Mormonsandgays

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll apologize for Wade since he is seemingly incapable of such action himself.

For the purpose of illustration, I will misapply the word apologize long enough to apologize for Mark's misapplication of the word apologize. It implies expressing personal accountability. Thus, by definition, one cannot apologize for that for which one is not personally accountable.

[Walden]

At the very least, one hopes that people would exhibit enough intelligence as to realize that, to a point, it isn't problematic, but rather advantageous, to mingle certain religious-based beliefs with state. In fact, it would be good were they intelligent enough to realize that the free exercise clause inadvertently allows, if not necessitates, some mingling between the two.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So whose "religious-based" beliefs would you suggest we mingle with "state" affairs? Should we use LDS, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu "based" beliefs?

And where in the following statement do you argue that it is necessitated that there is a mingling of religion and state....."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".....I interpret that simple statement as meaning that the state will not prohibit you from exercising your religion, nor will the state establish any official religion. What part of that statement are you "intelligent" enough to interpret as meaning that the mingling of religion and state is necessary? What religious laws do you consider as being crucial to the functioning of the state? With regard to gay marriage, how would legalizing SSM prohibit you from exercising your LDS religion? Inquiring minds want to know.

[canard78]

So whose "religious-based" beliefs would you suggest we mingle with "state" affairs? Should we use LDS, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu "based" beliefs?

And where in the following statement do you argue that it is necessitated that there is a mingling of religion and state....."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".....I interpret that simple statement as meaning that the state will not prohibit you from exercising your religion, nor will the state establish any official religion. What part of that statement are you "intelligent" enough to interpret as meaning that the mingling of religion and state is necessary? What religious laws do you consider as being crucial to the functioning of the state? With regard to gay marriage, how would legalizing SSM prohibit you from exercising your LDS religion? Inquiring minds want to know.

+1

The idea that religion (one religion or several) should hold influence over the personal lives of those outside that religion is a notion I feel uncomfortable. I would oppose those outside my religion trying to enact laws that restrict my ability to act freely based on my religious conscience. On that basis, why should I feel I can do the same to them?

Government should enact laws and policies independent of an individual religious belief. They should instead act in the best interests of the majority or in fulfillment of the wishes of the majority. I believe I have no right to tell a non-Mormon gay that they can't be together or marry. On the other hand, I accept and support the Church's right to have practices and teachings based on ours/the prophet's understanding of revelation and the scriptures. I also would want the government to support me in that practice, as long as it's confined to the borders of mormonism and I don't seek to impose it on others who don't want it.

[wenglund]

So whose "religious-based" beliefs would you suggest we mingle with "state" affairs? Should we use LDS, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or Hindu "based" beliefs?

The "state affairs" in the U.S. have already been mingle primarily with Judeo/Christ values, though also with general religious values. This has served the U.S. well, and I am fine with that.

And where in the following statement do you argue that it is necessitated that there is a mingling of religion and state....."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".....I interpret that simple statement as meaning that the state will not prohibit you from exercising your religion, nor will the state establish any official religion. What part of that statement are you "intelligent" enough to interpret as meaning that the mingling of religion and state is necessary?

It is pragmatically implied. At the very least, free exercise of religion entails voting civilly according to one's religious conscious.

What religious laws do you consider as being crucial to the functioning of the state?

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not lie. Render unto Caesar the things of Caesar. Subject unto rulers, etc. More to my point, essential religious beliefs have a way of not only easing enforcement of civil laws (because religious people tend to be law-abiding and self-governed by their more stringent religious laws), but also easing the burden on the state and filling certain gaps left by the state (particularly in terms of charitable service).

With regard to gay marriage, how would legalizing SSM prohibit you from exercising your LDS religion?

I don't know that it would, nor have I suggested that it would. So, I am not sure why you inquired of me? My objections to SSM have primarily been secular rather than religious. My objections are pragmatic: 1) SSM defies the traditional meaning of marriage and the essential reasons that the government got into the marriage business to begin with (i.e. to encourage procreative relationships to become longterm, stable, and formally commitment; and 2) the benefits to the state/society incurred from legalizing SSM are exceeded by the costs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

The "state affairs" in the U.S. have already been mingle primarily with Judeo/Christ values, though also with general religious values. This has served the U.S. well, and I am fine with that.

