Originally Posted By X-san Hey UtahJosh, if some of your children are gay, what will you do? Are you going to refuse to attend their wedding? Shun them? Tell them their plans to adopt a child are evil and wrong?
Originally Posted By jdub That's a good question, what would you do if your children turn out to be gay. Gay children can be born to any parent.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Of course, this is a key component for athiest people who feel like it's their business to tell other people how to belive and what they can and can't know. They first have to be able to demonize or somehow explain why they know better than the person actually experiencing it. (Belief in God) Therefore, believers people have gone from good, wholesome people to somewhat deluded characters who have a warped mind. It's astounding how some people who have not experienced communion with God or a religious experience themselves will tell other people what's going on with them. Rather than simply listening to believers and taking their word and experience for it, they create nonsense explanations." For your info, I believe in God. That said... Josh, if you feel attacked here it's because you should. You should feel attacked and bad and guilty for trying to promulgate this aspect of your church's belief system onto others who have NOTHING to do with you or your church. What right does your church have to force itself on others? Apply your credo on yourself all you want, but stay away from me and mine. I cited the anecdotal stories earlier to try and personalize it for you. If you don't believe it to be real, or think it's an aberration, think again. I challenge you to go talk to people involved in foster care and adoption in your area to find out what the real world is like for those kids, and what their hopes and dreams are all about, and then objectively apply your church's mandate as it relates to gays and see how it has the effect of crushing these hopes and dreams of these kids and yes, even the gays who are eager to help these kids, either as an adopted parent or a big brother or big sister. The systen needs all the help it can get. What it doesn't need is the policies of the Mormon church to hold it down.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, it is. It's quite a lot like that.> Anyone reading the articles will see that it is not. <Of course I did. Many of us did, and responded to specific points. Because we don't agree with them or can easily point out their logical flaws doesn't mean we didn't read them.> If you had actually read and understood them, you wouldn't be claiming that they are based on a discredited study. <Let's review: you said I "couldn't" show any stats about MA showing a lack of negative effect on MA due to gay marriage.> No, I specifically mentioned two stats that would show whether there had been a negative effect on MA. You provided neither. <That's a hard fact.> It's also inconclusive.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Even though it isn't surprising at all, given the source, the fact a church, supposedly an entity that purports to love and embrace everyone, would declare war on an entire class of people because it doesn't approve of that class's biological functions and tendencies, something no member of the class can do anything about, is mind boggling. And a church that is often persecuted itself for the way it conducts its own business, but stubbornly stands by it as the one "truth", would in turn itself go all out to persecute this class of people for living out their own "truth", is hypocritical in the extreme. Be very proud, josh.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>What right does your church have to force itself on others? Apply your credo on yourself all you want, but stay away from me and mine.<< The real irony? The Mormon church went through this when they practiced polygamy in the 19th century. Laws were passed, their leaders were imprisoned, their property was confiscated, and their rights were stripped away from them. I'm not implying that gay marriage and polygamy are the same thing. But there's plenty of parallels there, and the hypocrisy is rank. Josh will tell us that what the federal government did to the Mormons in the 19th century was wrong, but that what people are doing today against gay marriage is right, all under the guise of claiming to know what God wants.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Simply put, churches such as yours have absolutely no right to try and impose their beliefs on the rest of society.> Nor does a minority of society have the right to try to impose their beliefs onto the majority of churches, but that's what they are trying to do.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And think of the time and dollars that will be spent on this, instead of helping people in desperate need.> Yes. It's sad that a handful of activist judges overturned the decision of the majority of the electorate on false premises and brought all this on.
Originally Posted By jdub >>Nor does a minority of society have the right to try to impose their beliefs onto the majority of churches, but that's what they are trying to do. << That is not true at all! I've heard of no homosexual couples demanding that churches perform these rites. Believe me, there are plenty of churches willing to take care of the spiritual aspect.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Nor does a minority of society have the right to try to impose their beliefs onto the majority of churches, but that's what they are trying to do.<< Please. No one is doing any such thing. Church's can admit who they want as members, and marry who they want. What evidence do you have that anyone's will is being forced on the "majority of chruches?"
Originally Posted By ecdc >>chruches<< And in addition to that, what evidence do you have that it's being forced on churches?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What evidence do you have that anyone's will is being forced on the "majority of chruches?> Even the NY Blade has admitted it's happening. "Experts say organizations that receive state and federal funding will not be allowed to oppose working with gays for religious reasons. Some, most notably Catholic Charities of Boston (gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts), have opted to get out of the adoption business rather than be forced to allow gays to adopt." <a href="http://www.nyblade.com/2008/6-6/news/national/1224CalifQuestions.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.nyblade.com/2008/6-...ions.cfm</a> And recently I read about a church being forced to rent its property to a gay couple for a marriage, although I can't remember where I read it at. It's no great leap to suppose that if gay marriage is forced on an unwilling electorate, everyone will be forced to recognize it, and punished if they don't.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It's no great leap to suppose that if gay marriage is forced on an unwilling electorate, everyone will be forced to recognize it, and punished if they don't.<< It's a giant leap. There are still several organizations that refuse to admit women to their ranks. They may not be all that popular, but they haven't been "forced" to do anything, and they haven't been "punished." >>And recently I read about a church being forced to rent its property to a gay couple for a marriage, although I can't remember where I read it at.<< I'd like to see the evidence for this. By your logic, the church should be allowed to not rent to a black couple, either, based solely on their race. Of course, we do have anti-discrimination laws for a reason. A church can refuse to recognize a gay couple's marriage. They can't have a business and refuse to hire a person because they're black. And it's the same thing, BTW.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>I'd like to see the evidence for this. By your logic, the church should be allowed to not rent to a black couple, either, based solely on their race.<< Don't bet on it. "I read this somewhere..." is his usual defense.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Yes. It's sad that a handful of activist judges overturned the decision of the majority of the electorate on false premises and brought all this on." If only you knew what you were talking about. Equal protection is a false premise? Wait until I tell the gang. The irony here of course is that if the courts saw it your way, THEN they would be activists judges, ignoring equal protection.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Don't bet on it. "I read this somewhere..." is his usual defense.> My usual defense is the truth, as it is in this case.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <By your logic, the church should be allowed to not rent to a black couple, either, based solely on their race.> No, that's not by my logic. <A church can refuse to recognize a gay couple's marriage.> In most places, for now. Don't expect it to stay that way, if this ruling is allowed to stand.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If only you knew what you were talking about.> I know exactly what I am talking about. Please don't pretend that because you went to law school, you have exclusive knowledge of what lawyers think. I've read plenty that think this decision was wrong. <The irony here of course is that if the courts saw it your way, THEN they would be activists judges, ignoring equal protection.> Nope.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You mean The Truth According to DouglasDubhâ„¢.> I mean that when I said I read an article that described the situation I related, I was telling the truth.
