Prop H8 mostly upheld

[Autodidact]

You started the most recent mess with your OP. Do you realize that you LOSE support with that bad attitude? What's needed to get equal rights is more education and a better run campaign - not mud slinging.

Gay people are doing an excellent job of advancing our civil rights, and don't particularly need advice from our opponents.

 

[Autodidact]

I have to raise an eyebrow at a group that demands tolerance yet fails to demonstrate its own tolerance of another group.

What transparent victim-mongering. Gay people don't care what Mormons do, as long as they don't organize against Gay rights. Are you expecting Gay people to be tolerant of people fighting against Gay rights? Does that make sense to you? I fervently defend Mormon's right to practice their bizarre religion. I wish they would do the same for me.

 

[Autodidact]

So now you're talking about dead Mormons. Fantastic.

You don't consider these men to be prophets?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm not questioning its validity - I'm questioning its effectiveness.

Honestly, as social justice movements go, don't you think we're doing fabulously?

 

[Magic Man]

OK - you guys win. Keep promoting equal rights the way you see fit. It worked so well last time.

Are you still under the delusion that the passion that people showed in rejecting Prop 8 had anything to do with it passing? I told you before, the No on Prop 8 campaign's failure had nothing to do with that. It had everything to do with a lack of organization and just poor campaign practices. It would be really nice if you'd start actually coming out and making points rather than this passive-aggressive crap. If you'd like, I could provide you with soe reading material so that you can read up on the subject before coming off as ignorant.

 

[Watchmen]

For those attacking the California Supreme Court, you should know their decision was exactly spot on. Legal experts on both sides predicted this result as early as November when challenges to Prop 8 were raised. It's not about the Court being bigoted (did you already forget they ruled in favor of gay marriages last year?), but about the Court being asked to interpret a very narrow area of California constitutional law (amendment vs. revision). Complicating matters further is California's bone-headed voter initiative process. Please remember that. The Court can't just make stuff up and say "same-sex marriages are legal." They're restrained to hear and rule on the issue before them.

The above will be my only future response in this thread.

 

[Smoke]

The above will be my only future response in this thread.

It's false, though, or at least partially so, and I've already pointed that out. I'd suggest that you read the decision.

 

[Magic Man]

The above will be my only future response in this thread.

That's fine. I didn't really expect you to admit your mistake anyway. Hopefully, you've at least learned something, even if you won't admit it.

 

[Watchmen]

It's false, though, or at least partially so, and I've already pointed that out. I'd suggest that you read the decision.

Post # for where you pointed it out please.

 

[Watchmen]

That's fine. I didn't really expect you to admit your mistake anyway. Hopefully, you've at least learned something, even if you won't admit it.

For those attacking the California Supreme Court, you should know their decision was exactly spot on. Legal experts on both sides predicted this result as early as November when challenges to Prop 8 were raised. It's not about the Court being bigoted (did you already forget they ruled in favor of gay marriages last year?), but about the Court being asked to interpret a very narrow area of California constitutional law (amendment vs. revision). Complicating matters further is California's bone-headed voter initiative process. Please remember that. The Court can't just make stuff up and say "same-sex marriages are legal." They're restrained to hear and rule on the issue before them.

 

[Smoke]

Post # for where you pointed it out please.

I don't remember, and you can probably find it as easily as I can. You didn't read the decision, though, did you?

 

[Watchmen]

I don't remember, and you can probably find it as easily as I can. You didn't read the decision, though, did you?

Of course I did. In fact, I predicted the results MONTHS ago.

By the way, thanks for your effort in locating that post. I tried to ask nice (I even said please) and you failed to respond in kind.

Oh well. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT: Only 24 pages to slog through.

 

[Autodidact]

The above will be my only future response in this thread.

I doubt it.

 

[Autodidact]

Post # for where you pointed it out please.

Oh--called it again.

 

[Watchmen]

Not so. The Court actually ruled on several issues, including whether Prop 8 violated the separation of powers doctrine (no), whether minority rights may be abrogated by majority vote (yes), and whether fundamental rights guaranteed in Article I of the state constitution may be abrogated (yes, the majority's right to portion out rights as they please has greater weight than any portion of the constitution), and whether such rights were abrogated by Proposition 8 (yes, but no big deal).