And if the US majority became dominated by non-Christian values (e.g. Muslim values), would you be comfortable with "state affairs" being mingled with those values? Or, if the majority's interpretation of Judeo-Christian values decided that gay marriage were acceptable for state to endorse (which seems to be the will of the people in many states) would you accept that state decision as long as it didn't impact on your ability to worship as you personally see fit.

[rockpond]

I don't know that it would, nor have I suggested that it would. So, I am not sure why you inquired of me? My objections to SSM have primarily been secular rather than religious. My objections are pragmatic: 1) SSM defies the traditional meaning of marriage and the essential reasons that the government got into the marriage business to begin with (i.e. to encourage procreative relationships to become longterm, stable, and formally commitment; and 2) the benefits to the state/society incurred from legalizing SSM are exceeded by the costs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've tried to stay away from this discussion because it has really departed from the main topic of the thread. But, I want to respond to some of these suppositions that you continue to put forward: The tradition of marriage has not been consistent across cultures and through time. Also, you have failed to provide the references to back up your assertion of the government's entry into the "marriage business". The one court case that you did identify concluded that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".

As for mingling of religion with state, maybe we should begin with the 11th Article of Faith and D&C 134:4. We believe that marriage is part of our worship... an essential ordinance... part of God's plan for us. There are plenty of people out there who believe in a God who sanctions gay marriages. We should be at the forefront of the battle to allow them the right to do that and for it to be recognized by the state in the same way that our marriages are recognized.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.alternet.org/5-people-who-bravely-fought-christian-takeover-america?paging=off

[wenglund]

And if the US majority became dominated by non-Christian values (e.g. Muslim values), would you be comfortable with "state affairs" being mingled with those values?

As long as they comport with the Constitution, then why wouldn't I be comfortable?

Or, if the majority's interpretation of Judeo-Christian values decided that gay marriage were acceptable for state to endorse (which seems to be the will of the people in many states) would you accept that state decision as long as it didn't impact on your ability to worship as you personally see fit.

Certainly. I accept the Constitution-compliant choices of the people even when those choices may be, from my perspective, counter-productive and counter-intuitive.

The idea that religion (one religion or several) should hold influence over the personal lives of those outside that religion is a notion I feel uncomfortable. I would oppose those outside my religion trying to enact laws that restrict my ability to act freely based on my religious conscience. On that basis, why should I feel I can do the same to them?

Is your opposition restricted to just religious beliefs, or does it extend to all personal beliefs (political, economic, social, etc.)? And, if the former, could you please explain why? I am just trying to figure out why you think why free people shouldn't freely vote their religious conscience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Because sad experience has shown that when given authority many will exercise unrighteous dominion over the children of men. On a more personal level whom do I vote for. The man(woman) whom I share a religion or the man(woman) whom best represents my political philosophy?

[wenglund]

I've tried to stay away from this discussion because it has really departed from the main topic of the thread. But, I want to respond to some of these suppositions that you continue to put forward: The tradition of marriage has not been consistent across cultures and through time. Also, you have failed to provide the references to back up your assertion of the government's entry into the "marriage business". The one court case that you did identify concluded that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".

The case I referenced (which included additional supportive citations) clearly backs up my claim--that is, as long as one correctly understands, in essential terms, the definition of "marriage" used in that case and those cases it is built on (hint: the definition is entirely unrelated to same-sex couples).

However, since you seem to be struggling with this tangential point, let me provide some additional clarification from the court record:

In Baker v. Nelson, the court said: "Minn.St. c. 517, which governs "marriage," employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex./1/ It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" (the latter words inserted by L.1969, C. 1145, § 3, subd.3)...

"...These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation."

If you need more, I can supply more.

