beastie wrote:If you continue to simply trust your physician as well as the prophet, one day you're going to get into trouble.
Perhaps so, but then again physicians are known to make mistakes wheras God won't allow the prophet to lead us astray and God Himself doesn't make any mistakes ever.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Perhaps so, but then again physicians are known to make mistakes wheras God won't allow the prophet to lead us astray and God Himself doesn't make any mistakes ever.
You'd have to have a very careful definition of "lead us astray" to defend that. Does Adam God ring a bell? Does all BY's rantings about race ring a bell?
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.
The legitimization of a physically and mentally dangerous lifestyle choice. The creation of public bad examples of male and female role-models for children.
I'm not quibbling. If there were a different word that differentiated being led by a religious leader/church and being led by God I'd grab it gladly. Until then the distinction is important.
I'm talking about you quibbling over the theocracy in the Old Testament.
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.
scipio337 wrote:Potential gov't intervention into religious matters.
How so?
You look at the case of Catholic Charities in Boston and S.F., who got out of adoptions in general because they faced potential repurcussions.
Potential slippery slope, its conceivable, if gltb obtains federal protected status, that faiths don't perform said "marriages", they could face losing 503(c) status.
Its all very odd to me, because in the CA case, there was a pretty progressive "Domestic Partnership" law already on the books when In RE: Marriage was going through the lower courts.
Can anyone explain what rights were denied under CA domestic partnership laws, or what additional rights have now been granted since CA has recognized SSM?
Anyone.....Bueller?
Look, as much fun as it is playing "pile on Teh Nehor", there are arguments against SSM outside of religious dogma.
scipio337 wrote:Look, as much fun as it is playing "pile on the Nehor", there are arguments against SSM outside of religious dogma.
If the CA domestic partnerships you've referenced provided all the same rights and benefits that marriage does, then that would have been enough for me. The use of the word 'marriage' seems like a minor quibble.
If the CA domestic partnerships you've referenced provided all the same rights and benefits that marriage does, then that would have been enough for me. The use of the word 'marriage' seems like a minor quibble.
I think the crucial difference is what dude mentioned before - society pulls for marriages to succeed, and offer a great deal of support to try to ensure that. I doubt that the same could be said for civil unions.
However, I think civil unions are a fine first step in societies where gay marriage is greatly feared, and maybe once society embraces civil unions and sees it used by nongays as well, maybe "marriage" will no longer even be necessary for that benefit.
If I recall correctly, in some societies that started with civil unions, they ended up being more popular than the old marriage, but it's been a while since I read that so may be wrong. (and am too lazy at the moment to verify it)
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.
scipio337 wrote:Look, as much fun as it is playing "pile on the Nehor", there are arguments against SSM outside of religious dogma.
If the CA domestic partnerships you've referenced provided all the same rights and benefits that marriage does, then that would have been enough for me. The use of the word 'marriage' seems like a minor quibble.
"Separate-but-equal" is seen as a fallacy by many civil rights advocates. Remember the separate public schools for black children? Equality could not be ensured or maintained. If I recall correctly the California Supreme Court used this kind of reasoning to call the domestic partnership laws unconstitutional.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
beastie wrote:Of course, at the end of the day, after all the internet apologia has gone to bed, we know you're supposed to follow the prophet, even if you don't know why.
Do we deny that? I thought that whole thing about Adam sacrificing without knowing why in the PoGP supported that. All I object to is the notion that such is blind obedience. It is faith obedience. The difference is that I have reason to trust them just as I have reason to trust my physician even when I don't always understand.
What reason should you have to trust them relative to someone else, other than that's what you've been told you should do?
What have they done to earn your trust so completely? Why them and not someone else (such as your own good sense)?
Finally, I think that any good physician would encourage you to get a second opinion. Do the brethren? (The 'whispering' of some invisible disembodied spirit does not count as a second opinion.)
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."