As you well know, the primary issue was the amendment vs. revision issue and it was narrow. The other issues you mention were minor basically sub-parts to the primary issue and had no basis in bigotry, but in how the court held regarding the primary issue.

But the Court did just make stuff up. Having found Proposition 8 unassailable, they then refused to put it fully into effect, treating it not as what it in fact is -- a constitutional amendment denying state recognition to same-sex marriages -- but as what it plainly is not -- a statutory provision prohibiting future same-sex marriages.

Your opinion is contra to the vast majority of opinions out there. As I already stated, both sides predicted months ago what the decision would be. These predictions were based in law, not emotion.

The decision is sloppy and self-contradictory, and plainly meant to impose the justices' own opinion of what's fair. Of course, if the amendment had targeted virtually any other group, one can be certain their opinion would have been different.

Sloppy and self-contradictory opinions are fairly common these days. And, as I said before: both sides predicted months ago what the decision would be. These predictions were based in law, not emotion.

You obviously read the opinion through hate-filled glasses.

TO EVERYONE READING THIS: The Court did its job. Did you do yours in November???!!!

 

[Watchmen]

I doubt it.

For those attacking the California Supreme Court, you should know their decision was exactly spot on. Legal experts on both sides predicted this result as early as November when challenges to Prop 8 were raised. It's not about the Court being bigoted (did you already forget they ruled in favor of gay marriages last year?), but about the Court being asked to interpret a very narrow area of California constitutional law (amendment vs. revision). Complicating matters further is California's bone-headed voter initiative process. Please remember that. The Court can't just make stuff up and say "same-sex marriages are legal." They're restrained to hear and rule on the issue before them.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Anyone familiar with American history knows the Mormon Church will do whatever the government requires it to do, and then restructure its theology to make that doctrine, after which they will forget they ever did anything different.

Polygamy is very much still part of our theology and recognised as a valid doctrine.

The denial of the priesthood to black members was never based on any solid doctrine. I consider it to be a mistaken continuation of a measure taken by Brigham Young to protect the church at a time and place when Joseph Smith's liberal view of slavery was a hot topic. There was an article I was reading on the topic of blacks in the early church which I would gladly try to find if you want to discuss the topic in detail, though I suggest we create another thread.

Opposition to homosexuality is a doctrine harmonious with the doctrines of gender identity and the eternal family. A U-turn on that issue would be impossible to justify, and I would not remain in the church if it were to do so.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Reality. But that's just me.

Ho ho.

 

[Autodidact]

Polygamy is very much still part of our theology and recognised as a valid doctrine.

Let me make sure I follow you. Are you saying that polygamy is permitted/encouraged among modern American Mormons?

The denial of the priesthood to black members was never based on any solid doctrine. I consider it to be a mistaken continuation of a measure taken by Brigham Young to protect the church at a time and place when Joseph Smith's liberal view of slavery was a hot topic. There was an article I was reading on the topic of blacks in the early church which I would gladly try to find if you want to discuss the topic in detail, though I suggest we create another thread.

Before the church got the revelation it needed to win basketball games, it was doctrine. Now, it's not. Nifty, that.

Opposition to homosexuality is a doctrine harmonious with the doctrines of gender identity and the eternal family. A U-turn on that issue would be impossible to justify, and I would not remain in the church if it were to do so.

Depends how old you are. If you're under fifty, better start looking for another church. If over, you might die before it happens.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Let me make sure I follow you. Are you saying that polygamy is permitted/encouraged among modern American Mormons?

Before the church got the revelation it needed to win basketball games, it was doctrine. Now, it's not. Nifty, that.

Depends how old you are. If you're under fifty, better start looking for another church. If over, you might die before it happens.

The practice of polygamy is not presently encouraged, but that is not what you implied. You implied that our theology changed, when it hasn't. We still recognise that the polygamous marriages made during the time the church practiced are completely valid. We hold that there will likely be (new) polygamous marriage in the life to come. We do not practice it for the time being.

If you want to discuss the topic of blacks and the priesthood, start one. If you are only interested in taunts, I am not interested in responding.

I'm 19, and confident that in the next 50 or so years of life I am likely to have there will not be so much as an (official) whisper of the church getting rid of the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin.