CA Supreme Court agrees to review Prop. 8 ....

[_Some Schmo]

What rational (non-bigoted) reason is there to support Prop 8?

Obama, Biden and the Clintons are on record as being against gay marriage. Obama was very clear at his Rick Warren interview. Obama and Biden reluctantly said they would have voted against Prop 8, but that doesn't change the fact that they are against gay marriage.

Also, I have cited the conclusions of the Witherspoon report previously, which sums up a lot of sociological thinking on a natural law basis.

So you're number one rational, non-bigoted reason to vote for prop 8 is that it looks good politically?

Interesting.

I haven't seen anything with regard to the Witherspoon report you site, so I won't comment on it. I can say, however, that bigotry is one of many features of sociological thinking. "Is" does not equal "ought to."

[_Jason Bourne]

And by the way, not all who voted for Prop 8 were bigoted. The LDS Church's official position on it web page was not bigoted. To continue to blanketly call such people and positions bigots and bigoted is in and of itself bigotry.

I asked you this before and you seemed to ignore the question. It appears you don't have an answer, but I'll give you a chance to come up with something now:

What rational (non-bigoted) reason is there to support Prop 8?

Give it your best shot.

Personally while I am not all that enthused about Gay marriage I really am not a strong opponent either. But I think civil unions would be better and would like to see marriage kept to what it seems to be traditionally, at least for the history of western civilization, as between a man and a women.

As for non bigoted reasons to support it? I think this item (and others) from the LDS Church web site all give fair and rational non-bigoted reasons for supporting it even if one disagrees.

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... f-marriage

Feel free to tell me why you think these are bigoted reasons.

[_Jason Bourne]

The Church can claim whatever it wants, but I believe its "official position" is blatant bigotry.

I disagree. Please point out specific parts that are bigotry.

[_Some Schmo]

As for non bigoted reasons to support it? I think this item (and others) from the LDS Church web site all give fair and rational non-bigoted reasons for supporting it even if one disagrees.

http://newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... f-marriage

Feel free to tell me why you think these are bigoted reasons.

The basic premise for the whole thing can be distilled to these two paragraphs, with the most important idea bolded below:

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

So basically, what the church is saying is that anyone who has intimate gay relations is immoral. If that's not institutionalized bigotry, I don't know what is.

The same way you complain that believing all religious people are dumbasses for believing religious ideas is bigoted, claiming all gay relations as immoral is also bigoted. Both claims are equally fair. It's simple:

belief that (religious belief==stupidity) == bigotry
then
belief that (gay sex==immoral) == bigotry

[_Ray A]

Meanwhile, FAIR has published its defense of the Prop 8 situation.

Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The Church can claim whatever it wants, but I believe its "official position" is blatant bigotry.

I disagree. Please point out specific parts that are bigotry.

The 5th paragraph: "The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony." (emphasis added). This religious dogma forms the basis for the Church's heavy involvement to remove a fundamental civil right under the CA state constitution from a targeted segment of society (i.e., homosexuals). in my opinion, religious objections to civil gay marriage, a state sanctioned and state regulated institution, have no place in constitutional principles and application. This is bigotry at its worst.

[_Jason Bourne]

So basically, what the church is saying is that anyone who has intimate gay relations is immoral. If that's not institutionalized bigotry, I don't know what is.

Is calling someone's acts immoral bigotry? I think not. The Church would call fornicating teens or married persons committing adultery immoral but they are not bigoted about this. I do not see how this is bigotry at all.

The same way you complain that believing all religious people are dumbasses for believing religious ideas is bigoted, claiming all gay relations as immoral is also bigoted. Both claims are equally fair. It's simple:

I really don't think that is bigoted I just was busting on you for you thinking all religious people are dumb asses.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So basically, what the church is saying is that anyone who has intimate gay relations is immoral. If that's not institutionalized bigotry, I don't know what is.

Is calling someone's acts immoral bigotry? I think not. The Church would call fornicating teens or married persons committing adultery immoral but they are not bigoted about this. I do not see how this is bigotry at all.

Has the Church ever tried to take away a fundamental constitutional right of a fornicator or adulterer? Enough said.

[_asbestosman]

Has the Church ever tried to take away a fundamental constitutional right of a fornicator or adulterer? Enough said.

Has the church ever had a reasonable chance of getting it passed? Even then it's comparing apples and oranges. The church is happy to let repentant sinners remarry, but for gays to fall into the same category they'd have to get married to the opposite sex after repentance. Fornicators and adulterers have an easier time forsaking their sins and enjoying constitutional rights without repeating their sinful behavior.

[_Some Schmo]

So basically, what the church is saying is that anyone who has intimate gay relations is immoral. If that's not institutionalized bigotry, I don't know what is.

Is calling someone's acts immoral bigotry? I think not. The Church would call fornicating teens or married persons committing adultery immoral but they are not bigoted about this. I do not see how this is bigotry at all.

But they don't actually call the acts immoral, they call the relationships immoral. Big difference there.

And while I agree that adultery is immoral because it's a breach of trust with your partner, teenage fornication (any fornication, for that matter) is not immoral if it doesn't hurt anyone. Lying about it would be. Notice the only thing immoral in both these scenarios (in my view) is that actual harm to someone is the cause of the immorality, not the sex itself.

The same way you complain that believing all religious people are dumbasses for believing religious ideas is bigoted, claiming all gay relations as immoral is also bigoted. Both claims are equally fair. It's simple:

I really don't think that is bigoted I just was busting on you for you thinking all religious people are dumb asses.

Well, the fact is that I don't think all religious people are dumbasses. Religious belief itself is lacking, but everyone has blind spots and compartmentalizes. I often wish that the really smart religious people I know would apply the same critical thought to religion that they seem to apply to everything else.

So, I guess neither of us is allowed to exaggerate.