Homosexual marriage...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Alkili

Your argument is baseless, the Church is doing what it can to preserve marriage and to limit the degradation of family. You want it to not push legislation, but you have no problem with other groups to push legislation.

Why would I have a problem with other groups pushing for legislation? That is the purpose of those groups. I would think the distinction is clear. The purpose of the LDS church, or any church, is not to push for legislation, it is to promote a higher moral standard in society through persuasion, service, and creating an atmosphere where the Spirit can operate.

Just because something may be right does not mean that it should also be regulated by law.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

And off we go to the rational world of calling people we disagree with "apostates" and flinging out incomprehensible analogies (what in the world are you talking about with scuba diving?).

I ask you again for your statistics from your "survey."

As for this: "First, among many flaws in your argument, gays may sometimes, and there is no evidence to suggest that monogamy is the norm amongst all gay males, be monogamous for brief periods."
At what point did I say monogamy is the norm among all gay males? Your emotional state is making you read arguments that aren't even there. The statistics I provided dealt with monogamy among married homosexuals or those joined in civil unions (a very small percentage of the homosexual community).

Tip for your next post: when attempting to express your standards of self-righteousness, you may want to refrain from cussing; it conveys a sense of hypocrisy.

Look for you and your type, profanity is the norm, so I'm trying to make you feel at home.

For a young lawyer, you certainly are a know-it-all, seeking to advise the Church. That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, but a lot more thought goes into their decision making than yours. You simply parrot what your law professors feed you. I give deference to Church leadership in many of their political decisions, because they have knowledge of the threefold purposes of the Church, better than some whipper snapper of lawyer, who arrogantly finds them to be unwise. An east coast education doesn't make you smarter and wiser than those men, who make mistakes to be certain, but it is doubtful you'd be insightful enough to identify them.

And you argue just to argue. You gave surveys of "gay monogamy" as proof that unions would be of some significant benefit. My point has always been that gayness and gay unions offers no significant benefit to society, so it should not receive legal distinctions.

You have no proof, but a few gay studies that show "monogamous gays" are monogamous. Wow, earthshattering! Not proof of any benefit to society.

To understand the cost of gayness one would have to have statistically valid, and accurate, with proper controls, assessment of gay life from start to finish. The only persons who could do such a mammoth study have a political agenda; thus the probability of receiving a non-skewed study is nigh impossible.

Of course you didn't state gays were most monogamous, but you know what you did; now you make off as if my study chased down a point you never alluded to, which you did. I merely pointed out that your "studies" were fatally flawed and useless.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Why would I have a problem with other groups pushing for legislation? That is the purpose of those groups. I would think the distinction is clear. The purpose of the LDS church, or any church, is not to push for legislation, it is to promote a higher moral standard in society through persuasion, service, and creating an atmosphere where the Spirit can operate.

Just because something may be right does not mean that it should also be regulated by law.

The purpose of the LDS church, or any church, is not to push for legislation, it is to promote a higher moral standard in society through persuasion, service, and creating an atmosphere where the Spirit can operate.


Funny, last time I read about the threefold purpose of the Church, it didn't include that definition.

Neither did Moses 1:39 or whatever verse that is, that deals with bringing to pass the eternal life of man.

It's main purpose is not to promote a higher moral standard, but to elevate man to meet God, to live with God. There is nothing in that directive which prohibits the Corporation of the First Presidency from advocating for or against legislation pertaining to its value system.

What is your hidden agenda here that you don't want the Church to offend gay men?

There's an interest group that's likely to support Church. Go ahead offend them as they have nothing in common with us. Offend bigots, terroists and all others sorts as well.

Will other groups advocate faith-based legislation that offends us? Possibly. So what. That's the way it is in love and war.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Why would I have a problem with other groups pushing for legislation? That is the purpose of those groups. I would think the distinction is clear. The purpose of the LDS church, or any church, is not to push for legislation, it is to promote a higher moral standard in society through persuasion, service, and creating an atmosphere where the Spirit can operate.

Just because something may be right does not mean that it should also be regulated by law.

I've never heard of that limit put upon the church. I think your reaching a little bit.

[Cali Coug]

I ask again, which plan was it that advocated free choice and agency and which plan was it that wanted to "legislate" our moral affairs?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Alkili

I've never heard of that limit put upon the church. I think your reaching a little bit.

