rcrocket wrote:Do you really think the Church's stance against homosexuality is one based purely on bigotry?
Yes.
Can the same be said about its stance against adulterers, fornicators, child molesters, wife beaters, and coffee drinkers?
I'm not even going to answer your question, since it's utterly absurd in such a context to mention fornication and drinking coffee, for God's sake, in the same sentence as child molestation and wife beating. If you don't agree then it's my opinion you could really use a priorities and values readjustment.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:As to whether it's reasonable for you to believe in fairy tails, and for you to choose to associate with others who share at least some non-trivial subset of those same beliefs, the answer is yes. You're an American. You're free to believe whatever goddamn nonsense and bullcrap you want.
I think it's allowed for the Mormon Church to refuse to admit practicing gays, married or not. I don't think it's reasonable. What's reasonable and what's allowed under the Constitution aren't necessarily going to be judged to be the same. Since the Quorum of the Twelve Imposters and the Profit haven't called me up to ask my opinion on the subject, I'd say that what I think is reasonable or not for them to do is completely irrelevent as far as the church and its dupes/believers are concerned.
OK. Now that you have acknowledged the difference between "right" and "what's right" (well done!) let me ask you this question.
Do you think it right (and you should assume you have the "right" to do it) to stand in front of a synagogue on the Jewish sabbath with poster boards poking fun at Jewish ritual and call it "goddamn nonsense and bullcrap?"
rcrocket wrote:Do you really think the Church's stance against homosexuality is one based purely on bigotry?
Yes.
Can the same be said about its stance against adulterers, fornicators, child molesters, wife beaters, and coffee drinkers?
I'm not even going to answer your question, since it's utterly absurd in such a context to mention fornication and drinking coffee, for God's sake, in the same sentence as child molestation and wife beating. If you don't agree then it's my opinion you could really use a priorities and values readjustment.
I know. When my questions start to paint people into a corner (witness the Dude) I don't get answers.
That's ok; it is a mild victory nonetheless to those who understand rhetorical debate.
Do you think the church's stance against adulterers (they can't have fellowship) is wrong?
Quit dodging my point.
Everything else you cited was a behavior that was an outright violation of the church's moral codes, with one exception- homosexuality. That is a sexual orientation. Are you admitting that the church actually views same sex attraction itself - without acting upon it in any way - in the same way that it views adulterers and child molesters?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
rcrocket wrote:Do you think it right (and you should assume you have the "right" to do it) to stand in front of a synagogue on the Jewish sabbath with poster boards poking fun at Jewish ritual and call it "goddamn nonsense and bullcrap?"
I think Jewish ritual is nonsense and bullcrap, but it probably wouldn't be very kind to go proclaim that with posters in front of the synagogue on the Jewish sabbath. Just as you almost surely think to yourself that Jehovah's Witness doctrine is nonsense and bullcrap, but you probably don't think it would be a good idea to go to the local Kingdom Hall with posters and say as much, and for all I know you were pleasant with them the last time they knocked on your door.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
rcrocket wrote:I know. When my questions start to paint people into a corner (witness the Dude) I don't get answers.
That's ok; it is a mild victory nonetheless to those who understand rhetorical debate.
ROFL. You go on thinking that, if it helps you sleep at night.
By the way, let me turn the question back to you: what makes you think that drinking coffee and child molestation belong in the same rhetorical category in such a discussion?
If you ask absurd questions like the one you asked above, don't expect people to indulge you with an answer. Try asking questions which aren't patently stupid instead.
Oh, and one more thing. Thama already answered your question. He said:
While I'd personally be in support of that sort of move, it's not going to happen, and if it did then there would be an awful lot of redneck splinter groups which would form at the drop of that hat.
What part of "I'd personally be in support of that sort of move" did you not understand?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
rcrocket wrote:No reason to get your dander up. Gad (as in a tribe of Israel as opposed to a euphemism), you have a thinner skin that I thought.
You think I have a thin skin and you think you are painting me into a corner. Quite an imagination you have.
So, the Brotherhood of Elk should be criticized for barring members who decline to wear elk antlers in meetings?
My principal issue, as I already mentioned, is the basic claim that homosexuality is a "sin", and this basic claim is what drives the effort to exclude and marginalize a group of people. Your Elk analogy fails to engage my POV because it doesn't contain this element.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
rcrocket wrote:[I am] somebody who is willing to post with his own name. Somebody who is willing to answer questions honestly without fear of where the answer might lead. Somebody who certainly strives for honesty in all cases and will admit dishonesty if ever confronted with any objective proof -- instead of some crazy mindreading business.
You don't use a picture of yourself as an avatar. Why not?
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
[I am] somebody who is willing to post with his own name. Somebody who is willing to answer questions honestly without fear of where the answer might lead. Somebody who certainly strives for honesty in all cases and will admit dishonesty if ever confronted with any objective proof -- instead of some crazy mindreading business.
Oh really? Then prove that I have posted "lots of stuff" about your children, your sexuality, and your wife's. Someone of your integrity surely wouldn't fabricate such a serious charge, nor would you decline to prove that your charge is correct. Thanks in advance.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Sure, Churches should generally allow homosexuals to be members. This is because they lack of a legitimate basis for discriminating against them. To the extent that their theology preaches intolerance towards homosexuals, it should be condemned. Churches should be free to discriminate in this manner, just as they should be free to not allow membership to blacks or mets fans, but others should feel free to point out this is undesirable.