Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[stitches]

Those are market forces in action, and nothing of the kind is guaranteed in any way shape or form. If they did get a boost to their business it was a fortunate unintended consequence. If I as a politician can restrict all the voters except those that will vote for me I am guaranteed the win. Funny you can't see that difference.

added more to my previous post. To me they are very similar in nature and result.

 

[LogGrad98]

added more to my previous post. To me they are very similar in nature and result.

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. To me it is a huge difference. One of them can lead to Hitler, the other can lead to Chik-Fil-A.



Oh yeah, I Godwined this thing.

 

[stitches]

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. To me it is a huge difference. One of them can lead to Hitler, the other can lead to Chik-Fil-A.



Oh yeah, I Godwined this thing.

I haven't read that whole thread, but I doubt you are the first one to do it in 38 pages If you are... then... damn, this forum must hold some kind of record.

 

[DutchJazzer]

G Anyone can earn the right to drive, gays can not earn the right to have their marriage sealed.

soooo how about they first fight the right to procreate then?

 

[DutchJazzer]

do Mormons treat gay relationships as inferior or do they just treat them as different?

gay mariage are inferioir because they cannot procreate


so yes sue me

 

[colton]

do Mormons treat gay relationships as inferior or do they just treat them as different?

The LDS church views homosexual sex as inherently sinful and against the will of God.

 

[Nate505]

exactly.


LET them MARKET decide.

if a no blacks allowed bar or pool opens. people will boycot it.
sooner or later people might bocoyt straight only marriage services.

the governement should stop regulating marriage and should stop forcing **** down our throat.

The market may do a great job at deciding this in a New York City or Los Angeles or even towns/cities like Ft. Collins that have 90k people or so.

The market would do a terrible job in deciding this in all the small towns across the country. I doubt all 2000 or whatever residents of Wakeeney Kansas are going to boycott the only bowling alley in town if the bigoted owner refuses to serve the one black family in town.

 

[colton]

Your religion has a bigoted stance currently.

To quote Princess Bride, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Namely, the word "bigot" implies a motivation of hate. The LDS church's opposition to gay marriage is not based on hate. Quite the contrary, the church teaches very strongly that we should love gay individuals, even/especially ones that oppose us on the marriage thing. Ergo, you are way off base.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Good. You should hold me to high standards; I learn more that way.



Driving is a privilege instead of a right, but if we had laws that Mormons were not allowed to get driver's licenses under any circumstances, I think you would find that bigoted. Anyone can earn the right to drive, gays can not earn the right to have their marriage sealed, no matter how qualified they are as Mormons otherwise.

Loose analogy. Driving is a dominant means of transportation in this country-- in fact, for some it is the only means of transportation.


If a temple doesn't allow homosexual marriage, then that's perfectly fine-- the homosexual married couple can find one of thousands of organized faiths that accept their identities.

 

[Deleted member 848]

To quote Princess Bride, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Namely, the word "bigot" implies a motivation of hate. The LDS church's opposition to gay marriage is not based on hate. Quite the contrary, the church teaches very strongly that we should love gay individuals, even/especially ones that oppose us on the marriage thing. Ergo, you are way off base.

It becomes perceived as hateful when you think that your perception should apply on a country that exceeds 300 000 000 people. It implies that you find their views incorrect, and then it takes another step and forces them to subscribe to your beliefs.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The market may do a great job at deciding this in a New York City or Los Angeles or even towns/cities like Ft. Collins that have 90k people or so.

The market would do a terrible job in deciding this in all the small towns across the country. I doubt all 2000 or whatever residents of Wakeeney Kansas are going to boycott the only bowling alley in town if the bigoted owner refuses to serve the one black family in town.

let the market decide if we should abolish slavery.











wait.

 

[Deleted member 848]

One Brows comments in this thread are proof to me that persecution of the church (Those Bigoted Mormons) won't end with the legal recognition of gay marriage.

