US Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Jammies, you never addressed my points regarding the specific humanism of Christianity.

What points? There was a lot of talk about Jesuits, Puritans, and a somewhat unfounded belief that Christianity is the source of all that is good and true, but I'm not interested in reading a 900+ page book to grasp your point if you don't feel like making it clear.

I recognize quite well that modernity owes much to Christianity, but Christianity is not the same as Catholicism. There's a reason the countries that were dominated by creeds proceeding from the Reformation are more advanced, politically stable and rich compared to countries where Orthodox or Catholic priesthoods held or still hold sway.

Originally Posted by peter12

JThat said, it is an extraordinary exaggeration to claim that we have some sort of universal enlightenment due to the widespread popularization of knowledge on the Internet.

It surely would be, but saying we are more enlightened than previous civilizations is not claiming we have universal enlightenment. Especially when I specifically said future generations may also find us parochial and blinkered in comparison to themselves.

Originally Posted by peter12

Yet, you tend to breeze past the endemic violence of the modern secular state, the inequality, and the general atomization of the individual away from any semblance of community, faith or family that is endorsed by Christianity.

The bolded is simply ridiculous. "Help, help I'm being repressed!" If only those tolerant, peace-loving Christians were in charge, it'd be a utopia of harmony, and respect for all, with the State smiling down upon us like the great Sun King himself!

State violence is not endemic here, as we adhere to the rule of law, rather than the arbitrary whims of despots. This rule is a foundation of the modern democratic state, and is not, by the way, an outgrowth of "Christian" thought, unless by that you intend to arrogate any idea ever thought by someone Christian as such. Which, I suspect, you do.

PS: And that arrogation is precisely where so many of your wrong-headed ideas in this thread proceed: simply because everyone was (at least nominally) a Christian in the West over the last 2000 years doesn't mean that their ideas are necessarily Christian in character.

For example, abolition, an achievement you mentioned as being Christian, is not even hinted at anywhere in the Bible, while slavery is explicitly condoned. The acceptance of abolition as fundamentally moral changed Christianity, not the other way around, which is why for 1800 years or so it was a persistent institution in every Christian nation, and now it exists (legally) in none.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, now are getting bogged down in semantics.

I am not exactly sure what you are saying. Are you making an argument from nature? That is, all beliefs etc... are just an expression of a biologically-imprinted morality? Are you eliminating the factor of human reason altogether?

There is no issue of semantics here; you are either misinterpreting or misrepresenting completely cogent perspectives on how we come to believe in certain moral propositions.

For the sake of complete clarity, the following are two completely distinct areas of inquiry:

1. What behaviour is right and what is wrong, and how ought we to act?
2. Why do we think that certain things are right or wrong, and why do people conclude we should act in a particular way?

It's #2 that's under discussion at the moment. The answer is not simply "because Christianity".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

There is no issue of semantics here; you are either misinterpreting or misrepresenting completely cogent perspectives on how we come to believe in certain moral propositions.

For the sake of complete clarity, the following are two completely distinct areas of inquiry:

1. What behaviour is right and what is wrong, and how ought we to act?
2. Why do we think that certain things are right or wrong, and why do people conclude we should act in a particular way?

It's #2 that's under discussion at the moment. The answer is not simply "because Christianity".

That wasn't what was under discussion. I could easily satirize the other side and say that the answers given were "because technology." Doesn't work like that either.

I was trying to discover his premise so that I could reasonably respond. Do we behave morally as a result of 4 billion years of evolution? If so, why is there so much diversity in human moral systems, and if we think that reason is important, to what degree, and in what form? This is exactly why I tried to demonstrate that one type of progress, in terms of engineering and technological development, doesn't logically lead to an increase in universal morality.

My only answer is that Christianity must be considered as the primary source of morality within the modern context.

If we double back from #2 to the first area of inquiry, then the other side has to be a lot more cogent then simply saying, well we've progressed, and have a lot more information now so that must magically make us all a great deal more sophisticated.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

That wasn't what was under discussion.

It sure seemed like it to me, and I was reading pretty carefully.

I could easily satirize the other side and say that the answers given were "because technology." Doesn't work like that either.

You could, if anyone had suggested that.

I was trying to discover his premise so that I could reasonably respond. Do we behave morally as a result of 4 billion years of evolution?

This question has already failed from the outset because it assumes we behave "morally". You can't start from there. We do not necessarily behave morally. In many cases, behaviours that seem intuitively "moral" to you may be diametrically opposed to those of another culture, and either or neither of those behaviours may in truth be "moral".

Again, two separate questions:

1. why do we behave as we do, and
2. is the way we behave moral (and if not, what is)

If so, why is there so much diversity in human moral systems, and if we think that reason is important, to what degree, and in what form?

I would have thought this was obvious - evolution is a selective process that will encourage different traits in different groups of people. There is, in other words, more than one potential societal setup that will lead to that setup surviving over a few thousand years (or even less), which is all the time that's needed to establish a moral tradition.

