Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[Libs]

Find me a case where free exercise of religion has withstood an attack by an individual on liberty clause or other grounds and I would accept your conclusory statement as an argument. As it stands, however, you have said nothing more than "'cause I think so." Help me out here.

More to the point, same sex marriage has been legal in several states for quite some time. Give me even one example, where a private church was required to marry a same sex couple.

My goodness, I know of a recent case where a Southern church declined to marry an interracial couple. There was an outpouring of disgust, but it was perfectly "legal". So, I'm not saying the church will be protected from criticism, but they will be protected by the First Amendment, which means they cannot be required to perform wedding ceremonies that go against the church's religious beliefs.

[CASteinman]

Perhaps you should sit down and talk with him about his imagination rather than diagnosing an ill concluded delusion.

I prefer to mention the fact that his views are unsupported to people who quote him.

Can I get a textual criticism professional in here? Have you read any of Raymond Brown, Bruce Metzger, or Bart Ehrman's work?

Which of them have said that the ancient texts support him?

YOU cited non LDS writings to support your position as an LDS person.

That is false.

The issue is what you propose.

Actually no. The issue is that you quoted John Boswell -- a fellow who presents conclusions without support.

Perhaps you would also be so kind as to provide a SOURCE for the professors unsupportable ramblings that are NOT simply your opinion.

You already did that. Do you want me to quote your quote?

[CASteinman]

Then perhaps someone can bring forth a non-scriptural and unbiased work concerning a history of homosexuality. This could be a much more authoritative work.

Unbiased? Really?

[Libs]

IOW: Complete deflection and unworthy of mein lieber Valentin.

Not anymore so than using the "slippery slope" deflection.

[CASteinman]

More to the point, same sex marriage has been legal in several states for quite some time. Give me even one example, where a private church was required to marry a same sex couple.

There was a church that was forced to close its facilities or allow gay marriages to take place on them.

I'm not saying the church will be protected from criticism, but they will be protected by the First Amendment, which means they cannot be required to perform wedding ceremonies that go against the church's religious beliefs.

So you believe -- as long as there is nothing you actually value at stake. But history does not show that this is as sure as you assert. What was once considered unthinkable is now commonplace. Who can say how this will change the views of the 1st Amendment in the eyes of the majority of the Supreme Court?

[CASteinman]

Not anymore so than using the "slippery slope" deflection.

Slippery Slope is not a deflection. I note that when you have been challenged on such things before, you do not end up supporting your views.

[USU78]

More to the point, same sex marriage has been legal in several states for quite some time. Give me even one example, where a private church was required to marry a same sex couple.

My goodness, I know of a recent case where a Southern church declined to marry an interracial couple. There was an outpouring of disgust, but it was perfectly "legal". So, I'm not saying the church will be protected from criticism, but they will be protected by the First Amendment, which means they cannot be required to perform wedding ceremonies that go against the church's religious beliefs.

Let me reiterate: The "liberty interests" of a Deseret Gym employee were determined to outweigh the "free exercise" interests of the LDS Church in a famous case from the '80s. Courts consistently strike down "free exercise" rights on various pretexts when an individual's "liberty interests," in that case, the right to work for the LDS Church without having a temple recommend, are put into close contact with it.

That's the reality. You cannot say that, when the inevitable Joe & Steve are turned down for a temple wedding recommend, otherwise worthy according to Church rules, that the Courts will not trample on Mormon "free exercise" rights and compel us to marry them in our temples. You can't do it.

And it's disingenuous of you to try, given the case law.

And try they surely shall.

[CASteinman]

So . . . Boswell, for political purposes, it seems, is willing to tell the "Big Lie" in support thereof.

It is probably not unreasonable to note that Boswell had a horse in the race. He was not unbiased in the least.

[Libs]

There was a church that was forced to close its facilities or allow gay marriages to take place on them.

Yes, it was a public facility (being offered to the public for lease). It was, basically, a business and it was not inside one of their churches. I recall this case.

So you believe -- as long as there is nothing you actually value at stake. But history does not show that this is as sure as you assert. What was once considered unthinkable is now commonplace. Who can say how this will change the views of the 1st Amendment in the eyes of the majority of the Supreme Court?

You are speculating. It has not happened, and I do not foresee any changes in our Constitution.

