Pray for California

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faithdancer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
fix said:
How can the term bias be used for what is normal?
Click to expand...
Normality does not prevent the presence of bias.

It is normal to be of African descent. It is normal to be of European descent. Despite both being normal, there has been a great deal of bias in relations between the two groups of people.

rossum
 
Faithdancer said:
Whether it affects your marriage personally or not, it changes the definition of your marriage, in civil terms.

Since you do not appear to be Catholic, it is understandable that you have no concern about same sex “marriage” legitimizing what is considered by faithful Catholic Christians to be a gravely disordered activity, i.e. homosexual activity. However, to a faithful Catholic the nature of homosexuality and its practices, its antithesis to proper heterosexual relations within marriage, are integral to the Catholic opposition toward same sex “marriage.” Any argument that ignores this moral parameter and is based on purely secular reasoning is pretty much moot, to faithful Catholics.
Click to expand...
And faithful Catholics opinions on same sex marriage is “moot” to pretty much everyone that has not made a commitment to the Catholic Church.

Same sex marriage is just like divorce-in 30 years nobody will even bat an eye about it. Commited Catholics will still not believe in it, the Church will still not accept it, but that won’t change secular reality. The only difference is that unlike divorce, the population of married homosexuals won’t be anywhere near the population of divorced opposite sex couples and the Church won’t be coming up with it’s own money making scheme to get in on it like they did with annulments.
 
rossum said:
Normality does not prevent the presence of bias.

It is normal to be of African descent. It is normal to be of European descent. Despite both being normal, there has been a great deal of bias in relations between the two groups of people.

rossum
Click to expand...
Are you equating race with same sex attraction?
 
Seeker1961 said:
And faithful Catholics opinions on same sex marriage is “moot” to pretty much everyone that has not made a commitment to the Catholic Church.

Same sex marriage is just like divorce-in 30 years nobody will even bat an eye about it. Commited Catholics will still not believe in it, the Church will still not accept it, but that won’t change secular reality. The only difference is that unlike divorce, the population of married homosexuals won’t be anywhere near the population of divorced opposite sex couples and the Church won’t be coming up with it’s own money making scheme to get in on it like they did with annulments.
Click to expand...
Two wrongs make a right?
 
Faithdancer said:
The normality of racial or ethnic descent is not the issue.
Click to expand...
fix said:
Are you equating race with same sex attraction?
Click to expand...
The issue is that normality cannot insulate someone against bias, which is what my example obviously showed. Both heterosexual and homosexual judges can be biased. If you expect one group of judges to recuse themselves on the basis of their sexuality, then you should also expect the other set to recuse themselves as well.

Normal people can be biased.

rossum
 
If, as the homosexualists are fond of arguing, legalizing same sex “marriage” has no adverse impact on heterosexual marriages and, as they say, any rational person should understand this, then most heterosexual judges would not feel threatened in any way by the legalization of same sex “marriage,” would therefore have no vested interest in opposing same sex "marriage,"and would therefore have no need to recuse.

The question is not whether heterosexual judges should recuse. The question is whether or not Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused on the basis of his vested interest in increasing the perceived legitimacy of homosexual activity.
 
rossum said:
The issue is that normality cannot insulate someone against bias, which is what my example obviously showed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that is not the issue which is why your example fails. Of course, any person can be biased, but that is not the issue.

The reason that the openly homosexual judge should not take the case is because the bias is present, evident, and public. By his very favor of homosexual unions, which so contrary to reason, that is a good resason not to have him involved.

Being heterosexual is not evidence of bias. If there are some other factors then please show us.
Both heterosexual and homosexual judges can be biased. If you expect one group of judges to recuse themselves on the basis of their sexuality, then you should also expect the other set to recuse themselves as well.
Click to expand...
Normal people can be biased.
Click to expand...
rossum
Click to expand...
We expect judges that support homosexual acts as normal and legitimate to be biased. That much is self evident.
 
fix said:
Sorry, but that is not the issue which is why your example fails. Of course, any person can be biased, but that is not the issue.

The reason that the openly homosexual judge should not take the case is because the bias is present, evident, and public. By his very favor of homosexual unions, which so contrary to reason, that is a good resason not to have him involved.

Being heterosexual is not evidence of bias. If there are some other factors then please show us.

We expect judges that support homosexual acts as normal and legitimate to be biased. That much is self evident.
Click to expand...
So, which judges should try racial discrimination cases? Which judges should try sexual discrimination cases?

The law has already been decided; you cannot assume that any judge will be biased merely because of who they are. Every judge is innocent until shown to be guilty. That can be worked out in appeal.

The issue of Judge Walker’s bias has already been aired in court: Gay Judge’s Prop 8 Decision Survives Bias Claim and in accordance with well established precedent his decision was allowed to stand. You are unlikely to win this part of your argument since it has already been decided in law. The USSC, if they take the case, will be looking at the legal basis for any decisions made, not at who made them.

