LDS church chides Affirmation - Page 10 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Indy Coug · 08-13-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So you want choice A.

But there are other choices, B, C, D, E.

I'm saying B is better than C, D, and E, even it is not as good as choice A.

You are saying you cannot distinguish between B, C, D, and E and they are basically equal in your eyes. Whether your gay brother is in a committed monogamous relationship or hitting the bathhouses every weekend, has no distinction for you.

But it does for me. My bias is towards commitment.

That's fine for you, but now you're obviously operating under a different set of parameters than God is.

Tex · 08-13-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

no, it doesn't specifically endorse gay marriage as good for society. But it does say families are good for society.

And by extension, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that gay married families are better for society than other less-committed social alternatives (promiscuity, bath houses, etc.).

It also makes pretty clear the definition of family does not include homosexual parents.

MikeWaters · 08-13-2008, 07:38 PM

Here's the really ironic thing:

1. My posts illustrate a kind of logical argument about why gay marriage, using principles from the Proclamation on the Family, actually HELPS a subset of people live lives in harmony with the principles of commitment and family. Whether you agree or not is not the issue. It has a logic to it.

2. The argument that gay marriage will destroy marriage for heterosexuals has very little logic to it. I haven't been able to find any meaningful argument for it. And the ones that I have heard, such as the semantic argument appear to be petulant and whining ("it's my word and I don't want anyone messing with it").

If gay marriage is really BAD, shouldn't we be able to argue who gay marriage hurts GAYS? If it is bad, shouldn't it be most destructive to those closest to it, rather those most far away, who never knowingly associate with gays? Yet it is exactly these people who claim to be most damaged, while providing no rationale for how it harms the gays who might actually practice it.

Bizzaro world indeed. The good Lord is providing me with an idea of what it must have been like for some members who were disturbed at ETB's speeches equating civil rights to an evil communist plot.

MikeWaters · 08-13-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

That's fine for you, but now you're obviously operating under a different set of parameters than God is.

This is truly bizarre. Can you honestly not reply to the question of whether you would prefer your gay sibling to be committed to one person, or be promiscuous?

This is not some fanciful hypothetical question that no one ever has to face. This is real life for many people, including many active church members who have gay family members.

Let's be honest for a moment. There are reasons why you refuse to answer it. And to those that can hear beyond that which is spoken, I think it is pretty obvious.

Tex · 08-13-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If gay marriage is really BAD, shouldn't we be able to argue who gay marriage hurts GAYS? If it is bad, shouldn't it be most destructive to those closest to it, rather those most far away, who never knowingly associate with gays? Yet it is exactly these people who claim to be most damaged, while providing no rationale for how it harms the gays who might actually practice it.

Are we talking legally, societally, or spiritually?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Bizzaro world indeed. The good Lord is providing me with an idea of what it must have been like for some members who were disturbed at ETB's speeches equating civil rights to an evil communist plot.

It may not be the good Lord providing that idea to you.

MikeWaters · 08-13-2008, 07:44 PM

Tex and Indy, even though you really haven't addressed any of the big picture points I have offered, I do have to give you credit, you haven't simply resorted to calling it trolling.

That's a sign of maturity.

Indy Coug · 08-13-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is truly bizarre. Can you honestly not reply to the question of whether you would prefer your gay sibling to be committed to one person, or be promiscuous?

This is not some fanciful hypothetical question that no one ever has to face. This is real life for many people, including many active church members who have gay family members.

Let's be honest for a moment. There are reasons why you refuse to answer it. And to those that can hear beyond that which is spoken, I think it is pretty obvious.

The problem is your hypothetical is a complete nonsequitur when it comes to Prop 8 and the issue of gay marriage as a whole.

TripletDaddy · 08-13-2008, 08:52 PM

I am just enjoying sitting back and watching Indy get all lathered up about Prop 8 as election day draws nigh....

Indy Coug · 08-13-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I am just enjoying sitting back and watching Indy get all lathered up about Prop 8 as election day draws nigh....

I'm sure you do enjoy watching me lathered up. Fag.

TripletDaddy · 08-13-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm sure you do enjoy watching me lathered up. Fag.

YOhio already used that joke, except without your offensive closer.

I think Indycoug has a little shameless behavior in his past, now.

08-13-2008, 08:52 PM	#98
TripletDaddy Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 9,483	I am just enjoying sitting back and watching Indy get all lathered up about Prop 8 as election day draws nigh.... __________________ Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte

08-13-2008, 07:38 PM	#93
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Here's the really ironic thing: 1. My posts illustrate a kind of logical argument about why gay marriage, using principles from the Proclamation on the Family, actually HELPS a subset of people live lives in harmony with the principles of commitment and family. Whether you agree or not is not the issue. It has a logic to it. 2. The argument that gay marriage will destroy marriage for heterosexuals has very little logic to it. I haven't been able to find any meaningful argument for it. And the ones that I have heard, such as the semantic argument appear to be petulant and whining ("it's my word and I don't want anyone messing with it"). If gay marriage is really BAD, shouldn't we be able to argue who gay marriage hurts GAYS? If it is bad, shouldn't it be most destructive to those closest to it, rather those most far away, who never knowingly associate with gays? Yet it is exactly these people who claim to be most damaged, while providing no rationale for how it harms the gays who might actually practice it. Bizzaro world indeed. The good Lord is providing me with an idea of what it must have been like for some members who were disturbed at ETB's speeches equating civil rights to an evil communist plot.

08-13-2008, 07:44 PM	#96
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Tex and Indy, even though you really haven't addressed any of the big picture points I have offered, I do have to give you credit, you haven't simply resorted to calling it trolling. That's a sign of maturity.