Politics On Politics.

[Burn-E]

Who's Mormon any way?

Your talking it to seriously. I bet if someone on here was a Scientologist no one would care if I posted a meme about it.

I am.

You clearly didn't pay attention or spend much time in the Political forum during the elections did you? I haven't exactly been quiet about it as everyone else in this thread could attest.

And let me say that if you posted a similar meme about any faith, as evidenced by the responses here I wouldn't have to be the first to call you out on it. But I definitely would.

What's your point? Let's just say that you don't understand what you're mocking nor do you appreciate why at least one of the references in that image is absolutely denigrating to something at the core of Mormon spiritual life. In general we've maintained a very respectful dialogue in this particular forum without needing to take it off the rails by belittling anyone's beliefs including yours. So try thinking a little harder next time.

[Burn-E]

Alden, I already explained that the State has co-opted the term marriage. Your exploration of the laws won't demonstrate anything different. It's not a question what the laws state, it's a question of the religious traditions that preceded those laws. What you're describing is the equivalent of everyone in the world suddenly insisting on calling birthdays bar mitzvahs.

[Fudge_Brownie]

It's not a question what the laws state, it's a question of the religious traditions that preceded those laws.

But it is a question of what the laws state. The debate we are having here is political. Because the laws are discriminating with their co-opted word. Which is now their word on the paper, not the religion's. The religious organizations can still continue not recognizing and not performing ceremonies for same-sex couples right?

[Burn-E]

But it is a question of what the laws state. The debate we are having here is political. Because the laws are discriminating with their co-opted word. Which is now their word on the paper, not the religion's. The religious organizations can still continue not recognizing and not performing ceremonies for same-sex couples right?

Alden,

I'm glad you asked that question and put Illinois into the context because there is likely an issue you do not recognize - currently under debate in Illinois - that puts in jeopardy the 1st Amendment rights of any religion that disagrees with the concept of marriage for same-sex couples.

The Illinois Same Sex Marriage bill that is currently under consideration has language that simply states no change to existing laws concerning religious protections. The battle however is over what was not put in place in the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act that was passed three years ago when civil unions were legalized. That act merely states "Any religious body, Indian Nation or Tribe or Native Group is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union." It offers no protection to them whether or not they may choose to solemnize or officiate a religious union. It also forces them to make additional changes to how they operate. That guarantee is critical to the protection of religious freedom and the request for changes to the language are being given the cold shoulder by supporters of same sex marriage in the Illinois House and Senate.

In New York when the Same Sex Marriage law was passed, specific language was included that provided full exemptions to religious institutions. That guarantee is precisely why that law eventually passed. Those who are national advocates for same sex marriage saw the New York compromise as a necessary step to get the law passed in one of the earliest States but make no mistake, now that the ball is rolling in their favor, they believe that there will be an opportunity to go back and rectify that compromise. Which is why they are not making similar compromises in Illinois.

And if you believe it's impossible for this country to decide to so blatantly deny the religious freedoms of individuals and institutions consider that this country did exactly that when they ruled that Mormon practice of polygamy was illegal when the Edmunds Act was passed in 1882.

Funny thing is, once same sex marriage becomes the norm, polygamy advocates will have justification to come out and challenge that law and suddenly the barn door is wide open for anyone to marry anyone and anything.

[ErikS]

I'm glad you asked that question and put Illinois into the context because there is likely an issue you do not recognize - currently under debate in Illinois - that puts in jeopardy the 1st Amendment rights of any religion that disagrees with the concept of marriage for same-sex couples.

I keep coming back to this, its been ignored. You don't need religion to be married. Period. Hypocrisy lies in the fact that religious groups cry foul when same sex couples can be married like them, but non-religious different sex couples can. Don't you get it? You have no right to dictate a persons right to be married, why they chose to marry, or whom they chose to marry. It is imposing your own dogma on others.

[caanglin]

Hypocrisy lies in the fact that religious groups cry foul when same sex couples can be married like them, but non-religious different sex couples can.

That goes back to what I was saying. People hide behind their religion to disguise their own hate and distaste. .