Phew! The last time I heard from you my argument was baseless and I was advocating the degradation of society! I have moved up substantially to be only "reaching a little bit!" I eagerly await your next post as a barometer of my position!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I ask again, which plan was it that advocated free choice and agency and which plan was it that wanted to "legislate" our moral affairs?

Legislate can also mean to legitimize?

Are you saying the prophets wish for those without authority to baptize, to teach and to seal in the temples?

Marriage is an item ordained of God. If we do not stand up for a basic premise handed down from God, then we stand for nothing. To allow the adversary to coopt marriage makes no sense.

Your argument is counterfeit. Allowing freedom is not the same as allowing license. You wish to allow license.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Homosexual marriage worse than polygamy? Perhaps modern polygamy as practiced by the whackos in Colorado city.

Yeth Muslim cultures permit it, as did the patriarchs. Your positions make it difficutl to understand how and why you're LDS. You sympathize with the gay movement and apparently find nothing wrong with gay marriage, actually believing it might have some "benefits".

Wrong side of legislation? What's up with that?

Most states now have anti-gay marriage legislation, not based on efforts the LDS alone. "Codifying its version of morality"? You're full of yourself here.

To simply state what a majority of persons have always recognized, that the state will protect only a marriage between a man and a woman, how is that being on the wrong side of legislation?

It's not discrimination, as it's protecting something recognized for time immemorial, that has always been. There has never been gay marriage until Holland starting messing around.

You can't say that about slavery, as that is convention which has not always existed.

You argue the LDS should be cautious about legislating its morality. I'm not sure what inanity you're referring to, but, what about supporting what a majority of others desire, protecting the definition of marriage, is not being cautious. Do you define it only as not being involved in the legislative process? That's called abdication.

You seem to have a private agenda here, but aren't really willing to state what. Mike has declared the status of his brother, so he could be understood if he were sympathetic, but he hasn't posited a view that the LDS is not being careful in supporting the legislation recognition of marriage.

For declaring yourself to be an intelligent guy, your logic is non-apparent. Now I suppose you're resort to the rubric you learned in law school of a slippery slope, go ahead. I'm glad you can parrot what your professors sold you on.

So now I have to have a family member who is gay or have some private agenda to hold these views? What strange rules you play under. Well, you caught me. I am gay, and, now that you mention it, I have always found you to be very attractive! That whole "I'm angry in a sort of non-emotional kind of way" is very seductive!

Your discrimination argument is odd. You seem to state that because homosexual marriage never existed until Holland started doing it, homosexuals were never discriminated against previously! Newsflash: the fact that marriage is unavailable and has been for that group is the discrimination. Somehow you suggest that because marriage wasn't ever even a remote possibility, that somehow things were better for them previously!

As a side note, please stop making absurd statements with no basis in reality. Homosexuality has been around at least as long as slavery, possibly even longer. You might want to read up on your ancient civilizations.

[Archaea]

gay unions have not been around very long.

I have no idea how long the depravity which is homosexuality has existed. Yes I had professors tell me it existed in Greece and Rome. I don't read Classical Greek, so I don't know if their reports were accurate, but for arguments sake, let's say so. Gay unions are a new device.

And you have a strange way of defining "discrimination."

Traditionally under American law, it is reserved for denial of privileges to a group UNFAIRLY which should have been allowed those privileges.

Because God and society have for milleniums denied this privilege to gay men, we are comfortable in denying a right and a privilege which should never be extended to them.

You have a very interesting, meaninng dishonest, way of defining "compulsion". To deny a right never intended for another group is NOT compulsion, but legitimate democratic expression. Extending it, may occur through the normative process.

Gay men are NOT the same as gender, race, creed, ethnicity or other immutable characteristic. For gay men to coopt a right reserved for the preservation of the species is the biggest bastardization of a good concept that I have ever witnessed.

Of course, there's nothing noble about it; they want the taxpayers money. It's greed all over again.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I ask again, which plan was it that advocated free choice and agency and which plan was it that wanted to "legislate" our moral affairs?

Are you arguing for anarchy? Just because there is a law against it doesn't mean that you are taking away someones freedom of choice.