What's new

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

You realize that homosexuals are asking the judiciary to override "our will" in order to force the government to recognize their relationship as a "marriage" so they can file jointly on their taxes, force employers to cover their sexual partner on insurance, etc..

Heaven help us if everyone is treated equally! Gosh, can you imagine?

Well, except that warming is really occurring and has been observed and measured, and evolution is really occurring and has been Observed and measured, while you have no examples at all of churches being forced to recognize homosexual marriages, for one major difference.

Facts are for people who have them, jerk face.

It is a prediction about the future, Sherlock.

I love this kind of game! I predict that the moon will eventually crash into the pacific ocean. I predict the Jazz will acquire Michael Jordan's frozen sperm sample and mate it with Larry Bird's sample and then inject it into Harry Ried's great grand daughter in order to spawn the best basketball phenom EVAR. (of course, we'll have to tank for eight seasons to get her (you thought it was going to be a male?), but that's totally worth it) I also predict that PearlWatson will never have a post that doesn't suck. Balls.

Predicting the future based on past observations. It's called induction, Watson.

It's also what pistons do in motors, MacDowell.

Lol, so basically you won't count them as the will of the people. Got it. The trend clearly shows that te "will of the people" is siding against you and will continue to do so on this issue. I expect similar trends in marijuana legalization.

Polls are only effective when they show what you want them to show, moron.
 
Heaven help us if everyone is treated equally! Gosh, can you imagine?



Facts are for people who have them, jerk face.



I love this kind of game! I predict that the moon will eventually crash into the pacific ocean. I predict the Jazz will acquire Michael Jordan's frozen sperm sample and mate it with Larry Bird's sample and then inject it into Harry Ried's great grand daughter in order to spawn the best basketball phenom EVAR. (of course, we'll have to tank for eight seasons to get her (you thought it was going to be a male?), but that's totally worth it) I also predict that PearlWatson will never have a post that doesn't suck. Balls.



It's also what pistons do in motors, MacDowell.



Polls are only effective when they show what you want them to show, moron.

Tots magots.
 

The only way that reaction makes any sense is if you believe:

1) people observed a fish evolving into a human so they are inducing that it will happen again in the future.
2) people observed the destruction of the Earth due to anthropomorphic global warming so they are inducing it will happen again.

Or you didn't realize I was reacting more to the non-disprovable comment that applies to Darwiniac/Warmiac theology, although their predictive abilities are lacking as well.

In other words, this is a non-falsifiable idea that can never be disproven.

I realize my prediction is only provable if it comes to pass.
 
Well this is just awesome. The outside counsel hired by Utah to defend Amendment 3 is just doing his religious duty. Yet keeping those pesky gays from marrying has nothing to do with religious reasons. :rolleyes:

In a copy of Schaerr’s departure email to colleagues at the firm, Schaerr writes that he’s taking the Utah case “so that I can fulfill what I have come to see as a religious and family duty: defending the constitutionality of traditional marriage in the state where my church is headquartered and where most of my family resides.”

Link

Also that fool who fasted against gay marriage is talking about relocating to Russia to escape all those scary gay people. Link
 
Well this is just awesome. The outside counsel hired by Utah to defend Amendment 3 is just doing his religious duty. Yet keeping those pesky gays from marrying has nothing to do with religious reasons. :rolleyes:



Also that fool who fasted against gay marriage is talking about relocating to Russia to escape all those scary gay people. Link

Does it really matter what the attorney's motive is? Couldn't he have said that he believed that the "moon is made of cheese" and it wouldn't have mattered?

Furthermore, his religious view is what motivated him to take the job? Whoa... Really? For reals? So people can be motivated through religious and philosophical views? Of course, those in opposition to Amend 3 would never ever ever ever everrrrrrr be motivated by philosophical views either, right?

I just don't get why or how the attorney's religious views matter. Besides, breaking news, a lot of opponents of gay marriage are religious. Whoa. Earth shattering. This smells more of the SL Trib trying to make a story/start a Mormon bashing thread than actually debate anything.

Now this joke is a completely different matter:

"I'm seriously considering moving to Russia in a few years. They have far more economic freedom. And are the only developed nation that actually promotes and fights for traditional values. America has become one of the most oppressive countries on earth. Yes, it has really come to that, I'm considering leaving America for Russia to get away from a Marxist government. Oh how far we have fallen since I was a child. Only if Putin stays in power, because he is the only leader I've seen with the guts to stand up to homo-fascist movement. Anything would be better than what the gay movement is doing in America. If I stay here they will have me jailed and drudged for the rest of my life. They won't stop. I don't think you get how hard it is to be a Mormon in gay America. They simply will not let us breath. We are to their movement what the Jews were to the Nazis, and in time they will be trying to march us into ovens.

