Agree or disagree?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You have the opportunity to answer a simple question and you continue to dodge it. Since when have you been afraid of how your argument would be treated by the other side in a debate?

I've also given you an opportunity to answer a question that you've dodged as well.

It's really simple. Who's right on the issue of gay marriage. You or Jesus Christ?

Also spare me the long winded typical B.S. political diatribe non-answer answer.

Answer the question.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I've also given you an opportunity to answer a question that you've dodged as well.

It's really simple. Who's right on the issue of gay marriage. You or Jesus Christ?

Also spare me the long winded typical B.S. political diatribe non-answer answer.

Answer the question.

I think there's a bit of a disconnect in your continuing to press this question.

First of all, your question is purely rhetorical and leading, in that the way you have phrased it suggests the only correct answer. It's the way you would talk to a child. Of course you're not going to get reasoned answers to your question. You've made it clear that you don't wish to debate the issue, because you already know your position is right. And hoya's is wrong. I don't understand why you keep injecting yourself into the discussion.

The short answer is obvious: Jesus Christ is correct.

Now, what's the question? That's what isn't clear to me. what is clear is that the issue of homosexual marriage is such a hot button issue that civil discussion without name-calling and (unspoken but still evident) calls to repentance is virtually impossible, even here.

I don't think everyone involved in this thread even knows what the question is. Some are answering as if hoya thinks there is nothing immoral about homosexual activity. I think it's pretty clear what the church's stance is on the issue.

I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke pot, I don't steal from people, I don't engage in homosexual sex. If you're talking about whether individuals here are willing to accept the church's stance on these issues, and not engage in them personally, I don't know what all the fuss is about. That question is clear - the position of the church (and of Jesus Christ) is that we shouldn't engage in activities that are immoral.

I think the real issue here is what about homosexual marriage.

Again, I don't plan to marry another man, and I don't think hoya plans to, either. I think we all accept that homosexual marriage is against the policies of the church.

I think the very first post was regarding a view of homosexual marriage and its political ramifications. That is what I think hoya was responding to.

It very quickly became an orgy of righteous indignation and moralistic pedagogy.

Solely from a political perspective, I think it was nothing but an election-year grandstanding attempt to help a reeling Republican party galvanize its Christian conservative base.

Knowing that, it's a little embarrassing to me to see the church get caught up in something that even the proponents didn't really think would pass. It's like the church joined in the Republican tactics. However, before you condemn me to hell, I really don't have a problem with the church pointing out the issue to the members.

What I got from hoya's arguments is that maybe homosexual marriage isn't going to be such a destroyer of the family, and that maybe the issue's being blown out of proportion by the proponents of the amendment. Again, I'm not saying whether this position is right or not, but I certainly don't see a problem with debating it.

I think people are overlooking an important point here - the fact that the effort was made to draft the amendment suggests that the divinely-inspired constitution doesn't prohibit the states from allowing homosexual marriage. Try to wrap your brains around that one.

There's a blurry line here between allowing free agency and legislating morality. Our free society allows immoral conduct, with some limitations. Some here err on the side of prohibiting the immoral conduct. Others err on the side of allowing free choice.

I think the discussion is a valid one. I have read through the thread a few times, and I think hoya is being unfairly excoriated. I don't see the arrogance he's being accused of, but I do see it coming from the other side of the table.

I'm ambivalent on the subject - I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, so I think I'm not caught up in the emotion of the argument. At the risk of focusing the anti-hoya ire on me, I think the personal attacks against him are getting out of hand, and they seem to me to be out of step with what he's posting. For whatever my opinion is worth.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Please go on. Explain how altering purchases will release me from culpability for Bush's decisions in Iraq.

I also find it interesting that you would consider any small protests here done anonymously to be the full extent of one's actions in opposing Bush and his agenda. What is the basis for that thought?

Now that's a dodge if I've ever seen one ... I now have explain or justify my recommendations so that you may contend with them in part and not in whole; because the whole idea is far too difficult and vast to tear down. Rationalization cannot help you in this instance ... specific details of hows, whys, causes and effects are not precisely laid out rendering your minutia manipulation skills irrelevant.

