I'm torn. History is against them with their sexist and anti-gay policies and attitudes, and I'm glad they are shooting themselves in the foot. Self destruct! Break rather than bend!
On the other hand, for the sake of those trapped in the Matrix, I'd like them to change.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2013 12:28PM by mysid.
Bait and switch. TSCC has been trying to gain fundies by the stances on gays, etc. Pulling in a few, perhaps. Switching on anything is typical of TSCC. The GAs can surely see which way the wind if blowing. But the utter bankruptcy of the doctrines from JS to the present and the utter unmitigated falsity of its' scriptures is a stench that cannot be changed.
Good point....... I think many many members support prop 8. Hence all the "too much tolerance is bad" talks.... Not bending will probably hurt the church more. Still I also want to see the reactions of those bigots who love to say it will NEVER happen.
I am neutural on 'gay' marriage or relationships. What people do in the privacy of their home is certainly up to them. Howbeit for me to judge what acts they engage in or not. That being said, I will entertain a non-name calling response to the following:
Does recognizing or legalizing 'gay' marriage create a 'slippery slope' to polygamy? Marrying your favorite draft horse? I am serious about the horse issue, I saw it on Jerry Springer Too Hot for T.V.
How about underage marriage? Every state has some sort of law regarding 'legal age' of being married.
I know how some people can be in these forums, they see the world as black and white regarding their 'rights' to be able to be married to the person they love. Once again, I don't have a problem, per se, with anyone's ability to associate with whom they have a common interest; as long as people are not forced to pay for it, do as you see fit.
Maybe, I am asking, where do we draw a line? Or should we as individuals or a society?
If we were to revert to 'common law' what would happen? Other than the government losing a revenue stream.
Would a 'church' or 'group,' if they decided not to perform a 'marriage' be subject to a suit of equity or tort if they 'refuse' to perform the marraige because it does not fall in line with their 'beliefs?"
Personally, I would not belong to such a group and would be content if such a group/church would self destruct.
Um, I will resist name calling (tempting, but no) and get straight to the point.
How about two consenting adults who are willing to make a lifetime commitment and enjoy the 1000+ legal benefits of their civil union?
Is there anything in the traditional wedding vows about mutual support and commitment that emphasizes the genders of the people marrying? "In sickness/health, for richer/poorer" (except what comes after "I now pronounce you"). I mean I don't remember any wedding vows making the Prop H8 defense at SCOTUS argument. You know--no wedding vows say that we have to go make a bunch of babies. Ourselves. From Scratch.
So while I won't call you a name, I will say instead that your "slippery slope" argument is idiotic. It suggests that you either don't know or don't appreciate the full spectrum of an adult, committed relationship.
The horse thing is so overdone. Jerry Springer? That is the source of your argument? Sharpen those critical thinking skills. Everyone knows that aardvarks make better lovers.
karriew, you really cannot see the difference between two consenting adults getting married vs. an animal or child getting married? You may want to turn off Jerry Springer for a while.
1. This country has "re-defined" marriage many times. Remember interracial marriage was once ILLEGAL? This country changed that already. Has the sky fallen? Has this country been destroyed since?
2. So, let's go the conservative way. Let's not "widen" the definition of marriage. Instead, let's "restrict" it...all the way up: should we specify no interracial marriage, no international marriage, no marriage between two people with identical surnames, no marriage between residents of two different states, etc.? Or are we going to hypocritically say "I want to restrict the definition of marriage, but let's do it ONLY in the way I see it, or I feel comfortable with, or fits what my religion says."
I want the church to change. It's ruining innocent people's lives (even people who aren't mormons!). If it progresses, yes, it might make the church look better, and take longer to fade. So what? At least it'll ruin less people's lives, which is more important I think.
I'm not THAT bothered by the existance of a religion. There are many that do no harm at all. If the church can adapt to be that type of religion, I wouldn't mind at all. Unfortunately with mormonism, there will have to be a LOT of things changed to accomplish that. But any positive change, I'll welcome. I'm still technically a member of the church, most of my relatives are TBM too, so from my perspective, I hold the opinion that it's best for the church to progress and become more accepting of people.
Even if the church stayed the same, it wouldn't disappear in our lifetime anyway.
As a bit of schadenfreud I actually want the church to be more backwards, extreme, and wierd by mainstream standards, so more people can see how full of crap it is. More sexism, more homophobia, more pharasiacal rules and obsessions with rules. That way, most people would see it's clearly a cult, instead of pretending it's a religion. And it would be condemned unanimously by much of society, kind of like how the FLDS or Westboro Baptist Church are...so extreme that people obviously know they're a cult.