LOL!

As a fellow Mormon, I too feel persecuted living here in Utah. I have often contemplated moving to Russia along with this man. However, I have a job here, so I must stay. So since I cannot make it, I feel as if it were our obligation or duty to help finance a one-way trip so at least our friend may escape the persecution and have the experience of living in Russia as a Mormon.....

Who's with me???
 
The only way that reaction makes any sense is if you believe:

1) people observed a fish evolving into a human so they are inducing that it will happen again in the future.

We observe populations of fish evolving all the time. Millions of years from now, there will be fish that look nothing at all like today's fish. Some of them may indeed evolve into something that looks very much like a human, if the conditions are right. Technically, they won't be human, because that's our population.

2) people observed the destruction of the Earth due to anthropomorphic global warming so they are inducing it will happen again.

No global warming proponent thinks the earth will be literally destroyed; that's a metaphor. What will be destroyed is the ability of humans to maintain their society on the planet, and possibly even their ability to survive as a population.

Again, this is something we have seen in the past, on a smaller scale. Living things alter their environment and reduce/destroy their ability to survive there. One famous example is Easter Island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island

Or you didn't realize I was reacting more to the non-disprovable comment that applies to Darwiniac/Warmiac theology, although their predictive abilities are lacking as well.

You don't seem to have the knowledge to know what is or is not disprovable regarding evolution and climate, and both are predictable in the way that the roll of a fair die is predictable (you know what the results will look like in the large term, even though individual results can't be predicted).

I realize my prediction is only provable if it comes to pass.

My criticism is not about predictability, it's about rational warrant to believe. There is no precedent for the US government forcing any church to recognize any marriage, ever.
 
Does it really matter what the attorney's motive is? Couldn't he have said that he believed that the "moon is made of cheese" and it wouldn't have mattered?

I'm not sure what you mean by "matter", but the statement underscores the notion that the real motivation for this legal distinction is religious, not secular.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "matter", but the statement underscores the notion that the real motivation for this legal distinction is religious, not secular.

Was there question over whether the motivation behind things like DOMA and Amend 3 wasn't religious?

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that.
 
Ship of Fools, here.

OK, here's why Pearl is the smartest person in this discussion. She's the only one who's got the sense to know, intuitively, what's at stake here. Freedom.

So let's start with something we all think we know well enough. . . gravity. . . . anybody here that doesn't know what gravity is????? Gravity is like freedom. . . . well, actually nobody really understands gravity. . . not scientists, anyway. Their little theorem and equation breaks down when it's taken too far. . . . far, far away. . . . some kind of little quirk in reality perhaps. . . . but at least none of us regularly makes mistakes in thinking the law of gravity just isn't there. I mean we all set our beer mugs down on the counter, and know how to pour beer into them pretty good, even when we're drunk. So we know gravity well enough, practically speaking.

Our laws are never "secular", the belief that we have, or can have a truly impartial government that doesn't reflect some kind of belief system, some kind of "religion", is just a lie. All laws are theological, in the sense that they bear the stamp of some kind of human belief about what "should be" or what "is right". Every law is intended to establish some kind of "order" on other people who may or may not "believe" that way or behave that way.

The only way we can have "freedom" from law imposed by government is to have a sort of law within ourselves that will make other people willing to put up with us, or at least leave us alone. The best way for us to achieve the highest practical level of freedom is to agree on the idea of not letting "government" get involved in our lives. That would mean we sorta agree on a lot of ideas like property rights, the most essential human rights like speech and conscience, and determine to respect those rights in others as much as we demand them for ourselves. . . .

Historically, our American "experiment" was purposed to put human rights under some protection from government with an attempt to limit the power of government. The folks who set up our once limited government knew that it wouldn't work unless the people could maintain some kind of "law" within themselves and exercise some discipline about not needing more government.

The really, really sad thing here is that a lot of folks are losing that moral principle and demanding that the government should take more power.

That's the gravity of our situation. When the dust has settled and the GLBT people think they have won their day, they will have created a monster government that thenceforth can dictate human beliefs and actions and anyone who opposes it can be marginalized with hate speech, or worse. It has never been an ideal of mine that government should take the lead in morals, either to define "marriage" and impose license requirements on it, or to attach to it special privilege and financial benefits. The GLBT folks who want government to do all that for them, too, are just as wrong as any other pious statists who ever wanted government to promote their morals.