I truly and sincerely don't give a **** about what other religions, religious denominations, or religious cults practice-- as long as it doesn't compensate the physical and mental health of their followers, their followers follow the laws set out by the US government (or in my case, the Canadian government), and that their beliefs don't infringe on my health, my beliefs, or my faith. The whole preoccupation with denying marriage rights to homosexuals is mind-numbing and quite frankly un-American.

 

[8]

let the market decide if we should abolish slavery.











wait.

A labor market doesn't make slavery. People acting in direct violation of the constitution and declaration of independence do. A free labor market would create some really cheap labor, but given our human rights, it wouldn't make slaves.

 

[Deleted member 848]

A labor market doesn't make slavery. People acting in direct violation of the constitution and declaration of independence do. A free labor market would create some really cheap labor, but given our human rights, it wouldn't make slaves.

A completely free labor market technically wouldn't have to worry about violating laws set about by governing bodies, no?


If corporations within the markets really ubiquitously gave a **** about slavery, they wouldn't be directly perpetuating it in non-American countries at this very moment.



But that's besides my point. My point wasn't meant to be economically-based. I could have worded it better. I was more commenting on public opinion, and the foolishness of using majority opinions to justify a position in a debate.

 

[8]

A completely free labor market technically wouldn't have to worry about violating laws set about by governing bodies, no?


If corporations within the markets really ubiquitously gave a **** about slavery, they wouldn't be directly perpetuating it in non-American countries at this very moment.



But that's besides my point. My point wasn't meant to be economically-based. I could have worded it better. I was more commenting on public opinion, and the foolishness of using majority opinions to justify a position in a debate.

People wouldn't voluntarily be slaves unless they were retarded.

 

[8]

I think you are confusing slavery with cheap labor

 

[8]

I was more commenting on public opinion, and the foolishness of using majority opinions to justify a position in a debate.

Ain't that what decides the law doe?

 

[Deleted member 848]

People wouldn't voluntarily be slaves unless they were retarded.

have slaves ever been voluntary?

I think you are confusing slavery with cheap labor

https://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs....d-slavery-and-chocolate-all-too-easy-to-find/

This is one (of many) example. Ferrero and Nestlé claim that they're gonna try and end it by 2020 FWIW (I have my doubts).

Ain't that what decides the law doe?

Sometimes. But sometimes there comes an idea that is initially met by dissidence, before the majority of the public accepts it.

In fact, this is routine for every social, scientific, economical, political, and religious movement ever. Public perceptions are dynamic. Hence, the fact that a general issue ha temporary disapproval does not mean that it is immoral, incorrect, or shouldn't be fought for.

 

[8]

Dala is right doe, over 300,000,000 different ideas of what the state should be and they are all correct. Dat's a lotta compromise going into every decision made at the federal level.

 

[stitches]

To quote Princess Bride, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." Namely, the word "bigot" implies a motivation of hate. The LDS church's opposition to gay marriage is not based on hate. Quite the contrary, the church teaches very strongly that we should love gay individuals, even/especially ones that oppose us on the marriage thing. Ergo, you are way off base.

Love them and pour all your resources to deny them equal rights and liberties... and in the mean time call them "sick"... makes sense. Most of the time acts speak louder than words. My problem with religions is not what they believe and what they implement within their own churches. They can do everything they want to do for all I care with the people who have voluntarily agreed to be part of their church. My problem with religions and churches is when they decide that they have the right to dictate what everybody else does or doesn't do. For them it's not enough for their own gay followers to not be able to marry within their church. They want nobody(gay) to be able to marry within the state. This is the thing that pisses me off the most with religions and churches. It's not enough for them to preach abstinence only and anti-contraception to their own followers. No, they want everybody else's choices and information to be limited. It's not enough for them to teach creationism in their churches, they want everybody else to be subjected to it. They have that right, though, just like I have the right to call those practices for what they are.

The terminology is irrelevant really. Is it bigoted or is it not? Is it motivated by hatred or intolerance? Does it matter? I find it reprehensible, abhorrent and extremely rude to say the least either way.