Let's stop beating around the bush

[All-American]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

One thing about reading about 2 paragraphs of this incredibly boring interchange has made something very clear.....until someone raises some new issues on this topic, the subject has become incredibly stale.

We have AA commentating on mikewaters's commentary on the Church's press release discussing its previous FP Letter to the LDS in California.

Yawn.

Won't argue with that.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by All-American

Won't argue with that.

Also, apologies if that came off as directed specifically at you. It was not. It is directed at all of us.

We need some new material.

This got me thinking....after all the dialogue, arguing, discussion, etc on the topic of Prop 8.....has anyone's opinions here changed at all? I do not know one way or the other....it is quite possible that opinions have been altered.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Also, apologies if that came off as directed specifically at you. It was not. It is directed at all of us.

We need some new material.

This got me thinking....after all the dialogue, arguing, discussion, etc on the topic of Prop 8.....has anyone's opinions here changed at all? I do not know one way or the other....it is quite possible that opinions have been altered.

I've changed a little bit

Basically I have changed from

"I dont care"

to
"I'm against it if it comes to Michigan"

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

I suggest you start a thread on a topic that interests you and cease reading this one.

This topic interests me. We just keep rehashing the same arguments.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I've changed a little bit

Basically I have changed from

"I dont care"

to
"I'm against it if it comes to Michigan"

It?

Gay marriage? Or a proposition redefining marriage to exclude gays?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

quick question AA--do you think there is a strong moral argument for allowing civil unions for gays, but not a strong moral argument for allowing marriage for gays?

It seems to me, that a true supporter of the church's position should have zero problem with banning civil unions as well. Or at the very least, a true supporter ought not be trying to say, "well, I really, really do think that they support civil unions."

I'm starting to wonder if there's a strong moral argument to be found in this whole mess.

And maybe a true supporter of the church's position would have zero problem with banning civil unions. But I see on both sides of the issue two strong morals: 1), the sanctity of marriage, and 2), the rights of minorities. Perhaps the best moral argument for civil unions in lieu of marriage for gays is that it is a compromise between the two camps. Civil unions would grant concessions to both positions, though neither would be completely satisfied.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The other fundamental thing, that I don't think you addressed, is whether gay marriage damages the gays that participate in it.

The Mike Waters' law of morality: if something is immoral, it ought to be most damaging to the persons closest to its practice, i.e. the participants. If the law isn't fulfilled, then you have an argument that is false.

I'm not sure how you are using the term "damage," so pardon me if I am using it differently.

The church teaches that the greatest joys in this life or the life to come are those associated with forming a family and raising children. I tend to agree. The church also claims that the ideal way to go about that task is in a marriage between a man and a woman. I tend to agree with that too. For all the hashing out we've done on the subject of immutability, I believe there are at least some who experience same-sex attraction, but are nevertheless capable of living in accordance that ideal without major compromises to their psychological health, and would be better off for it. If gay marriage becomes legal and socially condoned, such might settle for what is easiest, and not for what is best.

The problems with such a position are plentiful. For one, I have no idea how many would be able to live according to the ideal that otherwise would not. I recognize that it would probably be the minority. I also have no idea what the cost would be of depriving gays the benefits that would come with homosexual marriage, or of pressuring them to live a heterosexual lifestyle. In summary, I know neither the costs nor the benefits, and as a result, I could be all kinds of wrong on this one.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

It?

Gay marriage? Or a proposition redefining marriage to exclude gays?

I against redefining marriage to exclude gays

[All-American]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Also, apologies if that came off as directed specifically at you. It was not. It is directed at all of us.

We need some new material.

This got me thinking....after all the dialogue, arguing, discussion, etc on the topic of Prop 8.....has anyone's opinions here changed at all? I do not know one way or the other....it is quite possible that opinions have been altered.

No offense taken. I would love to see some new material, especially if it could be injected into this particular debate.

My opinion has changed, somewhat. I've gone from undecided because I don't know the answers to undecided because I don't know if there are answers.

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

LA, I think if you recruited Mike to appear on Heldgehog Blog every now and then it would be a good addition. I hope you stick around here.

But if I choose not to respond to some of the more "piquant" statements here, please don't take that as any form of acquiescence on my part. It more likely than not reflects simple fatigue on my part.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Also, apologies if that came off as directed specifically at you. It was not. It is directed at all of us.

We need some new material.

This got me thinking....after all the dialogue, arguing, discussion, etc on the topic of Prop 8.....has anyone's opinions here changed at all? I do not know one way or the other....it is quite possible that opinions have been altered.

That's a good question. In spite of the rancor, I have found the debate valuable. I am not sure my position has changed that much, but I think I understand the issues better than before. Sadly, I don't think the discussion here has been very balanced due to the emotions involved. That's a shame, but understandable I suppose. One way or another, I hope we come out of this with a little more empathy and understanding.