Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[moevillini]

As someone once said to me "stop being so reasonable"

Link?

and/or

Pics or it didn't happen!!!

 

[One Brow]

This thread is entertaining yet frustrating at the same time. Both sides acknowledge the other won't change their view, yet they continue to hash it out with each other.
What's the definition of insanity?

Is keeping your knives sharp sane or insane?

 

[Stoked]

This thread is entertaining yet frustrating at the same time. Both sides acknowledge the other won't change their view, yet they continue to hash it out with each other.
What's the definition of insanity?

Banning gay marriage.

For the LDS (or other religious people) posters: How do you square away banning gay marriage with free agency? If all the behaviors that are sins are banned what's the point? Isn't that the whole reason the war in heaven was fought? (rhetorical).

You could replace gay marriage with cigarettes, booze, weed, fornication, polygamy...are we not supposed to have the right to choose? I am aiming at the religious side of the argument. Not the secular side.

 

[Stoked]

Is keeping your knives sharp sane or insane?

You are assuming that all of us have knives. I see a couple people running around with sporks on a good day.

 

[babe]

I've got two questions:

1) How does the prohibition of gay marriage benefit society and hetersoxual marriages?

2) How does permitting gay marriage harm society and heterosexual marraiges?



It can't really be about maintaingin the integrity of how we use a word, can it? Like, there are people just completely indignant because people want to do something and we'd let them, but they want to call it by the wrong name, so we will legally prohibit them and spend millions upon millions to maintain that prohibition for as long as possible.

And no one really believes that people who want to have a gay marriage will switch to a child producing heterosexual marriage if we tell them they can't have their gay marriage, do they? As though what they really want to do is apply the all powerful marriage word to their life. Again, this thought that the word marraige is magical.

Do some people think there is a limit on how many people can get married, like they gays are gonna use up all the marriages and there won't be any left for hetro couples wanting to produce children?

Or, is it about making sure the gays and the innocent children all get the message that gays aren't of the same high status as hetros and that this is a hetro society and gays can continue to lurk in its shadows?

I think it's all a supply and demand equation. . . . . heteros see gayness as limiting supply, experimentalists see both sides who are absolutist, sexually-speaking, as limiting supply, committed LGBT ideologues/sexologues see heterogeneity as a fundamental inadequacy in others who are unwilling to be part of their supply/support group.

All are demanding something of others, inappropriately, considering their own imperatives first in importance. . . .

I'd make an exception to anyone who is actually "principled" who sees sex in terms of purpose, particularly in terms of the purpose of having children, but few of us have that kind of consistency. . . . .

a general principled purpose, as Pearl is invoking, in regard to family values is the thing that keeps me on her side of opinions in this subject. I think God has a purpose for us, and I have a purpose in regards to my job and politics. . . . I want a community that is principled rather than selfish, so to speak. . . a society that appreciates and values the "first commandment" in the Bible. . . . have kids.

everything else is secondary, in my view, to that purpose. . . . but I think people need to understand the principles involved in human progress and propagation as invoked by "God" / religionists before they will act on those principles, and I detest "government/law" based on force as the "principle" that should govern us.

so, listen up all you gays, I just think you're wasting your chance to live a life that will produce some kids. Kids are the ultimate "good" in my view.

 

[colton]

Banning gay marriage.

For the LDS (or other religious people) posters: How do you square away banning gay marriage with free agency? If all the behaviors that are sins are banned what's the point? Isn't that the whole reason the war in heaven was fought? (rhetorical).

You could replace gay marriage with cigarettes, booze, weed, fornication, polygamy...are we not supposed to have the right to choose? I am aiming at the religious side of the argument. Not the secular side.

I don't get your point. Gay sex isn't illegal. Cigarettes aren't illegal. Booze isn't illegal. Fornication isn't illegal. Polygamous living isn't illegal. Can you clarify what you mean?


edit: sorry, I skipped over weed. Weed is illegal in most states, that's true.

 

[colton]

It can't really be about maintaingin the integrity of how we use a word, can it?

Do you think the gay rights people would be satisfied with civil unions that aren't called marriages, but which are otherwise equivalent? I certainly don't think they would be, and I think that's been shown. So this does seem--on both sides!--to be at least in part about the integrity of what the word "marriage" means.

 

[Stoked]

I don't get your point. Gay sex isn't illegal. Cigarettes aren't illegal. Booze isn't illegal. Fornication isn't illegal. Polygamous living isn't illegal. Can you clarify what you mean?

You want gay marriage to stay illegal. Correct? From a religious stand point on free agency should it not be an option? Yes it is a sin but shouldn't we have the chance to commit that sin? Is this life not one big test? If we ban all the bad options what is the point?