In best redneck voice: I'd rather them be atheist than be gay.

I am.

You clearly didn't pay attention or spend much time in the Political forum during the elections did you? I haven't exactly been quiet about it as everyone else in this thread could attest.

And let me say that if you posted a similar meme about any faith, as evidenced by the responses here I wouldn't have to be the first to call you out on it. But I definitely would.

What's your point? Let's just say that you don't understand what you're mocking nor do you appreciate why at least one of the references in that image is absolutely denigrating to something at the core of Mormon spiritual life. In general we've maintained a very respectful dialogue in this particular forum without needing to take it off the rails by belittling anyone's beliefs including yours. So try thinking a little harder next time.

Maybe I should get a rolodex of everyone's religion/cult, race, geographic location, sexual orientation and or communist affiliation. Don't want anyone getting their feelings hurt again.

You dislike the meme I post but, people talking about burning Jehovah's literature in "What do you look like" is ok?

"At least one reference", which one was it?

Very little "dialog", just people doing a bunch of Ctrl+C Ctrl+V about what others have said.

If it is just about using a word calling it marriage, what does it matter? It's almost like religious members think it would undermine their institution. It's as if they disapprove of what gay people are doing. Their is nothing sacred about marriage, just let them use the word. Hell nearly 50% end in divorce.

By labeling gay marriage a "union", you undermine it as being some how less significant than a "marriage" of straight people.

Edited April 14, 2013 by fivex84

[Burn-E]

Here's the reality, ultimately every Blue State will legalize same sex marriage at some point in the future. It's only a matter of time. And marriage is already so co-opted as a word that it has already lost its meaning. My intent was merely to explain to you the rationale behind why those who oppose gay marriage find it unacceptable as a change in the definition of the word. And the push will continue until same sex marriage is passed as a federal right - though my guess is the Supreme Court is a long way from ruling in that favor over States rights.

So hurray, you guys win in the end right?

But here is why those who dispute same sex marriage, especially the Christians among that group, act as if doing this will undermine their institution.

Because that is quite literally what many of the most vocal advocates for same sex marriage are calling for. They will not be happy until Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Mormons, and other faiths are forced to change their beliefs and readily accept and solemnize same sex marriage or else become pariahs of society. There is no compromise in their attitude. And if you read carefully through what I wrote above in my previous post you would realize that those of religious faith have very real reasons for that fear.

It's been a delightfully peaceful sabbath day and I've spent some time in quiet contemplation on your questions Chris and Erik, especially because I've had the opportunity as one of the leaders in our congregation to sit and counsel with a couple of our congregants who approached me with questions about same sex marriage. But I'm only going to respond this one last time because I do not believe either of you is making an honest inquiry on this issue.

I'll start with this statement: in public discourse there are two lies that seem to drive many attitudes of those who advocate for same sex marriage.

1. If you love me, then you'll agree with whatever I say and do.

2. If you disagree with me and will not support my cause then clearly your heart must be filled with hatred.

In other words, if you believe that same sex marriage is not acceptable but instead is contrary to the traditional American society whose culture was informed in part (and no small part at that) by a judeo christian ethic, then clearly you must hate homosexuals.*(see footnote below)

And that is what you declare when you claim that those who stand contrary to same sex marriage are bigots. Bigotry implies hatred.

As a Christian I hold no ill will toward homosexuals nor do I want them deprived of the benefits to which they should have access. I don't hate anyone. There are those fringe faiths like the Westboro Baptist Church who clearly do hate but the majority of Christians are far to the left of that attitude.

What I do hold, is a firm belief in my right to believe that God lives, that we are all His children, and that He has provided rules and guidelines for how to lead our lives in order to find peace in this life and the life that follows. I believe that our lives have purpose and part of that purpose is show love and acceptance for everyone we encounter in this life whatever our differences might be. It is therefore possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

A Christian believes that God gave certain commandments including the commandment to abstain from acting on same sex attraction. Now you can claim that such belief is outdated and deranged and that is your right, but you have no right to infringe on our ability to teach this. And those who do believe in God's teachings find it offensive that you demand we change our minds. If God gave certain commandments and He continues to speak to us today through a Prophet (if you're Mormon) or through the Pope (if you're Catholic) and to our own minds and hearts through the Holy Spirit then asking us to change our minds on this matter means denying God.