As for mingling of religion with state, maybe we should begin with the 11th Article of Faith and D&C 134:4. We believe that marriage is part of our worship... an essential ordinance... part of God's plan for us. There are plenty of people out there who believe in a God who sanctions gay marriages. We should be at the forefront of the battle to allow them the right to do that and for it to be recognized by the state in the same way that our marriages are recognized.

I have seen some tortured rendering of the scriptures in my day, but this takes the cake. You have effectively twisted the scriptures to mean that, in the spirit of granting the right to differing beliefs, we should advocate for things we view as perverted and profaning the sacred. How banal is that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Because sad experience has shown that when given authority many will exercise unrighteous dominion over the children of men. On a more personal level whom do I vote for. The man(woman) whom I share a religion or the man(woman) whom best represents my political philosophy?

False dichotomy--at least for me and I suspect most of us. I don't know about you, but my political philosophy is shaped to a large extent, and in essential ways, by my religious beliefs and values, particularly the moral aspects of my political philosophy. Essentially, and generally speaking, I don't operate on one set of values and morals in my religious life and discretely operate on an entirely different set of values and morals in my secular/political life. So, on a personal level I vote for the person who, on balance, best shares my values as a whole.

For example, my religious values cause me to respect the sanctity of marriage, which means I take significant violations of marital vows seriously and view them as grievous breech of trust. For me, this religious belief impacts my political philosophy such that I am disinclined to vote for an adulterer thinking that if the adulterer can't be trusted in his most basic and important private relationships, then I don't know that I can trust him in his public affairs.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

The case I referenced (which included additional supportive citations) clearly backs up my claim--that is, as long as one correctly understands, in essential terms, the definition of "marriage" used in that case and those cases it is built on (hint: the definition is entirely unrelated to same-sex couples).

However, since you seem to be struggling with this tangential point, let me provide some additional clarification from the court record:

In Baker v. Nelson, the court said: "Minn.St. c. 517, which governs "marriage," employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex./1/ It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" (the latter words inserted by L.1969, C. 1145, § 3, subd.3)...

"...These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation."

If you need more, I can supply more.

I have seen some tortured rendering of the scriptures in my day, but this takes the cake. You have effectively twisted the scriptures to mean that, in the spirit of granting the right to differing beliefs, we should advocate for things we view as perverted and profaning the sacred. How banal is that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That establishes the SCOTUS opinion that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. And I don't argue that SCOTUS has held that opinion (and that it will likely be overturned soon). It still doesn't speak to why the government began licensing marriages. That issue was addressed by Walden (page 33 of this thread). Further, the U.S. and state governments make no requirement of procreation (nor even the ability/intent) for the issuance of a marriage license.

And, yeah, I understand that very few in the church hold my same opinion on A of F 11 or D&C 134. But, when I read those words and then I hear Elder Cook say: “Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach", to me it necessitates equality under the law. And I'll continue to work towards that.

[wenglund]

That establishes the SCOTUS opinion that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. And I don't argue that SCOTUS has held that opinion (and that it will likely be overturned soon). It still doesn't speak to why the government began licensing marriages. That issue was addressed by Walden (page 33 of this thread).

Do I really have to connect the seemingly obvious dots for you? If so, then let's look at the court's reasoning in Hernandez v Robles:

"We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement—in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits—to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

"The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally [*4]offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

"There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule—some children who never know their fathers, or their{**7 NY3d at 360} mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes—but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."

If you need more, I can provide more.

Further, the U.S. and state governments make no requirement of procreation (nor even the ability/intent) for the issuance of a marriage license.

So? Please don't invert the issue. Governments got in the business of marriage to stabilize procreative relationships, not to require procreation. Do you not understand the important difference?

And, yeah, I understand that very few in the church hold my same opinion on A of F 11 or D&C 134. But, when I read those words and then I hear Elder Cook say: “Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach", to me it necessitates equality under the law. And I'll continue to work towards that.