rossum
 
Faithdancer said:
Whether it affects your marriage personally or not, it changes the definition of your marriage, in civil terms.
Click to expand...
The definition of MY marriage is “My wife and I.” If my neighbors, Adam and Steve, ever get married, the definition of MY marriage would remain “My wife and I.” And it’s value would remain the same.
Since you do not appear to be Catholic, it is understandable that you have no concern about same sex “marriage” legitimizing what is considered by faithful Catholic Christians to be a gravely disordered activity, i.e. homosexual activity. However, to a faithful Catholic the nature of homosexuality and its practices, its antithesis to proper heterosexual relations within marriage, are integral to the Catholic opposition toward same sex “marriage.” Any argument that ignores this moral parameter and is based on purely secular reasoning is pretty much moot, to faithful Catholics.
Click to expand...
The problem is, we’re living under a secular government that’s required to legislate, interpret, and execute its laws without reference to any theologically-based moral system. So while my secular reasoning may be moot to faithful Catholics. It is the farthest thing from moot to the U.S. Government, where the battle is actually being fought.
40.png
Elizabeth502:
Um, I hate to break it to you, but institutional definitions are just that; they are universal, not “mine” or “yours” or “theirs,” variously. It affects the institution of marriage, respect for that institution, and the understanding of that institution.
Click to expand...
Except that what you consider “Universal” is, in fact, nothing of the sort. It is merely your theologically-based version of it. In that context, not only can gays not get married, but neither can couples who don’t wish to have children. Needless to say, there are any number of versions of the marriage institution that would allow for the latter, if not yet the former.
Marriage is not a private affair. A relationship is a private affair. Those are two different categoreis.
Cohabitation is a private affair; marriage is a public affair. Marriage is a civil matter, a matter of public record, regardless of whether there is additionally a religious ceremony or sacrament involved. It’s the relationship within the institution of marriage which is private and in a technical sense “not affected” by the relationships which other couples have, including heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...
And so now that you’ve conceded that no one’s marriage (public) can affect my relationship (private) with my wife, kindly explain how someone’s marriage (public) can affect my marriage (public). And why I should care if it did.
And the lawyers who are arguing for Prop 8 have a different understanding of Equal Protection, an understanding which is in keeping with the Constitution.
Click to expand...
No, the strange thing is, they actually don’t. The lawyers arguing for Prop 8 didn’t even make a token effort to convince anyone that denying gays the right to marry wasn’t an affront to the concept of “equal protection.” Though I confess that it would’ve been amusing to see them try. In the end, they didn’t even offer a real case.
 
rossum said:
So, which judges should try racial discrimination cases? Which judges should try sexual discrimination cases?
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence of bias?
The law has already been decided; you cannot assume that any judge will be biased merely because of who they are. Every judge is innocent until shown to be guilty. That can be worked out in appeal.
Click to expand...
If a judge is a KKK member and publicly endorses segregation would that be bias in your world?
The issue of Judge Walker’s bias has already been aired in court: Gay Judge’s Prop 8 Decision Survives Bias Claim and in accordance with well established precedent his decision was allowed to stand. You are unlikely to win this part of your argument since it has already been decided in law. The USSC, if they take the case, will be looking at the legal basis for any decisions made, not at who made them.
Click to expand...
How does that make my argument incorrect? Courts makes all types of wrong decisions.
 
Giants said:
The definition of MY marriage is “My wife and I.” If my neighbors, Adam and Steve, ever get married, the definition of MY marriage would remain “My wife and I.” And it’s value would remain the same.

The problem is, we’re living under a secular government that’s required to legislate, interpret, and execute its laws without reference to any theologically-based moral system. So while my secular reasoning may be moot to faithful Catholics. It is the farthest thing from moot to the U.S. Government, where the battle is actually being fought.

Except that what you consider “Universal” is, in fact, nothing of the sort. It is merely your theologically-based version of it. In that context, not only can gays not get married, but neither can couples who don’t wish to have children. Needless to say, there are any number of versions of the marriage institution that would allow for the latter, if not yet the former.

And so now that you’ve conceded that no one’s marriage (public) can affect my relationship (private) with my wife, kindly explain how someone’s marriage (public) can affect my marriage (public). And why I should care if it did.

No, the strange thing is, they actually don’t. The lawyers arguing for Prop 8 didn’t even make a token effort to convince anyone that denying gays the right to marry wasn’t an affront to the concept of “equal protection.” Though I confess that it would’ve been amusing to see them try. In the end, they didn’t even offer a real case.
Click to expand...
You are writing on a Catholic Christian forum, where the moral parameters of same sex “marriage” are not only relevant, but most relevant. If you don’t accept those parameters, that is your right, but you won’t win any converts for Godless secularism here.
 
The forum is Catholic, but it exists in a world that contains other people who are not. Ignoring the existence of the rest of the world doesn’t solve anything.
 
fix said:
We expect judges that support homosexual acts as normal and legitimate to be biased. That much is self evident.
Click to expand...
Amen. And those who support homosexual acts as normal and legitimate will no doubt unilaterally support the decision of this judge to not recuse himself.
 
Faithdancer said:
You are writing on a Catholic Christian forum, where the moral parameters of same sex “marriage” are not only relevant, but most relevant. If you don’t accept those parameters, that is your right, but you won’t win any converts for Godless secularism here.
Click to expand...
Again, you’re missing the point. The goal of the gay marriage movement is not to convince YOU of anything. They don’t CARE whether you agree with them or not, because YOU are not the ones with the authority, and your theology is not the battleground.

The secular government that we’re both living under is the battleground, and that’s where the fight is being fought. And even when your side has finally lost, you will be free to maintain that what the government defines as marriage is not actually marriage, and your churches will be free to deny the sacrament to any couple you choose.
 
Seeker1961 said:
The forum is Catholic, but it exists in a world that contains other people who are not. Ignoring the existence of the rest of the world doesn’t solve anything.
Click to expand...
Your opinions that the Catholic Church should change to accommodate the homosexual agenda have been noted, repeatedly.
 
Giants said:
Again, you’re missing the point. The goal of the gay marriage movement is not to convince YOU of anything. They don’t CARE whether you agree with them or not, because YOU are not the ones with the authority, and your theology is not the battleground.

The secular government that we’re both living under is the battleground, and that’s where the fight is being fought. And even when your side has finally lost, you will be free to maintain that what the government defines as marriage is not actually marriage, and your churches will be free to deny the sacrament to any couple you choose.
Click to expand...
I refer you again to the title of this thread.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top