What's new
By:

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

LogGrad98 said:
The second point raises another interesting side-topic. Would you want a church that changes with the ebbs and flows of societal meanderings, or do you want one that preaches an unchanging gospel and holds to those principles no matter what?
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying, but it isn't really black and white, like I'm sure you know. Everything evolves or it dies, and religion is no different. The Mo's are not immune to change, thank goddess, because change is oftentimes a very positive thing.

Of course we should want a religion that ebbs and flows. If not, we'd still be persecuting blacks and sending mercinaries out on crusades.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Would you want a church that changes with the ebbs and flows of societal meanderings
Click to expand...

Aka Christianity in general?

EDIT: Seems like I am late to the party, as both Trout and OB had proper posts conveying what I wanted to say. If I was Mormon I would be STOKED that the policies of my respective sect of Christianity have adapted with the times.
 
1545749_846360772060044_890158046_n.jpg
 
dalamon said:
Aka Christianity in general?

EDIT: Seems like I am late to the party, as both Trout and OB had proper posts conveying what I wanted to say. If I was Mormon I would be STOKED that the policies of my respective sect of Christianity have adapted with the times.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Just because society has changed its stance on a subject does not mean a religion should.
 
Stoked said:
Yes and no. Just because society has changed its stance on a subject does not mean a religion should.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

However, when the "subject" regards equal, ethical, and societal rights of certain groups of people, then I'm hopeful for change.
 
One Brow said:
I have no reason to think that would reassure you. I was just pointing out the notion of the government forcing churches to recognize homosexual marriage is false.
Click to expand...

No matter what we call it, your denials rely on the false notion that because government has not done something in the past means it won't occur in the future. That's easily dismissed as the government becomes more and more intrusive and tyrannical.
 
One Brow said:
We train boys to like blowing things up and girls to dislike it, but it is not innate.
Click to expand...

One Brow said:
Both boys and girls have violent natures.
Click to expand...

You went from it ain't innate to it is innate for both. lolz.

I don't get your obsessive need to homogenize the sexes, but you just can't change the fact that biology discriminates. There are brain, hormone, and physical differences right from the start (99% of geniuses are male, females talk a lot more, etc.)
 
PearlWatson said:
No matter what we call it, your denials rely on the false notion that because government has not done something in the past means it won't occur in the future. That's easily dismissed as the government becomes more and more intrusive and tyrannical.
Click to expand...

I agree the government is becoming more tyrannical and intrusive. The US government has been even more tyrannical and intrusive in the past, with more malicious intent than today, but has never told churches what marriages to recognize. It's not a realistic worry.

PearlWatson said:
You went from it ain't innate to it is innate for both. lolz.
Click to expand...

To clarify, violent nature is innate, a sex-based difference in that violent nature in not innate.

PearlWatson said:
I don't get your obsessive need to homogenize the sexes, but you just can't change the fact that biology discriminates. There are brain, hormone, and physical differences right from the start (99% of geniuses are male, females talk a lot more, etc.)
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any way we know who will be male geniuses, or who will talk more, right from the start. We see genius happen, and see talking, after socialization. However, I agree that some of these differences may be innate. In particular, the effects of having one X chromosome, instead of two, would allow for a range of alleles to be expressed without moderating influences from a second gene. What I don't see is any evidence that levels of aggression, in particular, are sex-based.
 
PearlWatson said:
No matter what we call it, your denials rely on the false notion that because government has not done something in the past means it won't occur in the future. That's easily dismissed as the government becomes more and more intrusive and tyrannical.
Click to expand...

In other words, this is a non-falsifiable idea that can never be disproven. We could go 1,000,000 years without government forcing a religion to recognize a homosexual marriage and your point would still be "that doesn't mean it won't happen someday." You may call that "easily dismissed" but I think any rational person would acknowledge that such a position is unbending to any outside evidence.

I'll note that I've never spontaneously transmogrified into a fish either, and take that as persuasive evidence that it's probably not going to happen within my lifetime.
 
Sirkickyass said:
In other words, this is a non-falsifiable idea that can never be disproven. We could go 1,000,000 years without government forcing a religion to recognize a homosexual marriage and your point would still be "that doesn't mean it won't happen someday." You may call that "easily dismissed" but I think any rational person would acknowledge that such a position is unbending to any outside evidence.

I'll note that I've never spontaneously transmogrified into a fish either, and take that as persuasive evidence that it's probably not going to happen within my lifetime.
Click to expand...

We need to get together. I have mastered Proprius Verto, so we can put a stop this silly argument.
 
I haven't read any of this thread, but I figure I need to put in my *OFFICIAL* two cents:

If ****ting on gay people's opportunities is your thing, then you are an unequivocal *******.

This is a battle that those ******** will lose. Either this year, or in a few years.
 
NUMBERICA said:
I haven't read any of this thread, but I figure I need to put in my *OFFICIAL* two cents:

If ****ting on gay people's opportunities is your thing, then you are an unequivocal *******.

This is a battle that those ******** will lose. Either this year, or in a few years.
Click to expand...

You should be a spokesman for peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top