The way to freedom requires us all to just say "To Hell with the Damn Government" and go do what we want, and all of us come out to shout the cops down when they come around to impose somebody else's orders on us. uhhhmmm. . .. which is to say, return to limited government, federalist principles of local government taking precedence over broader levels of government, and a return to respecting human rights at the most personal level.

The government is not the answer, the government is the problem.

Just like we all know how to pour liquids and keep them from spilling, we all know government is not "freedom", and it takes a little caring to keep government power in the mug.
 
Last edited:
Ship of Fools, here.

OK, here's why Pearl is the smartest person in this discussion. She's the only one who's got the sense to know, intuitively, what's at stake here. Freedom.

So let's start with something we all think we know well enough. . . gravity. . . . anybody here that doesn't know what gravity is????? Gravity is like freedom. . . . well, actually nobody really understands gravity. . . not scientists, anyway. Their little theorem and equation breaks down when it's taken too far. . . . far, far away. . . . some kind of little quirk in reality perhaps. . . . but at least none of us regularly makes mistakes in thinking the law of gravity just isn't there. I mean we all set our beer mugs down on the counter, and know how to pour beer into them pretty good, even when we're drunk. So we know gravity well enough, practically speaking.

Our laws are never "secular", the belief that we have, or can have a truly impartial government that doesn't reflect some kind of belief system, some kind of "religion", is just a lie. All laws are theological, in the sense that they bear the stamp of some kind of human belief about what "should be" or what "is right". Every law is intended to establish some kind of "order" on other people who may or may not "believe" that way or behave that way.

The only way we can have "freedom" from law imposed by government is to have a sort of law within ourselves that will make other people willing to put up with us, or at least leave us alone. The best way for us to achieve the highest practical level of freedom is to agree on the idea of not letting "government" get involved in our lives. That would mean we sorta agree on a lot of ideas like property rights, the most essential human rights like speech and conscience, and determine to respect those rights in others as much as we demand them for ourselves. . . .

Historically, our American "experiment" was purposed to put human rights under some protection from government with an attempt to limit the power of government. The folks who set up our once limited government knew that it wouldn't work unless the people could maintains some kind of "law" within themselves and exercise some discipline about not needing more government.

The really, really sad thing here is that a lot of folks are losing that moral principle and demanding that the government should take more power.

That's the gravity of our situation. When the dust has settled and the GLBT people think they have won their day, they will have created a monster government that thenceforth can dictate human beliefs and actions and anyone who opposes it can be marginalized with hate speech, or worse. It has never been an ideal of mine that government should take the lead in morals, either to define "marriage" and impose license requirements on it, or to attach to it special privilege and financial benefits. The GLBT folks who want government to do all that for them, too, are just as wrong as any other pious statists who ever wanted government to promote their morals.

The way to freedom requires us all to just say "To Hell with the Damn Government" and go do what we want, and all of us come out to shout the cops down when they come around to impose somebody else's orders on us. uhhhmmm. . .. which is to say, return to limited government, federalist principles of local government taking precedence over broader levels of government, and a return to respecting human rights at the most personal level.

The government is not the answer, the government is the problem.

Just like we all know how to pour liquids and keep them from spilling, we all know government is not "freedom", and it takes a little caring to keep government power in the mug.

So basically you agree with me. That's all you had to say.
 
Was there question over whether the motivation behind things like DOMA and Amend 3 wasn't religious?

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that.

It's very difficult to justify such legislation in a US court if you have no secular basis at all.
 
Was there question over whether the motivation behind things like DOMA and Amend 3 wasn't religious?

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that.

There is what things are, and there is what people say things are.

We all know there is no non-religious justification here, but people will shout till they are blue in the face to tell you otherwise.
 
We observe populations of fish evolving all the time. Millions of years from now, there will be fish that look nothing at all like today's fish. Some of them may indeed evolve into something that looks very much like a human, if the conditions are right. Technically, they won't be human, because that's our population.

No global warming proponent thinks the earth will be literally destroyed; that's a metaphor. What will be destroyed is the ability of humans to maintain their society on the planet, and possibly even their ability to survive as a population.

Again, this is something we have seen in the past, on a smaller scale. Living things alter their environment and reduce/destroy their ability to survive there. One famous example is Easter Island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island


You don't seem to have the knowledge to know what is or is not disprovable regarding evolution and climate, and both are predictable in the way that the roll of a fair die is predictable (you know what the results will look like in the large term, even though individual results can't be predicted).

My criticism is not about predictability, it's about rational warrant to believe. There is no precedent for the US government forcing any church to recognize any marriage, ever.

