The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[wally]

All of this talk about whether or not gay marriage is going to hurt anyone or not is just so totally freaking beside the point. Gay people should be able to marry because they are American Citizens who want to marry. This is about FREEDOM, not some engineered Utopian idea in which gay people aren't allowed to marry or adopt. We expand this freedom because it is the right thing to do. If there are pluses and minuses, we accept them both, not as the byproduct of some engineered super plan by the people who are smarter than us, but as the surpluses and deficits of liberty.

But we place limitations on personal freedom all the time in the name of societal benefit. Gun control for example.

The tricky (and opinion driven part) is where to draw the lines.

[wally]

Cute but meaningless. We limit liberty all the time. You are describing anarchy (at best). We may debate whether liberty in this instance should or should not be limited, but the rationale you are urging here wont form the basis for any decision on the topic.

WHOOOOOAAAAHHH!! Creekster and I just had a Vulcan mind-meld or something. He's just faster 'cause he doesn't spell check.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Robots. Robots built by engineers.

We are already there:

[wally]

We are already there:

Why there is no major religion that worships engineers, I don't know.

[Green Monstah]

In Texas we do. They operate under a misleading psuedonym: Texas Instruments.

[Tim]

[YOUTUBE]1gG_UPFJuU4[/YOUTUBE]

[Indy Coug]

3 hour clip

Synopsis?

[Tim]

Synopsis?

It's an interview with Cary Crall (the writer of the editorial), Morris Thurston, and Laura Compton. Definitely long and drawn out, but it discusses a lot of facts related to Prop 8, the campaign, the editorial, members speaking out against Prop 8, etc. It's very calm and doesn't really go beyond discussion of facts.

[Indy Coug]

It's an interview with Cary Crall (the writer of the editorial), Morris Thurston, and Laura Compton. Definitely long and drawn out, but it discusses a lot of facts related to Prop 8, the campaign, the editorial, members speaking out against Prop 8, etc. It's very calm and doesn't really go beyond discussion of facts.

Does the source of this video clip also provide bios for the people you just listed?

[pellegrino]

Does the source of this video clip also provide bios for the people you just listed?

I haven't listened to it, but if it follows other Mormon Stories formats the beginning of the podcast will also include a brief biographical introduction for each guest.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Does the source of this video clip also provide bios for the people you just listed?

That Thurston guy comes from a family of troublemakers.

[pellegrino]

That Thurston guy comes from a family of troublemakers.

wasn't he involved in debunking certain assertions about prop 8?

[Jeff Lebowski]

wasn't he involved in debunking certain assertions about prop 8?

Yes.

EDIT: He is PAC's BIL. PAC has mentioned this a few times.

[RobinFinderson]

Cute but meaningless. We limit liberty all the time. You are describing anarchy (at best). We may debate whether liberty in this instance should or should not be limited, but the rationale you are urging here wont form the basis for any decision on the topic.

It isn't meaningless, it is just incomplete. I hope I don't have to outline a complete framework for a 'liberty valuing people' every time I point out the obvious, that anyone who values liberty should support the expansion of the marriage civil right to gay people.

A more complete version:

1. People own their own body and should be able to do anything they want to it as long as they cause no direct harm to others.

2. Same for people's property that is not their body.

3. A society should only create privileges that can be meaningfully available to all members, regardless of sex, race, income, sexual orientation, etc.

4,5,6,7... Etc.

[UtahDan]

I've listened to part of the podcast Tim linked. One interesting thing Cary Crall said was in answer to the question of whether he was worried about his standing at BYU. He basically said that he was confident he hadn't said anything to place himself in jeopardy but that he was trying to be very conscious in that interview not to say anything that promotes the idea that homosexuality is morally acceptable. This because it is against the honor code. I was a little incredulous that the honor code really says that or that his interpretation is correct, but sure enough:

Homosexual Behavior or Advocacy

Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.

One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.

http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2009-201...ficeInvovement

Am I the only one who didn't know this?