What's new
By:

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

PearlWatson said:
What "objective measures" have you been looking at?
Click to expand...

If you're talking to your relief society friends, then you can make an argument about the evils of drinking coffee or whatever. That's how preaching to the choir works. Everyone already agrees with you, so you don't need to expend much effort explaining your position. But when you're talking to a more diverse audience, you can't throw nude protests as an example of declining morality, because we do not share religious beliefs. In this case, for gay marriage to be immoral, you must demonstrate that it has harmed individuals or society in measurable ways. And the correlation must be clear. Claiming a connection between gay marriage and something like hurricanes or failing infrastructure is irrelevant. Most do not believe there is a causal link between gay marriage and hurricane strength or government spending on infrastructure. You have to show a connection that is based on consensus reality, not arbitrary subjective sentiment.

Edit: Also, I don't need an objective measure to support the right for two consenting people to get married. We live in a society based on the idea that individuals have the right to do as they wish as long as their freedom does not infringe on another's. If you want to deny them this right, then you must show that their actions infringe on your freedom, somehow.
 
Last edited:
Siro said:
If you're talking to your relief society friends, then you can make an argument about the evils of drinking coffee or whatever. That's how preaching to the choir works. Everyone already agrees with you, so you don't need to expend much effort explaining your position. But when you're talking to a more diverse audience, you can't throw nude protests as an example of declining morality, because we do not share religious beliefs. In this case, for gay marriage to be immoral, you must demonstrate that it has harmed individuals or society in measurable ways. And the correlation must be clear. Claiming a connection between gay marriage and something like hurricanes or failing infrastructure is irrelevant. Most do not believe there is a causal link between gay marriage and hurricane strength or government spending on infrastructure. You have to show a connection that is based on consensus reality, not arbitrary subjective sentiment.

Edit: Also, I don't need an objective measure to support the right for two consenting people to get married. We live in a society based on the idea that individuals have the right to do as you wish as long as their freedom does not infringe on another's. If you want to deny them this right, then you must show that their actions infringe on your freedom, somehow.
Click to expand...

*grabs popcorn*

Your turn, Pearl.
 
PearlWatson said:
The older guy is usually more physically and financially powerful in every sexual relationship, so if there is an "inherent unequal power structure" between siblings I don't see how that isn't just the norm anyway.
Click to expand...

With non-siblings, the power inequality begins only when the relationship begins, with siblings it's present long before.
 
Gameface said:
I find it absolutely hilarious that someone would claim 100% of the work done in LDS temples is for the benefit of mankind.

We thank thee Lord for a profit!
Click to expand...

I'm the guy who left the neg, if you hadn't already guessed, and I feel the need to clarify. In my mind, as a member (albeit a Jack if there ever was one) of the MoMo's, I personally feel that the work done in LDS temples is strictly for the benefit of mankind, both living and dead, both spiritually and maybe physically. Do I have any proof? Nope. I can see why it's funny to you, and don't blame you for snickering. Maybe you've done temple work before and didn't see any benefit, but I also have done the work, and I have seen the benefit. On the flip side, I've yet to see anything harmful (other than boredom) come form temple work. Maybe we'll never know if it's beneficial, but at least we know it's not harmful. (Unless we find out someday that there is asbestos in the cushions or something)

Gameface said:
I would certainly be interested in an LDS take on how work done in LDS temples benefits mankind as a whole. I wouldn't even hold a person to the 100% criteria.
Click to expand...

I'm probably the wrong person to answer this, but since nobody else has, I'll give it a shot. If you believe what the Mo's believe, then temple work is an essential part of exaltation in the next life. Attaining the highest degree of glory sure sounds like a benefit to me. The temple work is done for everyone, regardless of their faith, unless someone has specifically requested not to have the work done for them or their family. It harms nobody, but if the Mo's happen to be right, then it will benefit damn near everyone.

That actually wasn't all that hard to explain.