[Libs]

Let me reiterate: The "liberty interests" of a Deseret Gym employee were determined to outweigh the "free exercise" interests of the LDS Church in a famous case from the '80s. Courts consistently strike down "free exercise" rights on various pretexts when an individual's "liberty interests," in that case, the right to work for the LDS Church without having a temple recommend, are put into close contact with it.

That's the reality. You cannot say that, when the inevitable Joe & Steve are turned down for a temple wedding recommend, otherwise worthy according to Church rules, that the Courts will not trample on Mormon "free exercise" rights and compel us to marry them in our temples. You can't do it.

And it's disingenuous of you to try, given the case law.

And try they surely shall.

Sorry, I just do not see any evidence of that, in the case of ss marriage, and you have not presented any, because none exists.

[wenglund]

Umm...I've addressed your 'critical thought' ideas and methods before and then you banned me from the thread, I assume, for insulting your defunct 'think tank' that was an epic failure. Beyond this...lets not discuss your definition of 'critical thinking'.

I have never banned anyone from a thread, nor would I, nor could I.

And, regardless how you may characterize the web page I created in a single evening back at the turn of the century (in part as a spoof on the term "gay") and intentionally did little or nothing beyond that, and regardless of how well you may imagine you addressed my critical thinking in that other thread, were you actually familiar with the conventions of critical thought you would have realized that what was said there has no real bearing on what I rationally said in this thread in regards to your say-so. Instead, you would have realized that my rationale should be judged on its own merit.

In short, if you presume to dismiss people's critical thinking skills (illegitimately as the case may be), it would be wise not to do so ignorantly and uncritically--particularly topped off with a false accusation followed by a self-serving speculation regarding something you wildly misunderstood. Such blatant irony tends be quite self-discrediting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

Slippery Slope is not a deflection. I note that when you have been challenged on such things before, you do not end up supporting your views.

I did play along for a bit, but "slippery slope" is definitely an attempt at deflection from the main topic, IMO.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Libs

[CASteinman]

Yes, it was a public facility (being offered to the public for lease). It was, basically, a business and it was not inside one of their churches. I recall this case.

See how easy it was for you to justify the infringing of religious rights? It was just that easy. In fact, that is why I specifically brought up that example because I was pretty sure you would counter with a reason why it was justified.

And in presenting that reason... you thereby make my point.

Under the ruling, it could easily be considered that any religious institution that makes its facilities available to the public -- whether for hire or not -- is subject to public accommodation laws. The key determining factor ended up being whether they had ever actually required people to be religious or methodist at the time that they used the facility for the wedding.

Thus Churches are forced to discriminate, go private and secluded and not seek to serve the public, or they must be forced to accept requirements of public accommodation law.

(P.S. All even modestly significant Churches are "businesses").

You are speculating. It has not happened, and I do not foresee any changes in our Constitution.

Well, if we are talking about the future we are almost certainly both speculating. However in the case of my speculation -- I have historical support. Your speculation on the other hand is in violation of the historical record. It would be very weird if your view came to pass.

[CASteinman]

I did play along for a bit, but "slippery slope" is definitely an attempt at deflection from the main topic, IMO.

In your opinion. Again you do not support that opinion in any way.

[Libs]

In your opinion. Again you do not support that opinion in any way.

I don't believe I need to, as it is all speculation, based on fear (irrational fear, IMO). What if this, what if that...just a lot of "what if's".

Edited August 15, 2012 by Libs

[CASteinman]

I don't believe I need to, as it is all speculation, based on fear. What if this, what if that...just a lot of "what if's".

You will understand then, that your opinion... being unsupported and based upon a false perception, has no reasonable credence.

[TAO]

I don't believe I need to, as it is all speculation, based on fear. What if this, what if that...just a lot of "what if's".

What if an earthquake happens tomorrow?

The answer is: Have food storage.

Just sayin' ;-).

[Libs]

See how easy it was for you to justify the infringing of religious rights? It was just that easy. In fact, that is why I specifically brought up that example because I was pretty sure you would counter with a reason why it was justified.

And in presenting that reason... you thereby make my point.

Under the ruling, it could easily be considered that any religious institution that makes its facilities available to the public -- whether for hire or not -- is subject to public accommodation laws. The key determining factor ended up being whether they had ever actually required people to be religious or methodist at the time that they used the facility for the wedding.

Thus Churches are forced to discriminate, go private and secluded and not seek to serve the public, or they must be forced to accept requirements of public accommodation law.

