Oregon voids gay marriages

[Fiat]

Richardols:

We can’t know how a neutral law - say, one that would allow it to be used for family members - would be abused.

It’s the secular grounds for opposition that are important here. We’d be trying to influence politicians of all (or no) faiths to oppose a law contrary to our faith. We just can’t say that the Church opposes it and that they should follow the Church.

We most certainly can say that the Church opposes it and that they should follow the Church! If we’re not saying that, then I suspect there’s something wrong with the method with which we’ve prioritized our identities and agendas.

Thank God those 12 Jewish fisherman weren’t afraid to bring their Christian identity into politics for fear that they’d be dismissed as religious loons.

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Homosexuals could argue that in light of such statistics, the ability to enter into legal stable relationships would contribute to a reduction of those numbers.

The data is a case much stronger against them than for them. They are the ones that want to change thousand of years of tradition. The burden of proof is on them. They have no evidence they will be less promiscuos.

Richardols:

Not these days. There’s no presumption that newlyweds will be having children in our modern times.

You know of a proposed homosexual union that excludes the ability to adopt children? I don’t.

Richardols:

The longevity and stability of the institution would be a good argument, indeed. But, a mere definition isn’t.

ok.

 

[Brad]

Fiat:

Thank God those 12 Jewish fisherman weren’t afraid to bring their Christian identity into politics for fear that they’d be dismissed as religious loons.

No kidding!

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

We most certainly can say that the Church opposes it and that they should follow the Church!

I don’t disagree with you at all here. Whether it would have an effect is problematic.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

They are the ones that want to change thousand of years of tradition.

Vis-a-vis marriage, okay. Vis-a-vis civil unions, there is no tradition.

You know of a proposed homosexual union that excludes the ability to adopt children? I don’t.

You said “presumes.” It doesn’t. You are correct in this statement, though.

]

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

I don’t disagree with you at all here. Whether it would have an effect is problematic.

Why do you think it won’t have an effect?

 

[Richardols]

Fiat:

Why do you think it won’t have an effect?

Not all politicians are swayed by references to particular religious beliefs. A Catholic might be lukewarm about a resolution of the Southern Baptist Conference.

But, if either Catholics or the Baptists had the voters lined up, then we’d see an effect!

 

[Fiat]

Richardols:

Not all politicians are swayed by references to particular religious beliefs. A Catholic might be lukewarm about a resolution of the Southern Baptist Conference.

But, if either Catholics or the Baptists had the voters lined up, then we’d see an effect!

And that’s the point…We don’t need to sway “all politicians.” Sure there will be some people who reject arguments based on theological premises, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be effective with others.