Change your very lifestyle and affect cultural change upon your family and each successive generation that you will be responsible for bringing into the world. Influence your neighbors and friends to make similar changes for the good of your community …

Please contend with the greater idea ... it is self-explanatory for a person of your education and intelligence (I'm being serious here, I consider you very intelligent). Resist the urge to compartmentalize, to marginalize and attack the position with guerilla tactics –tackle the whole idea head-on.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Solely from a political perspective, I think it was nothing but an election-year grandstanding attempt to help a reeling Republican party galvanize its Christian conservative base.

I disagree with you in one respect. The Republican Party may have it as an agenda item and they may not have. Unless you're part of their inner councils, you don't know any more than I, but you're excluding the possibility that the Church leadership saw it as an opportunity for something symbolic and good, in spite of the motivations of others.

And just imagine if Reid had bucked the trend, would the odds of it passing have increased? Of course, so in my mind, you're much too dismissive of what Church leadership thinks.

I'm as cynical as the next guy, and although leadership makes mistakes, I generally believe they do so with pure intent. Sometimes, they don't have accurate information, or skills, but they have a pure intent. Or sometimes their biases may blind them.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Knowing that, it's a little embarrassing to me to see the church get caught up in something that even the proponents didn't really think would pass. It's like the church joined in the Republican tactics. However, before you condemn me to hell, I really don't have a problem with the church pointing out the issue to the members.

You don't "know" what it's purpose was, you suspect it.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

What I got from hoya's arguments is that maybe homosexual marriage isn't going to be such a destroyer of the family, and that maybe the issue's being blown out of proportion by the proponents of the amendment. Again, I'm not saying whether this position is right or not, but I certainly don't see a problem with debating it.

This next point doesn't bother me.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think people are overlooking an important point here - the fact that the effort was made to draft the amendment suggests that the divinely-inspired constitution doesn't prohibit the states from allowing homosexual marriage. Try to wrap your brains around that one.

It all depends on how you view the "inspiration" of the Founding Fathers. They were very bright, unlikely since the dawn of time, motivated for the good of their fellow men. Just because they were "inspired" to put their best efforts forward and given inspiration as to certain aspects, doesn't mean it was perfect. Or, alternatively, the inspiration was sufficient that if the judges correctly interpreted the document, there would be no need for change. Alternatively, no inspiration is set for time and all eternity. All circumstances are bound to change.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think the discussion is a valid one. I have read through the thread a few times, and I think hoya is being unfairly excoriated. I don't see the arrogance he's being accused of, but I do see it coming from the other side of the table.

My belief is the evidence that he sneers at any who disagree. He assumes his arguments are the only ones, and rather than deal with disagreeable, he ends, "hilarious, you make me laugh", even though he is but a young lad with no diversity of experience and the collective experience of people older is of no moment. That is an example of arrogance.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I'm ambivalent on the subject - I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, so I think I'm not caught up in the emotion of the argument. At the risk of focusing the anti-hoya ire on me, I think the personal attacks against him are getting out of hand, and they seem to me to be out of step with what he's posting. For whatever my opinion is worth.

And I believe you are sincere, so your sincerity is appreciated.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

My belief is the evidence that he sneers at any who disagree. He assumes his arguments are the only ones, and rather than deal with disagreeable, he ends, "hilarious, you make me laugh", even though he is but a young lad with no diversity of experience and the collective experience of people older is of no moment. That is an example of arrogance.

Archaea, I don't recall all of the examples of when he finally said, "Hilarious, you make me laugh," but I do remember a lot of invective coming from your part. When faced with the kind of rhetoric you were using, one can either choose to be deeply offended and try to take an eye for an eye, or one can choose to laugh it off

For example, out of the blue, he talked about "God given rights," a notion that is generally synonymous with "Natural rights," and which has been commonly discussed in politics for several hundred years now, and you started talking about blasphemy. Does a person choose to take offense at something like that or does one choose to laugh at the absurdity?

Now don't take offense. I believe in absurdity, and I will be the first in line to make an absurd observation from time to time in order to validate my essentially existential view of things, but between taking offense at the absurd and trying to see humor in it, one of those choices is usually considered the more mature option (psst... humor is the mature path!).

So, unless you are still reading Derrida, or are riffing on the nature of the absurd, I think you should give the man a break.

Cheers,

R.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Now that's a dodge if I've ever seen one ... I now have explain or justify my recommendations so that you may contend with them in part and not in whole; because the whole idea is far too difficult and vast to tear down. Rationalization cannot help you in this instance ... specific details of hows, whys, causes and effects are not precisely laid out rendering your minutia manipulation skills irrelevant.