(P.S. All even modestly significant Churches are "businesses").

Well, if we are talking about the future we are almost certainly both speculating. However in the case of my speculation -- I have historical support. Your speculation on the other hand is in violation of the historical record. It would be very weird if your view came to pass.

I haven't justified infringing upon any religion liberties, CA. If a church wants to open one of their venues, for lease, to the PUBLIC, then like any other business, they must provide services to the public, at large. If they don't want to allow the public to use their facility, then don't advertise it, as open to the public. (That's not only against the law, but it's false advertising)..

Edited August 15, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

You will understand then, that your opinion... being unsupported and based upon a false perception, has no reasonable credence.

What I understand is, that you are presenting speculation with absolutely no supporting evidence. It's also a deflection.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Libs

[TAO]

What I understand is, that you are presenting speculation with absolutely no supporting evidence. It's also a deflection.

He provided evidence, and backing for his opinion. He showed that it would be a logical conclusion from court judgments.

[Libs]

He provided evidence, and backing for his opinion. He showed that it would be a logical conclusion from court judgments.

No, he didn't. What he provided had nothing to do with the courts requiring churches to perform ss marriage. The lawsuit he is talking about has nothing to do with that.

[TAO]

No, he didn't. What he provided had nothing to do with the courts requiring churches to perform ss marriage. The lawsuit he is talking about has nothing to do with that.

He provided evidence that courts favored "liberty interests" over "free exercise interests". Does not requiring churches to perform same sex marriages fit in this category?

[wenglund]

This I agree with. How Wade interpreted your argument is what I don't agree with. You have in no way provided a valid slippery slope argument. But you have provided an appropriate and logic based argument.

Whether TAO intended his argument to be slippery slope or not, it may rightly be construed as such, and his slippery slope argument, just as his distrust argument, would be warranted and strong (not to be confused with "valid," which applies to deductive rather than inductive reasoning.)

All that is required for an argument to qualify as a slippery slope, is to entail a demonstrable slope over time (consisting of two or more data points), with a downward trajectory, and sound reasoning to suggest that the slope will continue along the downward trajectory into the future. The more demonstrable points and evident trajectory, the more warranted and strong the argument. In science this is referred to as predictability.

TAO's argument may reasonably be viewed implicitly as consisting of at least three demonstrable data points over time (1. no state sanctions for gay couples, then 2. gay civil unions, then 3. court striking down state law restricting marriage to a man and a woman) which traditionalists consider to be in a downward trajectory. And, given this trend, a reasonable slippery slope argument could be made in concern that SSM could yet be legalized in California and even, as suggested in the 15 state brief (which contained even more data points), possibly throughout the whole United States, and as such, action may rightly be taken to prevent it from happening.

These are warranted and strong slippery slope arguments whether intended as such or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 16, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

I haven't justified infringing upon any religion liberties, CA. If a church wants to open one of their venues, for lease, to the PUBLIC, then like any other business, they must provide services to the public, at large. If they don't want to allow the public to use their facility, then don't advertise it, as open to the public. (That's not only against the law, but it's false advertising)..

Please Libs all churches are open to the public. Anyone who wants to come in and play nice is welcome. Your definition of just cause for governmental interference puts all churches in the cross hairs.

[DBMormon]

Please make no assumptions of me by my question. The question states neither my position nor how strongly or nuanced my position is.

Question 1.) If we begin with an assumption that The Church is not true and not led by God, and we are simply dealing with human's and their own reasoning for what is right and what isn't within the church's positions - What is the diference then between Homosexual behavior, pedophillia, and beastiality? Why is the first one ok, appropriate, and a human's right to practice while the other two are evil and wicked?

Question 2.) Does not every human being have desires that the natural man is susceptible to? heterosexuality, homosexuality, alcoholism, pornography, gambling, hoarding, OCD, drugs... ect.. (not that every individual has each temptation in this list but that each of us have temptations in difficult areas such as these and others and we each have at least something that is our thorn in the flesh) what makes some of this bad and others acceptable?

Question 3.) is is possible that just because one has a inclination, that alone doesn't make it acceptable or right? if the answer is it does then refer to question 1 & 2.

Curious how we handle these issues if we emotionally detach ourselves from the SSA and how invested we might be and relate it to other inclinations both sexual and non-sexual?

Edited August 16, 2012 by DBMormon