The Federalist Society debate on gay marriage

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You can argue all you wish, and although I see your point I like my definition better and prefer it to yours. It's neater in your binary world.

Not a hundred, a hundred and hundreds.

Otherwise, it's not a hundred, a hundred, more than a hundred and hundreds. One can use that assumption which you are, but I purposefully choose not to use that delineation.

I choose less than a hundred, exactly a hundred and hundreds, meaning more than a hundred.

And more importantly I rounded up in this instance, given that we have more than 1600 hundred years of this experience.

I'm saying what is common usage (as in almost everyone). You are saying what you prefer and what makes sense to you.

I win.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm saying what is common usage (as in almost everyone). You are saying what you prefer and what makes sense to you.

I win.

Are you menopausal?

People who are not trying to be mathematically precise will agree with me that after you exceed more than half the other way, i.e., six, that you can round up and arrive at two, making it multiple.

You win what? Using the common banal meaning of a phrase? How boring is that. Leaders don't conform to social "norms."

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

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.

What would you say is the difference between fear mongering and warning? For example, when I teach from the Book of Mormon the warnings of the prophets concerning the consequences of a disobedient people is that fear mongering or just a warning? Should the church be transcendentally hopeful that a wicked people, such as the ones described in the BOM can become Gods, and give them a pat on the back? Or is it the job of the Prophet to teach, warn exhort, etc? To invite them to repent and come unto Christ or to shrug his shoulders? Jona didn't want to go to Ninevah; it probably isn't always easy for the prophet to say what he must.

My view of this is shifting. I guess the question for members is whether we are going to trust the prophet on a moral issue or decide that he has it wrong. Thanks in advance for not erecting the John D. Lee straw man in response. I respect your right to say that the church has it wrong, but you should respect the right of others to defer to the prophet. The thrust of your argument seems to be that based on what we know from scripture and about the church that the prophet couldn't be on the Lords errand in this case. You could be right, but that is that decision each of us are having to make. I can respect either choice, can you?

[Clark Addison]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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

You may well be right, but I will admit that I am very uneasy about the establishment of any law with the rationale being "God said so". I do not want laws that come out of the Koran to be enacted simply because Muslims believe that Allah desires it. I would feel somewhat a hypocrite if I opposed that but was fine with my side doing the same thing. If there is a valid reason outside of the religious one for making a law (such as in the case of "Thou shalt not kill"), it is obviously a different matter.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

What would you say is the difference between fear mongering and warning? For example, when I teach from the Book of Mormon the warnings of the prophets concerning the consequences of a disobedient people is that fear mongering or just a warning? Should the church be transcendentally hopeful that a wicked people, such as the ones described in the BOM can become Gods, and give them a pat on the back? Or is it the job of the Prophet to teach, warn exhort, etc? To invite them to repent and come unto Christ or to shrug his shoulders? Jona didn't want to go to Ninevah; it probably isn't always easy for the prophet to say what he must.

My view of this is shifting. I guess the question for members is whether we are going to trust the prophet on a moral issue or decide that he has it wrong. Thanks in advance for not erecting the John D. Lee straw man in response. I respect your right to say that the church has it wrong, but you should respect the right of others to defer to the prophet. The thrust of your argument seems to be that based on what we know from scripture and about the church that the prophet couldn't be on the Lords errand in this case. You could be right, but that is that decision each of us are having to make. I can respect either choice, can you?

Holy Cow, going again to the Tick notion that LDS who support the official church position are being oppressed by LDS who do not.

To use a pretty strong analogy, this is a little like the Nazi concentration camp staffers saying, "We have it pretty bad here too, stop complaining!"

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To use a pretty strong analogy, this is a little like the Nazi concentration camp staffers saying, "We have it pretty bad here too, stop complaining!"

Strong is not he s-word adjective I would have chosen.

Despite your willingness to see it, no one is suggesting you are in position to oppress anyone else. The question was whether you, as a person, can respect the opinion and decision of others on this issue.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Strong is not he s-word adjective I would have chosen.

Despite your willingness to see it, no one is suggesting you are in position to oppress anyone else. The question was whether you, as a person, can respect the opinion and decision of others on this issue.

Just because I am critical of the libertarian turned fascist argument of Tick, and Archaea's loose and incorrect use or language doesn't mean that I can't theoretically respect the views of a reasoned, thought-out, heartful, compassionate decision that opposes mine.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Just because I am critical of the libertarian turned fascist argument of Tick, and Archaea's loose and incorrect use or language doesn't mean that I can't theoretically respect the views of a reasoned, thought-out, heartful, compassionate decision that opposes mine.

Sure, it's possible. Do you?

[The_Tick]

How am I a facist? Because I don't agree with you?

[Tex]

Heh. John D. Lee, Nazi concentration camps, and fascism.

Part of me wonders why some of you continue to engage Waters.