I consider the "We thank thee Lord for a profit" as a light jab, and is something I've always considered pretty funny due to the LDS church's aggressive manner of keeping track of and encouraging full 10% net tithe.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be "We thank thee, oh Saints, for a profit"? I hate tithing as much as the next guy, but since when are Mo's the only religion that requires tithes and offerings -- or at rather, when did it become funny to jab just the Mormons for their beliefs? I want to see some Catholic Collection Plate bashing, dammit!

One Brow said:
However, I don't have nearly the influence of the LDS. When I discriminate against religious people, it is unintentional and ineffective. When the LDS discriminates, it casts a pall on the lives of thousands of its own members. So, as much as I deeply, deeply respect the old rubber-glue argument, I don't think that I feel my comments are in any wrong inaccurate or inappropriate here.
Click to expand...

Didn't take long for me to bust it out:

One Brow said:
The truth is often distasteful and shameful to those who would prefer it otherwise.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling I'm going to get some serious mileage out of that one.

One Brow said:
Of course you love them, you're just telling them that their natures are inferior and not worthy of the honors available to straight people. How could anyone interpret that message as less than loving and accepting?
Click to expand...

Those same "honors" are not available to people who drink beer or smoke. If you're a pedophile, you can't have them either. If you don't pay your tithes? No soup for you. Love them or hate them, those are the rules. Do you think that I think any less of Gameface because he brews his own (Award Winning) beer? Or of franklin because he gets off on midget porn? Or fishonjazz because he snorts Ambian? Or Dala because he practices Islam? (PBUH)

It is possible, and believe it or not, idiotically probable, to hate the sin, but love the sinner. I do it everyday, and so do you. Stop being such an easily offended bitch. (Now feel free to call me a sexist, misogynist, pig and then cry harder.)

Your argument against Mormons and/or religion in general is the same, tired, loathsome ********* that you spew regarding racism. You're not black, Mormon, or gay, yet you are the end-all be-all when it comes to those subjects. Even when people are agreeing with you, you find a way to tell them they're wrong. It's awesome.

Siro said:
If you complained about being discriminated against for being a Muslim, and someone responded by saying "well, maybe you should change your religion", would you take that as a valid retort to your complaint? What OB is saying is pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

I think the question ought to be, "Why would you stay in a religion that doesn't accept the way you are?". If your answer is, "Because it's true!" then it shouldn't be too tough to live/worship by their rules and beliefs. I know it's not that simple, but then again, why can't it be? For example, there are a lot of things that I dislike about the United States, but because it is, IMHO, the greatest country in the world to live in, I abide the ********. There are those that shout, "Don't like it, then leave!" (Usually followed by the words "terrorist" or "Sand ******"), but I like it here, so I'll stay.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
I still do not get why those who subscribe to organized religion feel they have the monopoly on the terms "Wedding" and "marriage". I do not subscribe, but I'm married. So I'm curious, according to you am I not married? Was my wedding not a wedding?

Weddings and marriage, even as terms, are not solely owned by those of faith. Once that is understood, maybe some will realize the "separate but equal" argument is offensive to many others, not just LGBT folks.
Click to expand...

cus like with everything else governments stole and took control of it
 
BabyPeterzz said:
I think marriage has evolved over time, which speaks to your point. Marriage is much more than a religious ceremony and the gateway to procreation. The words marriage and wedding have taken on a new meanings in our society encompassing couples religious and non. No need to alienate those that use that language to describe their union just because they have different beliefs, race, or sexuality.
Click to expand...

Hey it's my perfect world, remember? That means it's mine and it's perfect.
:-)


Seriously though, plenty of churches allow/recognize gay marriage.

Like it or not, the legal status comes from conforming to whatever procedures the STATE requires - not the church. A church can be completely left out of the process and it's still a legal union. The church can specify whatever requirements it chooses but if you haven't met the state's requirements, your union is not legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top