From your answer you do not link it to free agency. Just was wondering.

 

[Stoked]

Do you think the gay rights people would be satisfied with civil unions that aren't called marriages, but which are otherwise equivalent? I certainly don't think they would be, and I think that's been shown. So this does seem--on both sides!--to be at least in part about the integrity of what the word "marriage" means.

I'll give you that.

 

[babe]

One of the great drivers in technological progress is the desire to kill more efficiently. So, even if the influence of women were generally pacifistic (I would disagree that there is any single force that is the influence of women, and disagree that women are more pacifistic), this would be untrue.

making bombs, blowing things up, killing. . . . pretty much "guy stuff". Having a woman in your life does redirect all that senseless energy, and bring kids into view. . . . .

I won't quibble about some women being off on the other side of the equation, but their methods are different. Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned. Unloved women do more evil than the world knows, because they, again, don't use bombs, guns and guy stuff. They just give the world Hell.

 

[bigb]

Banning gay marriage.

For the LDS (or other religious people) posters: How do you square away banning gay marriage with free agency? If all the behaviors that are sins are banned what's the point? Isn't that the whole reason the war in heaven was fought? (rhetorical).

You could replace gay marriage with cigarettes, booze, weed, fornication, polygamy...are we not supposed to have the right to choose? I am aiming at the religious side of the argument. Not the secular side.

I don't. That's one if the reasons I support it.

 

[Stoked]

I don't. That's one if the reasons I support it.

This is where I am at as well.

In disclosure mode: I did not ask in an effort to catch people or anything. Genuinely interested in their take on that.

 

[One Brow]

I'd make an exception to anyone who is actually "principled" who sees sex in terms of purpose, particularly in terms of the purpose of having children, but few of us have that kind of consistency. . . . .

The notion of a "purpose" is one applied externally, not derived inherently, and too often becomes an excuse to render our own prejudices as being beyond our decision.

so, listen up all you gays, I just think you're wasting your chance to live a life that will produce some kids. Kids are the ultimate "good" in my view.

Most gay people (as well as most who never marry) I have met are involved in helping kids in some fashion. They do it by teaching, by adopting, by mentoring, or by volunteering. They use their opportunity differently, but for the same ultimate "good".

 

[One Brow]

Do you think the gay rights people would be satisfied with civil unions that aren't called marriages, but which are otherwise equivalent? I certainly don't think they would be, and I think that's been shown. So this does seem--on both sides!--to be at least in part about the integrity of what the word "marriage" means.

If a law was passed that referred to all interracial, legal couplings as civil unions, but not marriages, would you claim there was no intent to say interracial, legal couplings were inferior, or that the law would have no effect of stigmatizing such couplings?

For better or worse, the same legal term should be used, and the term is now and likely will remain marriage. If you want separate word for marriages that you think are approved by God, develop one (e.g., gorriage -- God-ordained marriage).

 

[One Brow]

making bombs, blowing things up, killing. . . . pretty much "guy stuff".

I know too many men, and too many women, who are counter-examples to believe this. We train boys to like blowing things up and girls to dislike it, but it is not innate.

 

[default]

I neither support gay marriage, nor am I against it either. Just because I do not live one way doesn't mean it needs to be legally restricted, as long as it is not infringing on other citizen's safety and rights. I view it as a personal issue and not a legal issue. There are too many laws restricting citizens. Free agency should be allowed as long as if doesn't infringe upon others.

 

[colton]

I agree with dalamon here. Your view makes sense, colton, in that if you buy into the religious assumptions behind, and see government as some gatekeeper of morality in the area of marriages, than your position is a reasonable result. I even took care to distinguish your position from another poster, whose responses barely rise from incoherence to the level of self-contradiction. I even disputed the Hitler analogy E. J. Wells first brought in.

I appreciate its frustrating to be in the minority (on this board) regarding such an important topic, but such petulance is beneath who you usually are.

I was going for humor rather than petulance with the Hitler reference. Apologies if that didn't come through.

 

[Stoked]

I was going for humor rather than petulance with the Hitler reference. Apologies if that didn't come through.

It came thru just fine. People here just like to play like they are super cereal all the time.

 

[Harambe]

It came thru just fine. People here just like to play like they are super cereal all the time.

Internet is Serious Business.

 

[LogGrad98]

If a law was passed that referred to all interracial, legal couplings as civil unions, but not marriages, would you claim there was no intent to say interracial, legal couplings were inferior, or that the law would have no effect of stigmatizing such couplings?

For better or worse, the same legal term should be used, and the term is now and likely will remain marriage. If you want separate word for marriages that you think are approved by God, develop one (e.g., gorriage -- God-ordained marriage).

Mormons have a different word for this: sealing.