Change your very lifestyle and affect cultural change upon your family and each successive generation that you will be responsible for bringing into the world. Influence your neighbors and friends to make similar changes for the good of your community …

Please contend with the greater idea ... it is self-explanatory for a person of your education and intelligence (I'm being serious here, I consider you very intelligent). Resist the urge to compartmentalize, to marginalize and attack the position with guerilla tactics –tackle the whole idea head-on.

TooBlue,

In the other thread you were talking about our collective guilt, and I tried to clarify what you meant by that. Care to explain a bit more? Or point me to a thread where you explained what you really mean by this? (I have been gone for a few days and am trying to catch up a bit).

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think there's a bit of a disconnect in your continuing to press this question.

First of all, your question is purely rhetorical and leading, in that the way you have phrased it suggests the only correct answer. It's the way you would talk to a child. Of course you're not going to get reasoned answers to your question. You've made it clear that you don't wish to debate the issue, because you already know your position is right. And hoya's is wrong. I don't understand why you keep injecting yourself into the discussion.

The short answer is obvious: Jesus Christ is correct.

Now, what's the question? That's what isn't clear to me. what is clear is that the issue of homosexual marriage is such a hot button issue that civil discussion without name-calling and (unspoken but still evident) calls to repentance is virtually impossible, even here.

I don't think everyone involved in this thread even knows what the question is. Some are answering as if hoya thinks there is nothing immoral about homosexual activity. I think it's pretty clear what the church's stance is on the issue.

I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke pot, I don't steal from people, I don't engage in homosexual sex. If you're talking about whether individuals here are willing to accept the church's stance on these issues, and not engage in them personally, I don't know what all the fuss is about. That question is clear - the position of the church (and of Jesus Christ) is that we shouldn't engage in activities that are immoral.

I think the real issue here is what about homosexual marriage.

Again, I don't plan to marry another man, and I don't think hoya plans to, either. I think we all accept that homosexual marriage is against the policies of the church.

I think the very first post was regarding a view of homosexual marriage and its political ramifications. That is what I think hoya was responding to.

It very quickly became an orgy of righteous indignation and moralistic pedagogy.

Solely from a political perspective, I think it was nothing but an election-year grandstanding attempt to help a reeling Republican party galvanize its Christian conservative base.

Knowing that, it's a little embarrassing to me to see the church get caught up in something that even the proponents didn't really think would pass. It's like the church joined in the Republican tactics. However, before you condemn me to hell, I really don't have a problem with the church pointing out the issue to the members.

What I got from hoya's arguments is that maybe homosexual marriage isn't going to be such a destroyer of the family, and that maybe the issue's being blown out of proportion by the proponents of the amendment. Again, I'm not saying whether this position is right or not, but I certainly don't see a problem with debating it.

I think people are overlooking an important point here - the fact that the effort was made to draft the amendment suggests that the divinely-inspired constitution doesn't prohibit the states from allowing homosexual marriage. Try to wrap your brains around that one.

There's a blurry line here between allowing free agency and legislating morality. Our free society allows immoral conduct, with some limitations. Some here err on the side of prohibiting the immoral conduct. Others err on the side of allowing free choice.

I think the discussion is a valid one. I have read through the thread a few times, and I think hoya is being unfairly excoriated. I don't see the arrogance he's being accused of, but I do see it coming from the other side of the table.

I'm ambivalent on the subject - I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, so I think I'm not caught up in the emotion of the argument. At the risk of focusing the anti-hoya ire on me, I think the personal attacks against him are getting out of hand, and they seem to me to be out of step with what he's posting. For whatever my opinion is worth.

There's not a disconnect. It's a simple question that he's dodged repeatedly.

Some choose to usurp the words of a Prophet received directly from Jesus Christ. He has done that on MANY occasions. Of course that's his right, but it doesn't make him right.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I've also given you an opportunity to answer a question that you've dodged as well.

It's really simple. Who's right on the issue of gay marriage. You or Jesus Christ?

Also spare me the long winded typical B.S. political diatribe non-answer answer.

Answer the question.

I haven't bothered to answer the question because it is a bogus question to begin with, set up with a false dichotomy.

Your post assumes Christ has spoken on the issue of whether gay marriage should be legislatively banned. I find it clear that Christ would disapprove of homosexual conduct, but that has little to do with whether he would require a legislative ban on gay marriage.

