thesometimesaint Posted August 24, 2013 Posted August 24, 2013 Ahab: The difference is that what is against the law and what is against a religious belief.
Palerider Posted August 24, 2013 Posted August 24, 2013 Yes, I doubt it. And I also doubt Fox News told the whole story. I find that response fairly common but a poor defense. "Kill the messenger" or discredit them. I guess we can all hide and watch what happens.........
strappinglad Posted August 24, 2013 Posted August 24, 2013 Fox news and MSNBC, so very different and yet both have the same mission, to clarify for us exactly what is good and evil in the world today !
TAO Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 Yes, I doubt it. And I also doubt Fox News told the whole story. Well, when in doubt, you can always try some other sources. Here are some conservative ones:http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/356560/will-religious-liberty-survive-same-sex-marriage-kathryn-jean-lopezhttp://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/08/23/nm-supreme-court-christian-photographer-had-no-right-to-decline-gay-wedding-job-n1671899http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/religious-liberty-artistic-freedom-rollback-in-new-mexico/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=religious-liberty-artistic-freedom-rollback-in-new-mexico Here are some liberal ones:http://www.towleroad.com/2013/08/new-mexico-supreme-court-says-wedding-photographer-cant-discriminate-against-same-sex-couples.html Here are some somewhat unopinonated ones:http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/12/poll-85-say-christian-photographer-has-the-right-to-turn-down-a-gay-marriage-job/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/us/studio-has-no-right-to-bias-court-rules.html?_r=0 1
Storm Rider Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 Sex wasn't the first thing that came into my mind by way of illustration of calling evil good or good evil. It just happens to be at the top of the "hit list" today, and a singularly unique issue, never brought up in the same way by such a powerful advocacy. As I explained, several of my children are confused thoroughly by it. That's what Isaiah was addressing: the perversion of logic and common sense until the rising generation has difficulty telling the difference, and even thinks that there is no difference. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Licence never was the way to Joy.... It appears to me that this is that day when the children of God deny what is good, love evil, and deny the power of God. It makes me laugh that instead of addressing the concept we begin to nit-pick on what draws our attention first - greed or sex. What does it matter? Does our first thought indicate that our second thought is of less value? Of course not, it means one's mind begins with one thought and then more thoughts come to mind. Reading from the beginning of the thread also makes me think that we have become a generation of deceivers. Please define what "is" is...which commandments do you mean? It is even more alarming that one this Board we are not supposed to talk about God and his teachings. In politics everything is acceptable except for you religious people; keep that mouth shut unless you can speak without mentioning God. QB, I appreciate you emphasizing the perversion of logic and common sense until our younger generations are completely baffled by any teaching of morality. Who benefits from the consistent onslaught of media to twist the moral foundations of our society? Who benefits when the teachings of God are trampled under the sophist ideas of carnal man? I don't see a boogeyman underneath my bed or around ever corner, but I have no problem identifying the machinations of the evil one. 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 While appealing to God may work for the faithfull it isn't likely to work for those of a different faith. We really do need a well reasoned secular arguments for any law that tries to achieve a secular goal. We already have laws aginst the sectarian ones.
The Nehor Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 If this lawsuit fails at the supreme court level, does anyone have ANY doubt that the LDS church will soon be performing same-sex temple marriages? Yes and lots of it.
Palerider Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 Well, when in doubt, you can always try some other sources. Here are some conservative ones: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/356560/will-religious-liberty-survive-same-sex-marriage-kathryn-jean-lopez http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/08/23/nm-supreme-court-christian-photographer-had-no-right-to-decline-gay-wedding-job-n1671899 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/religious-liberty-artistic-freedom-rollback-in-new-mexico/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=religious-liberty-artistic-freedom-rollback-in-new-mexico Here are some liberal ones: http://www.towleroad.com/2013/08/new-mexico-supreme-court-says-wedding-photographer-cant-discriminate-against-same-sex-couples.html Here are some somewhat unopinonated ones: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/12/poll-85-say-christian-photographer-has-the-right-to-turn-down-a-gay-marriage-job/ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/us/studio-has-no-right-to-bias-court-rules.html?_r=0 Thanks TAO. That looks like pretty accurate reporting to me........
thesometimesaint Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 As the Church doesn't sell marriages to the general public, and is even more limited in issuing Temple Recommends. It really is a nonissue for the Church.
TAO Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 Thanks TAO. That looks like pretty accurate reporting to me........ Np. I probably should have looked for a few more liberal ones. Could only find that one though =/. 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 Tao: The popularity of anything especially court decisions has no bearing on its correctness.
Palerider Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 As the Church doesn't sell marriages to the general public, and is even more limited in issuing Temple Recommends. It really is a nonissue for the Church. In the 1960's the concept that the government would go along with changing the long held and legal definition of mariage would have been deemed as totally ridiculous and utterly impossible.... Just stand on the sidelines and give it time.
TAO Posted August 25, 2013 Posted August 25, 2013 (edited) Tao: The popularity of anything especially court decisions has no bearing on its correctness. I didn't state an opinion on the issue actually. I was just sourcing articles (even if I do have an opinion, I think I'm gonna stay out of this one). You can argue if it's correct or not, and I'm sure others will argue against you. It's the way it is with these sorts of issues. Edited August 25, 2013 by TAO 1
Questing Beast Posted August 25, 2013 Author Posted August 25, 2013 In the 1960's the concept that the government would go along with changing the long held and legal definition of mariage would have been deemed as totally ridiculous and utterly impossible....Just stand on the sidelines and give it time.Are you saying that the change in marriage laws to overturn the forbidding of interracial marriages, is what led to the LDS 1978 "revelation" (policy change)? Are you suggesting that the LDS will allow SSM in the world of the future, because it will become as accepted and normal as interracial marriages are?
Palerider Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 Are you saying that the change in marriage laws to overturn the forbidding of interracial marriages, is what led to the LDS 1978 "revelation" (policy change)? Are you suggesting that the LDS will allow SSM in the world of the future, because it will become as accepted and normal as interracial marriages are? No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that culturally in the 60's someone would have laughed in disbelief that in 2013 there would be a movement underway to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. It would have struck them as being beyond comprehension. "How could America ever come to that?" Therefore, to say that we're not moving to a point where churches of all denominations, could be forced by the government, to perform same-sex marriages, is to seriously underestimate the tenacity of those who have that agenda and over-estimate the will of our people to do what is right. There will be no line drawn in the sand by the people that says, "We have come this far to accomodate you. We will go no further."
Stone holm Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 No, I'm not saying that.I'm saying that culturally in the 60's someone would have laughed in disbelief that in 2013 there would be a movement underway to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. It would have struck them as being beyond comprehension. "How could America ever come to that?"Therefore, to say that we're not moving to a point where churches of all denominations, could be forced by the government, to perform same-sex marriages, is to seriously underestimate the tenacity of those who have that agenda and over-estimate the will of our people to do what is right.There will be no line drawn in the sand by the people that says, "We have come this far to accomodate you. We will go no further." In the 1960's people were more concerned about the kids getting sent to Nam and atomic bombs being dropped on them....because some people drew lines in the sand, and then their kids started preaching revolution... more than one person can play the slippery slope game.
Recommended Posts