If you think that love and compassion and outreach entails promoting perversion, then you have a very warped (inverted) understanding of those godly qualities--though you aren't alone. Increasingly, we are living in an upside-down world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Do I really have to connect the seemingly obvious dots for you? If so, then let's look at the court's reasoning in Hernandez v Robles:

"We conclude, however, that there are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the Legislature has enacted. Others have been advanced, but we will discuss only these two, both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children.

"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement—in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits—to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.

"The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally [*4]offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

"There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule—some children who never know their fathers, or their{**7 NY3d at 360} mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes—but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."

If you need more, I can provide more.

So? Please don't invert the issue. Governments got in the business of marriage to stabilize procreative relationships, not to require procreation. Do you not understand the important difference?

If you think that love and compassion and outreach entails promoting perversion, then you have a very warped (inverted) understanding of those godly qualities--though you aren't alone. Increasingly, we are living in an upside-down world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Apparently I need to connect the dots for you. The NY State court's 2011 opinion on how the legislature could rule regarding same sex marriage does not establish why the U.S. began issuing marriage licenses. You still have not shown that government's original impetus for licensing marriages was "to stabilize procreative relationships".

And while I am clear that you think my beliefs are warped, it saddens me that in your expressions here, I see very little of the attitude being promoted by the Church's new website. But you are entitled to your opinion.

[thesometimesaint]

False dichotomy--at least for me and I suspect most of us. I don't know about you, but my political philosophy is shaped to a large extent, and in essential ways, by my religious beliefs and values, particularly the moral aspects of my political philosophy. Essentially, and generally speaking, I don't operate on one set of values and morals in my religious life and discretely operate on an entirely different set of values and morals in my secular/political life. So, on a personal level I vote for the person who, on balance, best shares my values as a whole.

For example, my religious values cause me to respect the sanctity of marriage, which means I take significant violations of marital vows seriously and view them as grievous breech of trust. For me, this religious belief impacts my political philosophy such that I am disinclined to vote for an adulterer thinking that if the adulterer can't be trusted in his most basic and important private relationships, then I don't know that I can trust him in his public affairs.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It really isn't.

1. Say you have two good LDS running for the same office, but have different political philosophical ideas about government. Which should you vote for?

2. Say you have a good LDS and a good non LDS running for the same office. But you disagree with the LDS ones political philosophy. Which one do you vote vote for?

3. Say you have a good non-LDS and a bad LDS running for the same office. Which one do you vote for?

4. Say you have a bad LDS and a good LDS running for the same office. Which one do you vote for?

[Walden]

So? Please don't invert the issue. Governments got in the business of marriage to stabilize procreative relationships, not to require procreation. Do you not understand the important difference?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You keep bringing up your argument that government got into the marriage business to "stabilize procreative relationships," but I have yet to see you provide any references for this argument. From what I have read, marriages in ancient times (going back to Rome and Greece), was more about social status (such as father's marrying daughters off to increase their social status) and inheritance rights than any government compulsion to stabilize procreative relationships; in Rome, marriages were generally a social contract that did not require the stamp of approval from either state or religion. In fact, once Augustus passed compulsory rules compelling people to get married and penalizing those who remained single, both marriage and birth rates declined (see works by Magnus Hirschfield).

I can go on and on with similar examples, but I would appreciate some references from you regarding your continued but incorrect argument that government got in the marriage business to promote procreative stability.

[wenglund]

Apparently I need to connect the dots for you. The NY State court's 2011 opinion on how the legislature could rule regarding same sex marriage does not establish why the U.S. began issuing marriage licenses. You still have not shown that government's original impetus for licensing marriages was "to stabilize procreative relationships".

Please don't be confused by the court's use of the words "could" and "might." While these word were used, for the court's purposes, to express theoretical possibilities, the implication from the full context is clear that the delineated rationale, or "common sense premise", was behind the enactment of the marital law in question as well as similar laws throughout the nations "long history", otherwise, it would have been struck down for want of rational basis.

And while I am clear that you think my beliefs are warped, it saddens me that in your expressions here, I see very little of the attitude being promoted by the Church's new website. But you are entitled to your opinion.

