The Federalist Society debate on gay marriage

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The argument is real simple: gay sex/marriage is not ordained of God.

Indy gets it better than the church does, at least better than the church's PR wing.

Gay sex is evil. Must be stopped. Gay marriage is evil. Must be stopped. Children should not be enmeshed in this evil. Must be stopped.

A funny thought just occurred to me: gay celibate marriage. What is the church's position on that, LOL? (hint: still evil).

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Indy gets it better than the church does, at least better than the church's PR wing.

Gay sex is evil. Must be stopped. Gay marriage is evil. Must be stopped. Children should not be enmeshed in this evil. Must be stopped.

A funny thought just occurred to me: gay celibate marriage. What is the church's position on that, LOL? (hint: still evil).

You mean gay celibate marriage exists? Link?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

That appears to be the difficulty you have placed yourself in. "Fear-mongering with no evidence" pretty much describes christianity from a secualr POV. But if one believes, as you claim to, that the LDS church is true, then it is something else and perhpas it most singulalrly distinguishing feature in these days is belief in a current prophet. So do you support this feature or not? If so, how far do you go? As with most things on this site, your protests here are much more about you than the issue itself, it seems to me.

The LDS church is moving much closer to "traditional" Christianity and the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons than it ever has before, in my opinion.

I don't see Mormonism, as founded, as based on fear-mongering. I see it as transcendently hopeful, even blasphemous in its belief in the common man and woman, that they can become like gods.

All of that is essentially thrown into the church's rented storage space.

I really do miss it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You mean gay celibate marriage exists? Link?

it's pretty apparent that heterosexual celibate marriage exists, I daresay, based on what some people here have said. unreasonable to expect that there isn't/wouldn't be the same among homosexuals?

I did find it interesting about the fierce monogamousness between lesbian couples alluded to in the debate. Wasn't aware of that.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

it's pretty apparent that heterosexual celibate marriage exists, I daresay, based on what some people here have said. unreasonable to expect that there isn't/wouldn't be the same among homosexuals?

I did find it interesting about the fierce monogamousness between lesbian couples alluded to in the debate. Wasn't aware of that.

I'm unaware of any completely celibate heterosexual marriages. If they start out celibate, they get annulled and if they morph into celibate relationships, that usually results in adultery and/or divorce.

[Clark Addison]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The argument is real simple: gay sex/marriage is not ordained of God.

So, should we seek to legally prohibit anything that is not ordained of God?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

That appears to be the difficulty you have placed yourself in. "Fear-mongering with no evidence" pretty much describes christianity from a secualr POV. But if one believes, as you claim to, that the LDS church is true, then it is something else and perhpas it most singulalrly distinguishing feature in these days is belief in a current prophet. So do you support this feature or not? If so, how far do you go? As with most things on this site, your protests here are much more about you than the issue itself, it seems to me.

Mike dismisses the benefits of not changing the norms just to change the norms in light of millennia of traditions. Professor's Wax's argument of the blended family was dismissed yet sociological consequences do result from change. Some argue for the good, but if one ceases labeling good and bad and look to efficiencies to determine or at least examine consequences, we might make progress.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Mike dismisses the benefits of not changing the norms just to change the norms in light of millennia of traditions. Professor's Wax's argument of the blended family was dismissed yet sociological consequences do result from change. Some argue for the good, but if one ceases labeling good and bad and look to efficiencies to determine or at least examine consequences, we might make progress.

the blended family argument was ignored because it has nothing to do with gay marriage. 1) heterosexuals are the ones that have started and promoted blended families, 2) blended families will exist among gays whether they are married or not. Wax thinks that the parents of these blended families are better off NOT being married, but doesn't explain why that is better.

Professor Wax, so far in my reading, is getting waxed.

Btw, if the Bible is correct and history is correct, there is no "millenia" tradition of monogamous marriage by the state.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the blended family argument was ignored because it has nothing to do with gay marriage. 1) heterosexuals are the ones that have started and promoted blended families, 2) blended families will exist among gays whether they are married or not. Wax thinks that the parents of these blended families are better off NOT being married, but doesn't explain why that is better.

Professor Wax, so far in my reading, is getting waxed.

Btw, if the Bible is correct and history is correct, there is no "millennia" tradition of monogamous marriage by the state.

More than a thousand years means more than one millennium. Whatever, it's been centuries in Europe where heterosexual marriage was tradition.

To displace tradition for the sake of convenience seems misplaced.

Because this is about societal distribution of money, the arguments don't seem very convincing. All are ignoring the root of the argument.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Clark Addison

So, should we seek to legally prohibit anything that is not ordained of God?

If it's as fundamental to the purpose and existence of our mortal probation as marriage, yes.