Closing Temples

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Lame

I would give you negative feedback for this unprovoked attack on my wife's honor...but truth be told, I have given everybody negative feedback and now I only get a cryptic pop-up that says that I must spread more feedback around before I can give it again.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I would give you negative feedback for this unprovoked attack on my wife's honor...but truth be told, I have given everybody negative feedback and now I only get a cryptic pop-up that says that I must spread more feedback around before I can give it again.

you parade your wife around here

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

The Boy Scout analogy isnt relevant, which you seem to acknowledge, so not sure why it is even there.

Will some groups try to file a lawsuit? I agree, some may try. Again, how will it even get past summary judgment? What is the legal basis? There is none.

Back to your cocoon of fear, my friend. Probably more comfy in there, anyway.

So, when the Boy Scouts of Canada were forced by the courts to permit a gay man to organize a troop that is not relevant? You mean when the man cited discrimination and used the legalization of Gay marriage to bolster his case that is not relevant?

And the fact that once Boys Scouts of Canada removed all prohibitions the Gay man NEVER formed a troop because his ONLY purpose for suing was to to advance the gay agenda -- that's fear mongering?

How about the fact that the church in Canada nearly eliminated Scouting completely due to the ruling -- that's not relevant?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

you parade your wife around here

Amazing that I have the time, given that I am so busy parading my kids around here, too.

If, by "parade," you mean post a link to a hot video of my wife trotting around the office in a miniskirt, then I think you are wrong. I have never done that.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by tooblue

So, when the Boy Scouts of Canada were forced by the courts to permit a gay man to organize a troop that is not relevant? You mean when the man cited discrimination and used the legalization of Gay marriage to bolster his case that is not relevant?

And the fact that once Boys Scouts of Canada removed all prohibitions the Gay man NEVER formed a troop because his ONLY purpose for suing was to to advance the gay agenda that's fear mongering?

How about the fact that the church in Canada nearly eliminated Scouting completely due to the ruling -- that's not relevant?

tooblue, stick to drawing bananas. No, it is not relevant.

The Boy Scouts are not protected under the First Amednment like religions are protected.

The Church dropped the boy scouts (an unrelated entity) because it didnt want to have gay scoutmasters, not because there was a risk of the Church being forced to perform gay marriages as part of its religious practice. The Church cannot control how the BSA is operated, so it chose to disassociate.

[smokymountainrain]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

My wife and I had that conversation last night. She has come to the conclusion that the Yes on Prop 8 campaign is mostly half-truths and scaremongering,

I found this funny. I'm not in CA, but I guess I have to assume the No on Prop 8 campaign is 100% truthful and scaremongering is simply not a part of their tactics.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I would give you negative feedback for this unprovoked attack on my wife's honor...but truth be told, I have given everybody negative feedback and now I only get a cryptic pop-up that says that I must spread more feedback around before I can give it again.

What do you mean by negative feedback? Is that a board functionality thing?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

tooblue, stick to drawing bananas. No, it is not relevant.

The Boy Scouts are not protected under the First Amednment like religions are protected.

The Church dropped the boy scouts (an unrelated entity) because it didnt want to have gay scoutmasters, not because there was a risk of the Church being forced to perform gay marriages as part of its religious practice. The Church cannot control how the BSA is operated, so it chose to disassociate.

Precedence has no relevance ... nope, none at all ... lawyers and courts don't rely on precedence, nope not a... maybe you should start drawing bananas.

[smokymountainrain]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

If, by "parade," you mean post a link to a hot video of my wife trotting around the office in a miniskirt, then I think you are wrong. I have never done that.

What the hell are you waiting for?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by smokymountainrain

I found this funny. I'm not in CA, but I guess I have to assume the No on Prop 8 campaign is 100% truthful and scaremongering is simply not a part of their tactics.

Maybe you can point to the cataclysm predicted by No on Prop 8 if the measure passes.

I can cite loads of things the Yes on Prop 8 group has predicted.....a few months ago, there was a pamphlet talking about an attack on democracy itself if Prop 8 were to fail. Our kids, the Church's tax exempt status, this very thread is wondering if temples would close. That is fearmongering.

As far as I know, the No camp has complained of unfair treatment under the law and discrimination.

I am open to be educated. Has the No camp predicted horrible things to come in the future if Prop 8 passes?