The points I am addressing here are in large part unrelated to subject matter of the Church's new website, and so the attitude being promoted there isn't relevant to the attitude that is appropriate here. That you think they are and should be the same, is further evidence of your warped perception, though you likewise are entitled to your opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It really isn't.

1. Say you have two good LDS running for the same office, but have different political philosophical ideas about government. Which should you vote for?

2. Say you have a good LDS and a good non LDS running for the same office. But you disagree with the LDS ones political philosophy. Which one do you vote vote for?

3. Say you have a good non-LDS and a bad LDS running for the same office. Which one do you vote for?

4. Say you have a bad LDS and a good LDS running for the same office. Which one do you vote for?

I wasn't speaking in binary terms or specific to religious affiliation, but rather in general and essential terms and in matters of degree. So your questions aren't relevant to my point, and thus your claim of "it really isn't" is incorrect. Please try to think things through a little more carefully.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You keep bringing up your argument that government got into the marriage business to "stabilize procreative relationships," but I have yet to see you provide any references for this argument. From what I have read, marriages in ancient times (going back to Rome and Greece), was more about social status (such as father's marrying daughters off to increase their social status) and inheritance rights than any government compulsion to stabilize procreative relationships; in Rome, marriages were generally a social contract that did not require the stamp of approval from either state or religion. In fact, once Augustus passed compulsory rules compelling people to get married and penalizing those who remained single, both marriage and birth rates declined (see works by Magnus Hirschfield).

I can go on and on with similar examples, but I would appreciate some references from you regarding your continued but incorrect argument that government got in the marriage business to promote procreative stability.

Please see my posts above. See also, Roman Marriage: "The chief purpose of Roman matrimony, as stated in marriage contracts and various laws, was the obvious one of producing and bringing up children."

And, Moral Legislation of Agustus: "Under Augustus, the Leges Juliae of 18–17 BC attempted to elevate both the morals and the numbers of the upper classes in Rome and to increase the population by encouraging marriage and having children (lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus). They also established adultery as a private and public crime (lex Julia de adulteriis). To encourage population expansion, the Leges Juliae offered inducements to marriage and imposed disabilities upon the celibate."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 19, 2012 by wenglund

[Mark Beesley]

I wasn't speaking in binary terms or specific to religious affiliation, but rather in general and essential terms and in matters of degree. So your questions aren't relevant to my point, and thus your claim of "it really isn't" is incorrect. Please try to think things through a little more carefully.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Were you born an Internet Bully or did you choose to become one?

[rockpond]

Please don't be confused by the court's use of the words "could" and "might." While these word were used, for the court's purposes, to express theoretical possibilities, the implication from the full context is clear that the delineated rationale, or "common sense premise", was behind the enactment of the marital law in question as well as similar laws throughout the nations "long history", otherwise, it would have been struck down for want of rational basis.

The points I am addressing here are in large part unrelated to subject matter of the Church's new website, and so the attitude being promoted there isn't relevant to the attitude that is appropriate here. That you think they are and should be the same, is further evidence of your warped perception, though you likewise are entitled to your opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm quite clear on what the words "could" and "might" mean. The court's opinion does not establish historical fact, regardless of how you'd like to perceive it.

[wenglund]

I'm quite clear on what the words "could" and "might" mean. The court's opinion does not establish historical fact, regardless of how you'd like to perceive it.

To the reasonably minded, it is strong supportive evidence for my claim, whether you like it or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Were you born an Internet Bully or did you choose to become one?

Have you always confused matter-of-factness and politeness with bullying, or is your errant and selective judgementalism just a recent comprehension flaw?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Were you born an Internet Bully or did you choose to become one?

The fallacy of the loaded question.

Edited to add:

Or another passive-aggressive insult along the lines of "Let me apologize for wenglund."

Edited December 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Because sad experience has shown that when given authority many will exercise unrighteous dominion over the children of men.

Wouldn't that premise logically lead to seeking less government involvement, not more?