The Divine Institution of Marriage

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Nonetheless, it probably wasnt a great idea to use that word, even in jest.

Good advice.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I want to see a rebuttal of my long post from Pelagius. If he so desires.

I read the whole thing. It makes me want to go put my head in the sand somewhere. I dearly wish we would get out of this thing or at least not engage in sophistry in its support. I think I am going to pray that some hearts get softened. Either mine or the engineers of all this. I am very thankful that I am not confronted with the specter of personal involvement.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Ah, thanks for using the Indy/Tex device of calling a well-written thoughtful post a troll.

No, you're the one trying to sweeten your bait by specifically calling out your intended target, the legendary big fish, Pelagius.

I can't speak to how well written your post was, because I didn't read it (just too long and I assume I've heard it all before). But I take your word for it.

Brevity Mike, brevity.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

No, you're the one trying to sweeten your bait by specifically calling out your intended target, the legendary big fish, Pelagius.

I can't speak to how well written your post was, because I didn't read it (just too long and I assume I've heard it all before). But I take your word for it.

Brevity Mike, brevity.

Don't blame me for not being brief. Blame the writer(s) of that editorial. It had so many inane statements, that a proper response required addressing a lot more than I wanted to.

The reason I want to hear from Pelagius, is because 1) he is thoughtful, and 2) he is more religiously "conservative" than me. If anyone could come up with a thoughtful defense of that editorial, and a rebuttal to my points, it would be Pelagius.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

No, you're the one trying to sweeten your bait by specifically calling out your intended target, the legendary big fish, Pelagius.

I can't speak to how well written your post was, because I didn't read it (just too long and I assume I've heard it all before). But I take your word for it.

Brevity Mike, brevity.

That's a shame. It's a fascinating topic to me. I appreciate the detail.

[Jim Swarthout]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

How so? I wasn't around back then, but I thought The Church's primary argument on polygamy was religous freedom. Those supporting gay marriage appeal to civil liberties.

Don't you agree that religious freedom is a subset of civil liberties?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The thing that they don't say is that the church supported Proposition 2 in Utah that prohibited the recognition of "any legal status identical or similar to marriage." In other words, there is a strong argument there that the church is also opposed to civil unions. They would have gay couples hire a lawyer and pay thousands of dollars to achieve some of the rights that would be accorded in a civil union. Someone is welcome to provide an alternative viewpoint that the church supports or is willing to tolerate civil unions, but I don't believe it can be made. So the above paragraph in my opinion, is disingenuous.

Yes, it is disingenuous. Back in 2004 when an anti-gay marriage proposition was on the Utah ballot, the church issued a short statement expressing support. There was some discussion that it was leaving the door open for civil unions. A few weeks later they clarified it and added a statement that went something like this "...or any other legal arrangement approximating marriage", thus slamming the door on civil unions as well.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

"As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility. "

Isn't this section from the statement basically saying that individual Church members have a right to abstain from campaigning for Proposition 8 and they shouldn't be hassled by other members for this? That's how I read it.

Yes, and insinuations to the contrary are out of line (however well intentioned).

I'm not seeing much respect, understanding, honesty, or civility from those who would literally try to browbeat me into agreeing with them. UD and a few other CGers seem to be dealing with those who disagree in this fashion, but the rest of us have work to do.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I read the whole thing. It makes me want to go put my head in the sand somewhere. I dearly wish we would get out of this thing or at least not engage in sophistry in its support. I think I am going to pray that some hearts get softened. Either mine or the engineers of all this. I am very thankful that I am not confronted with the specter of personal involvement.

I'm with you on this, UD.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

Don't you agree that religious freedom is a subset of civil liberties?

I suppose, but the Saints appealed to the First Amendment while those espousing gay marriage appeal to gains made under the Civil Rights Movement and beyond. I suspect the arguments in support of each position are vastly different.