03-05-2006, 07:23 PM | #41 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Just because something may be right does not mean that it should also be regulated by law. |
||
03-05-2006, 10:29 PM | #42 | ||
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
||
03-05-2006, 10:37 PM | #43 | |||
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|||
03-05-2006, 10:55 PM | #44 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 263
|
Quote:
__________________
Dark is the Night, but I begin to see the light. |
|
03-05-2006, 11:03 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
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?
|
03-05-2006, 11:05 PM | #46 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
||
03-05-2006, 11:10 PM | #47 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
03-05-2006, 11:13 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-05-2006, 11:27 PM | #49 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
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.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
03-05-2006, 11:35 PM | #50 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 263
|
Quote:
__________________
Dark is the Night, but I begin to see the light. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|