Originally Posted By Mr X Notice that neither Josh nor Elder ever have anything to say when people bring up REAL stories about REAL people and the pain that is being caused by these efforts. It's almost as if they are ashamed to address that (as they should be).
Originally Posted By barboy ///Changing the constitution is not a moral issue josh, it's a political one./// That's very narrow; it can be both, no?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>it's protecting our society<< Wow, now it's protecting our society, not just traditional marriage. It's funny, since gay marriage has been legal here in California, and also in Massachusetts, society seems to be just fine. It's almost as if, when people mind their own business, society is stronger.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<Our church speaks out on a lot of things through it's newsroom on the website, through our general conference broadcast worldwide, and through our actions as reported by news sources across the globe. Choose any of the following:>> These issues are not being spoke out about. They are being discussed through a LDS network. If they were truely speaking out about it - like they are about prop 8 you would be able to link to general media not just LDS media.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <when people mind their own business, society is stronger.> When people work together for the greater good, society is stronger.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<When people work together for the greater good, society is stronger.>> When people work together in the name of hate (yes on prop 8) Society is damaged and families are hurt.
Originally Posted By Mr X That's incredibly twisted to say, Josh. To subjugate and oppress a group of people is "the greater good"? Who are you, Adolf Hitler now? What kind of "stronger society" are you shooting for anyway?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Elderp: <<Thank you for argueing my position. Saves me the time in responding to that really long post you did in the other thread. Hope lots of people read this, it's already starting...>> SPP: <<What a freakin' cop out.>> No kidding. That long post in the other thread, of course, was SPP debunking (with specific facts) the claims of anyone's rights being lost should Prop 8 fail, and challenging him to say how its failure would impact him negatively in any way. Of course, he can't, so he falls back on, essentially, "well, your post ticked me off, so now I don't have to respond to the specifics of the other one." Please.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities > and <eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law> Ruh-roh, Reorge. < They are clearly not working toward eliminating discrimination nor defending human and civil rights as secured by law. In fact, they are doing quite the opposite.> Exactly, 8thD.
Originally Posted By mele No, he's saying that he's voting for Prop 8 to protect his church and SPP's post proves that his church is in danger and that "it's already starting". Of course, he ignores the fact that his church may be in danger because of the support of a ban on gay marriage, not because gay marriage exists. Of course, it's just more dishonest bull but why break with precedence now?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No, he's saying that he's voting for Prop 8 to protect his church and SPP's post proves that his church is in danger and that "it's already starting". > If the law says you can't "attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities " and remain tax-exempt, then you really can't blame anyone but yourself if you choose to attempt to influence legislation. It would be like robbing a bank and then complaining that there was a law against such a thing, and you're the victim if it's enforced.
Originally Posted By mele I'm going to post this in all of the "gay" threads. I think it does an excellent job of debunking all of the so-called "consequences" if Prop 8 fails. My apologies if it's been posted before. <a href="http://www.affirmation.org/pdf/2008_09_18_thurston.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.affirmation.org/pdf...ston.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By mele Grrr. You'll have to click on the link to the pdf. <a href="http://www.affirmation.org/affinity/2008_10.shtml#3" target="_blank">http://www.affirmation.org/aff....shtml#3</a>
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Here's a shortcut to the document in mele's article, which is a breakdown of the arguments contained in the “Six Consequences” of Prop 8: <a href="http://www.affirmation.org/pdf/2008_09_18_thurston.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.affirmation.org/pdf...ston.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux That's a very interesting link. The original 'six reasons ...' piece is a well crafted and sophisticated piece of propaganda, and it doesn't look like something an "overeager parishoner" would cobble together on their own. As we see, it takes a judicial scholar to suss out what cases these individual points are alluding to, and just how they're manipulating the truth. Scary stuff. We're up against some serious evil here - all dressed up like a church.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<You've got it wrong - it's protecting our society, which is strongest when based on strong traditional families.>> Now I'm confused. Exactly what do you mean by "traditional family," Josh? In the "Vote Yes on Prop 8" thread, when you argued that gay marriage is a recent abomination that should not be allowed because it violates the thousands-year-old time-honored model of marriage, I assumed you were referring to the "one man/one woman" model. When I pointed out that the prevalence of the "one man/one woman" version was a relatively new historical phenomenon, that it only recently replaced polygamy as the marriage of choice, you responded that the most important aspect of marriage is that in involve both male(s) and female(s). And that the number of individuals involved in the marriage doesn't change the fact that "traditionally" marriage involves men and women. Uhhhhhhhhh... I don't think that most modern Americans see polygamy as "traditional families." You sling the term "traditional marriage" around as if it were a powerful sacred sword. But when asked to define your secret weapon, you contradict yourself. So which is it, Josh? Exactly which "traditional family" model does the US need to restrict its citizens to in order to save society?
Originally Posted By Mr X An interesting link indeed. Elder and Josh, did you read it? Is there any part of it you can refute factually? If so, kindly do so. If not, kindly stop spreading lies in your anti-gay marriage arguments.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<You've got it wrong - it's protecting our society, which is strongest when based on strong traditional families.>> Now I'm confused. Exactly what do you mean by "traditional family," Josh?*** What he means is it's tough to swallow back the bile when a mormon so hypocritically cites "traditional families" as if their freaky sex past doesn't exist.
Originally Posted By mele I don't care about the freaky past of Mormons so much as they're defining what a "traditional family" is. Screw them. How DARE they say what a traditional family is and imply that society is best when there are only traditional families? Absolutely disgusting and so far from what God and Jesus would ever believe. What a sick, sad view on life. Really, the opposite of Christianity as far as I'm concerned.
