ANYTHING else for that matter) else out of it...Should gay couples enjoy the equal protection set forth in the Constitution?

And please..answer that question...do not twist it into another one.

Not Ben but I'll give it a shot. It should be an issue for the States or the people to decide. It's patently ridiculous for a nominally democratic country to be going to unelected officials on a repeated basis to decide such matters of policy.