If Darwinism is predictive, then it is like some dude predicting 9-11 on 9-12 and calling themselves an amazing oracle. We already had fish and humans, bears and whales, before they came up with their crackpot stories about one turning into another.

And Global Warming is the same as every other eschatology out there. Sometimes believers put a timetable on the destruction like Algorical has for your liberal religion (2 years and 3 days), but its predictions are no more provable than mine. We won't know if it is true until it happens.

Were you hoping to be persuasive by calling one of my concerns irrational, while being unable to address the other concerns?

Let's take government intrusion out of it. We just witnessed the GLAAD lynch mob unleashed on Phil Robertson for calling homosexuality a sin. The mentality of "bash back" is not going away once the judiciary forces homosexual marriage on the states that don't want it. Whether they are able to use the government as a weapon against Christians or they stick with their homosexual activist lynch mobs to punish Christians for their beliefs the result is still undesirable.
 
If Darwinism is predictive, then it is like some dude predicting 9-11 on 9-12 and calling themselves an amazing oracle. We already had fish and humans, bears and whales, before they came up with their crackpot stories about one turning into another.

Lenski predicted that bacteria would develop an ability to digest citrate, and ran an experiment to prove it. The main difficulty with evolutionary predictions are the difficulty of predicting the environment effects in sufficient detail. When you control the environment completely, evolution becomes highly predictable.

And Global Warming is the same as every other eschatology out there. Sometimes believers put a timetable on the destruction like Algorical has for your liberal religion (2 years and 3 days), but its predictions are no more provable than mine. We won't know if it is true until it happens.

I have no idea what quote of Gore's you're talking about. However, based on past history, I can confidently predict it is out of context, distorted, or entirely made up. Gore set no timetable on anything resembling "destruction".


As for the actual predictions of climate science, the ones made 30 years ago are playing out very well today, and there is no reason to think that will stop.

Were you hoping to be persuasive by calling one of my concerns irrational, while being unable to address the other concerns?

I see no reason to think you can be persuaded on this topic by anyone. Your irrationality will continue, regardless.

Let's take government intrusion out of it.

Are you saying private citizens should be prevented from expressing their outrage?
 
Brow,

Sorry, but I'm jumping off that Warmiac/Darwiniac crazy train you're driving.

It seems like you are expending an awful lot of effort if you think I'm purely irrational in my concerns, but who am I to encourage you to give up your Jazzfanz forum mission and do something worthwhile with your time.

The Doomsday clock originates from a statement from Larry David in 2006 in Sundance during promotion of the liberal eschatological movie an "Inconvenient Truth."

Larry David: "You know, Al is a funny guy, but he's also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan."
 

Let's generalize this principle a bit. Legal precedence is a long-standing value in court decisions. In seasons when the judges are religious adherents to say, christianity or Islam, you will find them holding the tenets of their faith out in lining up with compatible precedents. In seasons when judges are godless "secular humanists" who don't think they need to borrow values from a reigning religious milieu of values people will support, they will use, instead, their own secular humanist set of values. . . . equally irrational and equally arbitrary. . . . and which will only receive support from an equally ignorant and pious set of secular humanist "believers".

It has always been a risky business for judges to lead the charge on social value changes. That's why in our original principles of government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed, and laws being written by legislators, not judges, we set up election processes in the first place. Since the progressives have held sway in the courts, the courts have taken on the character of "Imperial Majesties" and presumed to dictate what our values should be. They have not done us a service, but a disservice. Still, things could be worse. We once had a Supreme Court that tried to stop the eviction of the Cherokees from their nation in the southern mountains, and an Imperial President in Andrew Jackson who said simply that it didn't matter what the Court decided, the Court had no army to enforce its decree. And so the Cherokees were driven out with our Army.

Our original Constitution was not the end of the American Revolution, but a beginning. But the road to actual human rights does not have an Imperial Judiciary, Supremacist Judges, and megalithic federal bureaucracies dictating laws or rules for the masses, nor does it have an Imperial President just deciding what laws to enforce, or making laws by fiat or "executive order", nor legislators who all are bought and paid for by fascist corporatists building a "New World Order" for the convenience of the moneyed.

People have got to decide they want a government answerable to themselves more than the moneybags, and they have got to decide their individual liberties matter. So far we have had a few moments of "good times" when government answered our calls and did right by us. Ending slavery, and extending civil rights to minorities of all kinds have been good steps. Getting the government out of our bedrooms might be another. Ending special deals for special classes of folks is the way to do that.
 
Back
Top