Esprix wrote:
I agree. (Sorry for the late response.) But can we agree without disagreeing about being agreeable? That’s the real question. 
Poly said:
Dammit, we must have gotten our schedules mixed up again! Could we trouble you to keep track and e-mail us to let us each know when we have to pop into threads and post this stuff?
Edlyn said:
Do I really have to preface my comments with, “If you really believe in God, that means…”? C’mon.
The LDS has publicly opposed gay marriage? I’m sure this is going to come across as rude, but do you think it’s a good idea for the LDS to say anything about the morals involved in marriage, after the whole Polygamy fiasco. I know that is not longer accepted by the church, but it is still one of the most commonly known facts people outside the LDS know about the LDS. It just seems like poor publicity. I would think a heavly proselytizing church would want better PR than that.
What is the whole “polygamy fiasco” and what does it have to do with homosexuality? It seems to me they’d be even more in favor of heterosexuality – to the point of having several (female) wives!
David it has nothing to do with homosexuality, it has to do with the church’s credibility in regards to their beleifs on the morality of marriage. BTW to be an equal opportunity offender, since the CofE was created to allow Henry VIII to divorce his wife, they can’t say anything about gay marriage either. Of course, they probably haven’t.
“God is the biggest bitch of them all.”
Jack, put simply, the LDS church believes that polygamy is moral if and when it is sanctioned by God, and grossly immoral when it is not. Thus, they have no problem fighting same-sex marriage, which they also consider to be grossly immoral. The difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy (in the eyes of the LDS church) is, same-sex marriage is always immoral, while polygamy is only immoral when not specifically sanctioned by God through revelation.
Flinx: You’d vote against SSM?
As in, you’d vote to make it illegal?
You’re a freaking sicko. You claim to have learned tolerance, yet you are willing to use the threat of death to enforce your will upon others? How can you possibly reconcile this?
I would vote for a law against rape. But that’s because I have the moral conviction to take a gun and go enforce this law myself, if it was ever necessary. You’re saying that you’re really tolerant, because you wouldn’t try to enforce it. You’d just vote that the government should make it illegal, and thus bring the potential force of the army in (after all else fails) to kill someone who opposes this law?
The force of law comes from violence, and by your advocating passing a law against something you find distasteful, you are advocating locking up or killing people who disagree with you. Wow, that sure is tolerant. Anything so as you don’t get blood on your precious innocent hands.
Sociopathic freak.
You’re a pretty good example of everything wrong with religion. Narrow minded bigots trying to crush anyone who disagrees with them. You’re just the kinder and gentler face of this, the good cop. You’re still quite willing to see people imprisoned or killed, just because you don’t like their sexual preference, what they do behind closed doors. And you’re too freaking hypocritical to admit this, you pretend that wanting to pass a law against these people and their practices is really tolerance.
Bullshit.
WhiteNight wrote:
I would vote against it being legally recognized, which is different than saying I would vote to make it illegal.
Who says I’m willing to use “the threat of death to enforce [my] will on others”? Certainly not me. I wouldn’t vote to make SSM a capital offense; I’d just vote against the government recognizing such marriages legally. No punishment for it–just no endorsing it legally.
The ARMY??? KILL “someone who opposes this law?” You’ve got me all wrong, pal.
Oh yeah, like I’m “advocating locking up or killing people who disagree with” me. You couldn’t be further from the truth.
I really don’t know where all of your vehemence towards me is coming from. I’m NOT willing to see people imprisoned or killed over this issue. I don’t care what people do behind closed doors. That’s their business, not mine.
Yes, but whose?
The difference between “not legally recognized” and “illegal” being…
WhiteNight said:
and
[Moderator hat ON]
Tone it down or take it to the Pit. This is unacceptable in GD.
[Moderator hat OFF]
Otto wrote:
Not legally recognized: you can still do it without being in danger of loosing your freedom or life. The government simply doesn’t recognize it.
Illegal: You go to jail just for doing it.
Er, that should be “losing,” not “loosing.”
::: :orangecakes, loosing Flinx’s belt:::::::
Rose, please, not in front of the dopers!
Your definition of “illegal” is more appropriate to the word “criminal.” SSM is “illegal” in the US, not just “not legally recognized.” It is “illegal” for county clerk’s offices to issue marriage licenses. It is “illegal” for those empowered to solemnize marriages to attempt to solemnize SSM. In some states, the attempt carries “criminal” penalties. Opponents of SSM, IMHO, would prefer to think of SSM as “not legally recognized” rather than “illegal” because the connotations of the former are less harsh than the latter.
Also IMHO, I find it rather disrespectful of Rose to engage in the temptation she is engaged in. I was under the impression that you had commited yourself to chastity outside marriage, and loosening your belt in a flirtatious manner, even a “cyber-belt” on a message board, seems inappropriate. But that’s between you and her and your god, I suppose, although I for one would appreciate it if the two of you would refrian from flaunting your heterosexual acts in my face.
Otto wrote:
Well, all I can say is, you learn something new every day. I had no idea that SSM was actually illegal; I was under the impression that it was discouraged and that it wasn’t legally recognized, but didn’t know the facts you supplied above.
Sorry. I’ll spank her the next time I see her. Bad Rose!
Where do you think the force of law comes from? Do the cops just give up if you won’t come along quietly?
That of someone who says they’ve learned tolerance, yet simply wants to oppress people in a less obvious way.
Gotcha. Flinx, if you want my opinion of you, ask in the pit.
WhiteNight wrote:
This is where you have me all wrong. I definitely oppose any piece of legislation that would take basic human rights like life, liberty, and property away from practitioners of SSM. I don’t think the police, the army, the FBI, the Food & Drug Administration, or the freaking Coast Guard should have anything to do with enforcing laws against SSM. Indeed, I don’t believe in enforcing such laws at all. So please take down that straw man of yours and learn the facts about what I really believe before you attack my beliefs.
I do not want to oppress people. I’ve already told Otto that if I wasn’t a Mormon (albeit inactive), I would be siding with him on this issue. Once again, for those who haven’t heard this view expressed by me a thousand times, I believe in following the LDS prophets. It’s part of my religion. Here is a statement from them, given in an address to members several years ago:
They make it pretty obvious that marriage is a divine institution meant to be between a man and a woman, and that those who would destroy this institution are subject to God’s wrath. That is the basis for my opposition to SSM, not a desire to oppress people.
Otto: Oh so sorry it bothers you that we are “flaunting” our flirting in your face!
Your flirting with another man on this board wouldn’t bother Me. What gives?
Bill: I’m not into spanking…
Orangecakes, then however will I oppress you?