You may say the brethren have spoken on the issue, and their word is the same as Christs. If that is the case here, and their words were intended to be construed as coming from Christ himself, then why would they post on LDS.org that failing to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would result in no ecclesiastical punishments? If Christ himself directed that we should support the amendment, then shouldn't we be punished for disagreeing and fighting the amendment? Could it be that the church's position was a mere policy decision rather than a doctrinal position? We have gone over this ad naseum in other threads already. You can see my arguments there for additional reasons why viewing this as a doctrinal issue is absurd.

The actual choice appears to be at what point we legislate morality. You draw your line differently than I do. As a result of that choice, you somehow infer that I am a bad person with bad moral standards.

As I stated before, the Constitution, which we believe to be divinely inspired, requires the separation of church and state. It seems to me, therefore, that any legislation based solely on moral belief, as opposed to scientific, demonstrable understanding of the effects of an activity, cannot be justified in our government.

Nobody has been able to explain yet why homosexual marriage is so detrimental to the family when homosexuality occurs regardless of whether or not a person is married. Indeed, the marriage itself may have several societal benefits, such as promoting commitment to a single partner.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Now that's a dodge if I've ever seen one ... I now have explain or justify my recommendations so that you may contend with them in part and not in whole; because the whole idea is far too difficult and vast to tear down. Rationalization cannot help you in this instance ... specific details of hows, whys, causes and effects are not precisely laid out rendering your minutia manipulation skills irrelevant.

Change your very lifestyle and affect cultural change upon your family and each successive generation that you will be responsible for bringing into the world. Influence your neighbors and friends to make similar changes for the good of your community …

Please contend with the greater idea ... it is self-explanatory for a person of your education and intelligence (I'm being serious here, I consider you very intelligent). Resist the urge to compartmentalize, to marginalize and attack the position with guerilla tactics –tackle the whole idea head-on.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You are being so incredibly vague in what you think people should be doing to avoid being culpable for the decisions of Bush (which I find to be an absurd premise to begin with) that I can't even begin to form an adequate response. Present your idea as a whole, and then perhaps you will see responses that you view as being more fulfilling.

It seems to me that your original premise is akin to saying we are responsible for Adam's transgressions rather than our own.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I haven't bothered to answer the question because it is a bogus question to begin with, set up with a false dichotomy.

Your post assumes Christ has spoken on the issue of whether gay marriage should be legislatively banned. I find it clear that Christ would disapprove of homosexual conduct, but that has little to do with whether he would require a legislative ban on gay marriage.

You may say the brethren have spoken on the issue, and their word is the same as Christs. If that is the case here, and their words were intended to be construed as coming from Christ himself, then why would they post on LDS.org that failing to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would result in no ecclesiastical punishments? If Christ himself directed that we should support the amendment, then shouldn't we be punished for disagreeing and fighting the amendment? Could it be that the church's position was a mere policy decision rather than a doctrinal position? We have gone over this ad naseum in other threads already. You can see my arguments there for additional reasons why viewing this as a doctrinal issue is absurd.

The actual choice appears to be at what point we legislate morality. You draw your line differently than I do. As a result of that choice, you somehow infer that I am a bad person with bad moral standards.

As I stated before, the Constitution, which we believe to be divinely inspired, requires the separation of church and state. It seems to me, therefore, that any legislation based solely on moral belief, as opposed to scientific, demonstrable understanding of the effects of an activity, cannot be justified in our government.

Nobody has been able to explain yet why homosexual marriage is so detrimental to the family when homosexuality occurs regardless of whether or not a person is married. Indeed, the marriage itself may have several societal benefits, such as promoting commitment to a single partner.

I am talking about what is right spiritually and morally. You are so obsessed with this being a political issue that you're too damn chicken to answer the question.

Yes, Christ THROUGH his prophet has in fact condemned Gay marriage. That is a FACTUAL statement no matter how much you want to dodge the question. So I'll ask again, since you have no backbone to actually answer the question....who's right....you or Jesus Christ?

Either you believe he's communicated to the Prophet that Gay Marriage is wrong or you don't. Obviously you don't. So you can continue your deceptive spins on the issue, but more so the question. Get some guts. Oh and by the way..it has been explained on a number of occasions why Homosexual marriage is a dangerous affront to the family, but even more so in an eternal perspective than anything,,,but again you're too full of pride and vitriol towards our Prophet's condemnation of the practice that has come directly from Jesus Christ to admit that you've simply got a weakness in your testimony when it comes to this fact.