My only answer is that Christianity must be considered as the primary source of morality within the modern context.

Well, there have been many responses to this from others in this thread that demonstrate why this answer is a massive oversimplification.

[peter12]

This question has already failed from the outset because it assumes we behave "morally". You can't start from there. We do not necessarily behave morally. In many cases, behaviours that seem intuitively "moral" to you may be diametrically opposed to those of another culture, and either or neither of those behaviours may in truth be "moral".

This was exactly why I was trying to parse the two apart. I was trying to understand, not debate at this point. I will be more explicit, but I have hinted at it many times, many of the things that we moderns think are moral today are directly related to precepts found only within Christianity.

Of course it is an oversimplification. These are big questions, and this is the Internet.

I would have thought this was obvious - evolution is a selective process that will encourage different traits in different groups of people. There is, in other words, more than one potential societal setup that will lead to that setup surviving over a few thousand years (or even less), which is all the time that's needed to establish a moral tradition.

This is a more controversial statement than you realize. What exactly are you saying here?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by chemgear

I thought this was fake news from the Onion originally. Apparently not.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...is-report-says

Pope Francis met 'anti-gay' Kentucky clerk Kim Davis

Pope Francis allegedly thanked Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licences on religious grounds, for her courage when the pair had a private meeting during his trip to the US.

The encounter will likely be seen as a personal endorsement of Davis’s actions by the Argentinian pontiff, and seems to contradict the general tone of the pope’s public remarks during his tour of the US, when he avoided issues such as abortion and gay marriage, and emphasised the need for mercy and goodwill.

If we are going to slam him we gotta also give him props sometimes

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle26634277/

The pontiff met on Sept. 23 with Yayo Grassi, a U.S-based Argentine caterer, and his male partner of 19 years, Iwan Bagus, and three other people for 15 minutes, Grassi told Reuters. The Vatican confirmed the meeting.

Grassi, 67, has known the pope since Francis, 78, taught him literature and psychology at a high school in Argentina in the 1960s and has stayed in touch.

“What I can say is that he met with me knowing that I am gay and we had an extraordinary, very moving conversation,” Grassi said.

[Looch City]

Vatican fires priest after he comes out as gay
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-va...iest-1.3255596

The Vatican dismissed a priest from his post in a Holy See office on Saturday after he told a newspaper he was gay and urged the Catholic Church to change its stance on homosexuality.

In Saturday's interview, Charamsa said his partner had helped him come to terms with his sexuality and knew he would have to give up the priesthood, although the Vatican statement made no reference to this outcome.

"It's time for the Church to open its eyes about gay Catholics and to understand that the solution it proposes to them — total abstinence from a life of love — is inhuman," he was quoted as saying.

[chemgear]

I'm not sure what the hell is going on. It's too meta . . .

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/west...e-sex-couples/

Westboro Baptist Church tells ‘fake Christian’ Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples
“The Supreme Court, in the providence of God, and for the punishment of this nation, has declared that same-sex marriage IS the law of Doomed USA. So DO IT!!” the group said in a statement on Thursday. “You asked for it, you begged for it by your disobedience and refusal to receive correction or instruction, so take it and like it!”

The church has described Davis as a “fake Christian” for being married four times, including twice with the same man, and blamed her for the high court’s decision to strike down bans on marriage equality.

“Kim claims that she has lived in proud sin for many years, divorcing and remarrying, not one time or two times, in fact you need a score card to keep track,”

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Dude, the fight's over. There is no fight left to be had at the state level. Any attempt by a state actor to deny a gay person the ability to marry is unconstitutional. End of argument.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...e-sex-marriage

Told ya it wasn't over. You vastly underestimate the power of crazy.

[GGG]

He's just campaigning for reelection. Plays well to the base.

[HotHotHeat]

Moore rose to prominence nearly 20 years ago, as the "Ten Commandments" judge — he hung a plaque with the religious edicts in his courtroom, and later, as chief justice, he put a monument to the commandments in the state judicial building. He was removed from office in 2003, when he defied a federal order to take down the monument, as NPR's Debbie Elliott reported last year.

He was re-elected as Alabama chief justice in 2012.

Never change, Alabama.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Never change, Alabama.

Oddly enough, that is the state motto.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by peter12

That said, it is an extraordinary exaggeration to claim that we have some sort of universal enlightenment due to the widespread popularization of knowledge on the Internet. Christians introduced universal education because they felt that it was essential to the education of morally-responsible selves that could provide themselves with the discipline to serve both family and community. This, I would argue, is not the purpose of education today. You like to fall back onto historicist arguments. We have progressed in a material sense, but I don't think you can adequately prove that we have progressed in a moral sense. Things are always getting better and worse.

Old post is wrong. Universal education wasn't introduced because of altruistic Christian desires. It was introduced to maintain stability of the state.