So the call is for a detente. Ultimately gay marriage will be passed into law in most States and perhaps some day it will be passed into law across the whole Republic. But those with religious beliefs should not be denied their rights to celebrate marriage according to their beliefs nor should they be denied the right to teach their children according the Gospel they follow. And we will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.

*Although when one of my children presents me with the argument that I must hate them because I don't want to allow them to go do something that is not age appropriate or dangerous for them to do, people say that is all part of what it is to be a parent while also recognizing the young child is demonstrating immaturity.

[flyfishing3]

i've avoided this for the most part and haven't read all because its probably pretty apparent where i fall.

but you all you guys have used the same belittling terms.

GAY marriage

SAME SEX marriage.

HOMO marriage.

SAME SEX union

etc

A, you can dig your heals in on MARRIAGE, but all the rest will have an adjective anyway. so MARRIAGE, in its pure form will probably remain.

[Burn-E]

A, you can dig your heals in on MARRIAGE, but all the rest will have an adjective anyway. so MARRIAGE, in its pure form will probably remain.

Here's the reality, ultimately every Blue State will legalize same sex marriage at some point in the future. It's only a matter of time. And marriage is already so co-opted as a word that it has already lost its meaning. My intent was merely to explain to you the rationale behind why those who oppose gay marriage find it unacceptable as a change in the definition of the word. And the push will continue until same sex marriage is passed as a federal right - though my guess is the Supreme Court is a long way from ruling in that favor over States rights.

Reading PWNS you Mike. I'm not arguing it because I think it will change anything. I'm merely explaining it.

And I'm done explaining it because ultimately I find more enjoyment talking to a wall than this group on this particular issue.

[Burn-E]

Why Canada Can Avoid Banking Crises And The US Can't

Interesting. So the patronage system of a populist democracy is theoretically the whole reason we see banking crises in the US on a regular periodic basis. Whereas Canada, Australia and New Zealand avoid this due to their liberal democracies which have highly-centralized federal governments that control economic policy making and with built-in buffers for banker interests against populist forces. Hong Kong, Malta and Singapore avoid crises due to the homogeneity of their population within a small island land mass that restricts their population growth.

In other words, the structure of our democracy dooms us to failure in any real sense of reform because the factions with vested interests will consistently break down the doors and loot the wealth to their own advantages.

So Mike, all those smart economists with all their brilliant ideas fail before they even start because the system itself is corrupt.

[flyfishing3]

before i have to start defending all kinds of new made up stuff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The National Security Agency and the FBI don't bear all the responsibility for the revelation that Verizon is turning phone records over to the government. That responsibility lies with the members of Congress who voted for the PATRIOT Act, as well as extensions of it and the provisions related to collecting those records. Over 100 people currently serving in the House and Senate voted for the original Act in 2001. Last year, over 300 voted to extend a key provision

[Burn-E]

No, but it sure demonstrates that the Obama administration hasn't exactly taken a U-turn from those policies have they?

Especially since the sitting President has to sign a bill in order for it to become law. Oh, and the administration has to make those requests. Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean they have to use it or defend it. (DOMA anyone?)

[flyfishing3]

oh i'm not saying that. i just trying to cut off the EVERYTHING IS BO fault comments.

next Graham is going to want an investigation if BO smoked lights or regular Cigs and why.

[Fudge_Brownie]

Mike, you're right that congress is part of the problem. And both parties involved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/obama-administration-nsa-verizon-records

But the President is defending it.

As if it wasn't bad enough, I'm frustrated that they're pointing out that the contents weren't recorded. As far as I can tell, they simply chose not to but still have the legal authority to. And from an IT perspective, I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason they haven't done it is a technical limitation (or cost of the technology).

[flyfishing3]

LOL @MR latest comments.

He needs to concentrate on his 12,00sqft house in Le Jolla, that is pissing off all the neighbors, instead of revisiting Hurricane Sandy.