Homosexual marriage...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Alkili

Are you arguing for anarchy? Just because there is a law against it doesn't mean that you are taking away someones freedom of choice.

Um, yes. I am arguing for anarchy. That makes perfect sense given what I have said here.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Um, yes. I am arguing for anarchy. That makes perfect sense given what I have said here.

You may think you're more clever than everybody else, but, do you really fail to see the distinction? It is so wide when I explained the discussion to my eight year old, he understood the difference.

God allows us to do something, but we aren't rewarded when we make bad choices.

Under Satan's plan, we had no bad choices and no penalties.

Men can still screw other men. We aren't going to be prosecuting them, but we aren't giving fudgeapackers the exalted status of married spouses, with tax benefits and legitimacy for an illegitimate act. It's not forcing, but in allowing people to sin, we don't have to let them feel good about it.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Phew! The last time I heard from you my argument was baseless and I was advocating the degradation of society! I have moved up substantially to be only "reaching a little bit!" I eagerly await your next post as a barometer of my position!

I guess sarcasm doesn’t work very well over the internet.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Um, yes. I am arguing for anarchy. That makes perfect sense given what I have said here.

Then you have your answer then don't you. Making a law doesn't disrupt your agency in any way.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You may think you're more clever than everybody else, but, do you really fail to see the distinction? It is so wide when I explained the discussion to my eight year old, he understood the difference.

God allows us to do something, but we aren't rewarded when we make bad choices.

Under Satan's plan, we had no bad choices and no penalties.

Men can still screw other men. We aren't going to be prosecuting them, but we aren't giving fudgeapackers the exalted status of married spouses, with tax benefits and legitimacy for an illegitimate act. It's not forcing, but in allowing people to sin, we don't have to let them feel good about it.

Demonstrating once again that you are capable of clear, cogent debate and that you hold no biases.

Just how did that conversation with your 8 year old go?

Archaea: Timmy, there are fudgepackers out there that are evil and should be destroyed. They want to get married, but if we allowed that, God would hate us. God hates those fudgepackers. A crazy person on the internet thinks the church shouldn't try to ban marriage among those evil people. Who do you think is right?

Timmy: I'm scared.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Alkili

Then you have your answer then don't you. Making a law doesn't disrupt your agency in any way.

If you view things in an absolutist sense, then no, making a law doesn't impact your agency. If you view things practically, then of course laws impact your agency. You are "free" to choose to drive 90 mph down the freeway, yet you don't. Why? You realize that it is illegal and the price of making that choice is too tough to bear.

In this case, the agency is even more diminished than in the speeding example. What is marriage? Recognition of a union by the state. If the state refuses to recognize that union, are you free to choose to be married? Not very possible.

Of course, all of this gets back to whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and not to whether or not the church should attempt to sponsor legislation banning homosexual marriage. Two different arguments, though I assume you already know that.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Demonstrating once again that you are capable of clear, cogent debate and that you hold no biases.

Just how did that conversation with your 8 year old go?

Archaea: Timmy, there are fudgepackers out there that are evil and should be destroyed. They want to get married, but if we allowed that, God would hate us. God hates those fudgepackers. A crazy person on the internet thinks the church shouldn't try to ban marriage among those evil people. Who do you think is right?

Timmy: I'm scared.

No. It went like this.

What did God want? He wanted for us to be able to choose.

What did Satan want? He didn't want people to have choices.

What if I punish you for making a choice, is that the same as God or Satan? God, cuz he knew things happen based on our choices.

So if laws sometimes punish choices, is that like God or Satan? God.

Should we have laws that punish people for bad choices? Yes.

By creating the "choice" of gay marriage or fighting against it, you seem to have a veryexpansive view of free agency. That's akin to saying, dear God, I want to be able to choose to become like you, but by the way, you have to give me your power to be immortal NOW, or else you're denying me the right to choose.

We have to earn rights; gays have no right qua rights to marry, nor should they have that right.

If they want contractual rights, they are free to choose these.

While you cast another canned aspersion, please explain why you fail to see the distinction others plainly see.

[Alkili]

Agency is all about your personal choice, not about forcing other people to recognize and say that you have made a ligitimate choice.

Go ahead and let gay people get married just don't try and make me believe that it is viable choice.

[outlier]

Wait, wasn't the original premise of this thread something about the church should be more tolerant of minority cultures in order to avoid the hipocrisy of expecting our own minority culture to be tolerated by others? That sure makes a lot of sense to me. The church in Utah is like the conservatives running Israel: we got our place in the world and now we're going to do to them like they did to us.

Yes, that's obviously hyperbole since the church hasn't instituted an assassination-by-helicopter policy. Yet. But it seems wrong to me to complain about people who "say bad things" about the church when church members are so often so ready to "say bad things" about people whose beliefs and morals are different from our own. I'm not sure gay marriage needs to be the point where the church decisively turns the other cheek, but still: it'd be nice to see a strong, meaningful gesture that manages to sway the hearts of the rank-and-file so that they're more Christ-like in their attitudes toward the sinful masses.

Beyond that, to me, the only marriage that matters is that which is recognized by God. Ain't nothing those lefty socialist hippie bastards are going to be able to do about that. As such, I don't care much about/for the debate. (Which, I know, is kind of contradicted by the existence of this post.)

L8,

o

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by outlier

Wait, wasn't the original premise of this thread something about the church should be more tolerant of minority cultures in order to avoid the hipocrisy of expecting our own minority culture to be tolerated by others? That sure makes a lot of sense to me. The church in Utah is like the conservatives running Israel: we got our place in the world and now we're going to do to them like they did to us.

Yes, that's obviously hyperbole since the church hasn't instituted an assassination-by-helicopter policy. Yet. But it seems wrong to me to complain about people who "say bad things" about the church when church members are so often so ready to "say bad things" about people whose beliefs and morals are different from our own. I'm not sure gay marriage needs to be the point where the church decisively turns the other cheek, but still: it'd be nice to see a strong, meaningful gesture that manages to sway the hearts of the rank-and-file so that they're more Christ-like in their attitudes toward the sinful masses.

Beyond that, to me, the only marriage that matters is that which is recognized by God. Ain't nothing those lefty socialist hippie bastards are going to be able to do about that. As such, I don't care much about/for the debate. (Which, I know, is kind of contradicted by the existence of this post.)

L8,

o

Well put. I understand the contradiction within your post because I feel similarly. I don't agree with homosexual marriage, but I would like to see the church back off a bit for the sake of tolerance.