Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[il Padrino Ute]

Looks like I missed a really neat discussion today in this thread.

It seems like the Pilgrim is single-handedly trying to disprove the notion that smart people come up with the wittiest comebacks. Or maybe he is debunking the notion that he is smart. Not sure which.

I think pelligrino both smart and witty. The abusive one, however, is lame.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Reminds me of another discussion I saw on this site not too long ago...

You referring to the dick-measuring part of the discussion? Yeah, we have had a ton of those over the years.

[hostile]

You referring to the dick-measuring part of the discussion? Yeah, we have had a ton of those over the years.

Could you please convert that to grams, or ounces?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Could you please convert that to grams, or ounces?

[Donuthole]

Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

DHO calls out Kim Davis.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3082891-1...ky-clerk-wrong

It finally donned on me that this new policy is merely "a curtain that defines boundaries but is not a barrier to the passage of light and love and mutual support from on side to another." Thanks DHO!

On a related note, it appears this policy is actually pro gay family:

http://www.dannyras.com/blog/why-the...pro-gay-family

What a relief!

[TripletDaddy]

It finally donned on me that this new policy is merely "a curtain that defines boundaries but is not a barrier to the passage of light and love and mutual support from on side to another." Thanks DHO!

On a related note, it appears this policy is actually pro gay family:

http://www.dannyras.com/blog/why-the...pro-gay-family

What a relief!

[cowboy]

Day 1 was the initial flood of ironic religious memes flying around and general facebook indignation.
Day 2 everyone is sharing their hypothetical situations to illustrate the many ways in which the policy would affect people. Also we see apologists prairie-dogging but retreating quickly into hiding.
Day 3 is usually the sky-is-falling progmo predictions of the end of Mormonism and quasi-insiders from reddit with rumors of mass apostasy. Day 3 is usually my fave because that is where guys like SIEQ shine, quoting a lot of other people with stuff that has been said before anyway, referencing his interfaith counsel pancake breakfasts, and bemoaning the impending end of days. In this case, SIEQ jumped the gun on Day 2 but I will give him a pass, as long as he shows up tomorrow with some good stuff.

Thread winner

I feel so good when grammar nazis make mistakes.

JL is right, the policy is written differently than the polygamy kids policy, so maybe it won't be handled that way. I'm never a fan of hard and fast rules, especially in a big organization, so I hope it is revised. Regardless of the obvious downstream problems with this policy, the idea that this is a hateful policy designed to hurt people is preposterous. It's about letting kids be old enough to decide if they want to join an organization that opposes their parents', period. It doesn't keep them from participating in any way other than being baptized and holding the priesthood - not that is not significant in some circumstances, but it certainly doesn't keep kids from being "raised in the church." I really would be surprised if this isn't eventually amended to allow exceptions.

Also, cj is a good person off the board. You rip on his church, though, and he comes after you - and hell comes with him.

[Donuthole]

I blaming the hour.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I blaming the hour.

[Donuthole]

Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

I blaming you, too; clearly being removed from the SE has really upset me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I blaming you, too; clearly being removed from the SE has really upset me.

Sorry. Rules are rules.

[San Juan Sun]

Sorry. Rules are rules.

DH should be reinstated.

[Donuthole]

Sorry. Rules are rules.

Ridiculous that you have taken such a zero-tolerance stand on something so seemingly trivial. It is especially ridiculous considering that you are the guy railing against the absence of flexibility or case-by-case interpretation in Church's newest CHOI policy.

[Moliere]

JL is right, the policy is written differently than the polygamy kids policy, so maybe it won't be handled that way. I'm never a fan of hard and fast rules, especially in a big organization, so I hope it is revised. Regardless of the obvious downstream problems with this policy, the idea that this is a hateful policy designed to hurt people is preposterous. It's about letting kids be old enough to decide if they want to join an organization that opposes their parents', period. It doesn't keep them from participating in any way other than being baptized and holding the priesthood - not that is not significant in some circumstances, but it certainly doesn't keep kids from being "raised in the church." I really would be surprised if this isn't eventually amended to allow exceptions.

Right, it almost codifies the fact that 8 years old is too young to make a serious, life defining decision. I always cringe when someone tells me their 8 year old chose to be baptized. Well, of course they did. For them primary is a social club. They don't really know the magnitude of the decision they are making. I don't mind kids getting baptized at 8 years old if they have active parents. But in our ward we've had half a dozen kids/teenagers baptized whose parents aren't members or who are members but don't care for the church and 1 is still active with a 2nd semi-active. The rest lost interest and go to a different church or became atheist.

It's not that I don't like the policy, it's that I'd just like the policy applied evenly. As of right now, the optics of the policy make it looks like we hate gay people.

[Northwestcoug]

Sorry. Rules are rules.

Wait, is this really happening?