The Divine Institution of Marriage

[SeattleUte]

Waters' point by point rebuttal is not only devastating on the merits, it's quite entertaining. I recommend it to everyone. Waters, can't we get this wider circulation?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Waters' point by point rebuttal is not only devastating on the merits, it's quite entertaining. I recommend it to everyone. Waters, can't we get this wider circulation?

I don't need anymore of a target on my back. If church leaders find out, they will find a way to keep me in scouting the rest of my life.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't need anymore of a target on my back. If church leaders find out, they will find a way to keep me in scouting the rest of my life.

Done and done.

[MikeWaters]

But seriously, I think the more intelligent apologists are having a big problem with the church's arguments, because the church is not giving them anything to work with.

The best that they can come up with is the need to trust leaders and be obedient and how important sustaining is.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Waters' point by point rebuttal is not only devastating on the merits, it's quite entertaining. I recommend it to everyone. Waters, can't we get this wider circulation?

i agree - nice job, mike, of putting that together.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

But seriously, I think the more intelligent apologists are having a big problem with the church's arguments, because the church is not giving them anything to work with.

The best that they can come up with is the need to trust leaders and be obedient and how important sustaining is.

That's because there is nothing to work with. They should be honest with themselves. If I ran things in the LDS Church, this press release would have been very short. It would have said:

"We believe homosexuality is a sin and marriage is a sacred ordinance willed by God to be by man and woman. If you believe otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks be to God we live in a free country."

That would be it. That they go on page after page with sophistry, trying to appear thoughtful, is pathetic. It shows so much weakness and uncertainty.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That's because there is nothing to work with. They should be honest with themselves. If I ran things in the LDS Church, this press release would have been very short. It would have said:

"We believe homosexuality is a sin and marriage is a sacred ordinance willed by God to be by man and woman. If you believe otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks be to God we live in a free country."

That would be it. That they go on page after page with sophistry, trying to appear thoughtful, is pathetic. It shows so much weakness and uncertainty.

I like your press release much better than the Church's, which reads like they had a summer associate at some law firm write it.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I suppose, but the Saints appealed to the First Amendment while those espousing gay marriage appeal to gains made under the Civil Rights Movement and beyond. I suspect the arguments in support of each position are vastly different.

equal protection is being claimed by both - whether it is couched in terms of religion or not. the saints were claiming unequal protection under the law the same as homosexuals are. LDS polygamists claimed unequal protection of their 1st Amendment Rights; gay and lesbians are claiming unequal protection of their implied right to privacy under the constitution (U.S. or California depending on the venue)... At any rate, both groups claim constitutional rights and unequal protection. In my mind, the differences are not vast.

As for the civil rights movement, same thing - not vastly different.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That's because there is nothing to work with. They should be honest with themselves. If I ran things in the LDS Church, this press release would have been very short. It would have said:

"We believe homosexuality is a sin and marriage is a sacred ordinance willed by God to be by man and woman. If you believe otherwise, we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks be to God we live in a free country."

That would be it. That they go on page after page with sophistry, trying to appear thoughtful, is pathetic. It shows so much weakness and uncertainty.

Brother SU, i must say that i am agreeing with you quite a bit today. This simple approach would have been more honest and would have cut through a bunch of the sophistry (nice word choice, you could have used a b. and a s.) that ended up in the release.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

equal protection is being claimed by both - whether it is couched in terms of religion or not. the saints were claiming unequal protection under the law the same as homosexuals are. LDS polygamists claimed unequal protection of their 1st Amendment Rights; gay and lesbians are claiming unequal protection of their implied right to privacy under the constitution (U.S. or California depending on the venue)... At any rate, both groups claim constitutional rights and unequal protection. In my mind, the differences are not vast.

As for the civil rights movement, same thing - not vastly different.

Incoming Tex post on how you can't draw comparisons between black civil rights battles and a homosexual's right to marry. Just thought I would give fair warning....but I am sure you can see it coming too.