Brethren gathering BYU force to help with Prop 8 ...

[_rcrocket]

You have mentioned your 'lawyerness' and legal experience innumerable times on this bb.

Never to claim any expertise on this board (at least what I can recall). Just to explain who I am when people challenge me by the claim that I could be anybody.

I will gladly accept your fingerpointing and accusations of shame. I consider it an honor today.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The interesting thing about your argument, however, is that you combine not only the insult of being a homophobe with other personal insults -- my ability to practice law, for instance. ("And you call yourself a lawyer.") Name-calling and personal insults? Why is that necessary?

Because we are discussing a legal issue (i.e., amending the state constitution to discriminate against a particular part of society).

True. Just like "NO good argument" ever supported the priesthood ban, interracial marriage, etc. Some things are just wrong, and no excuse will change it.

How are these related to the Prop 8 argument?

Because treating homosexuals differently than heterosexuals is just like treating blacks differently than whites.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I will gladly accept your fingerpointing and accusations of shame. I consider it an honor today.

Then get ready for more 'medals.'

[_asbestosman]

Because treating homosexuals differently than heterosexuals is just like treating blacks differently than whites.

As I understand thing, laws forbidding interracial marriage didn't treat blacks any differently than whites--anyone, regardless or race, could only marry someone of the same race.

[_asbestosman]

I will gladly accept your fingerpointing and accusations of shame. I consider it an honor today.

I'm half-considering changing my title to "bigot."

[_Jason Bourne]

I disagree. . Let's call a spade a spade, Jason.

Fine

You are acting like an idiot about this.

But I still love ya man!!

[_Dr. Shades]

We believe that the Marriage Cases in California put government imprimatur upon a significantly aberrant behavior.

Do you also believe that the (plural) Marriage Cases in 1860s Utah put government imprimatur upon a significantly aberrant behavior?

Christian organizations have a duty and a responsibility to speak up and be heard on moral issues, even in the political arena.

Sure, BUT THAT'S NOT ALL YOU'RE DOING. You're not stopping at speaking up and being heard; you're also attempting to legislate your opinion onto others.

By forcing others to act the way (you think) they should act, you're following the plan presented by Satan in the pre-existence.

There is much scriptural support. The "wall" of separation referred to by Jefferson goes only one way, and does not bar religions from political expression. Merely because they engage in political expression does not mean they advocate a theocracy.

What if a Jewish person became president and made a "political expression" via Executive Order that all Americans must now keep kosher and that no ham, pork, or bacon could be consumed by anyone, or else they be imprisoned? Would you still feel the same way about religious expression?

[_asbestosman]

What if a Jewish person became president and made a "political expression" via Executive Order that all Americans must now keep kosher and that no ham, pork, or bacon could be consumed by anyone, or else they be imprisoned? Would you still feel the same way about religious expression?

I wouldn't mind if all he did was let us eat it without government subsidies and made us call it something other than breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

By the way, which gays are being imprisoned for getting married?

[_Ray A]

In this never-ending debate, someone on MAD posted this link:

First Graders Taken To San Francisco City Hall For Gay Wedding (Complete with picture of the ideal noo-clear family.)

SAN FRANCISCO, October 11 – In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.

Honestly, the mentality reminds me of this:



Fortunately Cal linked to a more accurate report from the San Francisco Chronicle, which qualified:

As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.

Brave John Larsen, an exmo Pundit on MAD, wrote:

However, gay marriages are a part of our society now, and it doesn't look like that genie is going back into the bottle anytime soon. I don't see what is gained by shielding children from the idea that homosexual adults get married. What are you going to do when your children come home and say that little Johnnie has two daddies. Are you going to deny the reality of the situation?

But I can't leave this post without a little humour from Morning Star:

What about when people started shacking-up? Should they have made a field trip out of that too?

[_Gazelam]

Ray,

Please tell me you aren't associating racial issues with the desires of a perverse group of sexual deviants.

Gaz