Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[TripletDaddy]

SoonerCoug's Church resume:

1) Seminary graduate and teachers quorum president.
2) Invited to speak in stake conference as a teenager. I was asked to choose a topic from the For the Strength of Youth Pamphlet. I thought about speaking on masturbation but instead chose friendship.
3) Gordon B. Hinckley scholar.
4) Great nephew of Spencer W. Kimball and 1st cousin once removed of President Eyring.
5) Served a 2-year mission but never intentionally converted anyone. I did inadvertently convert a few.
6) Assistant to the president for 6 months.
7) Elders quorum presidency in 2003.
8) Primary pianist for about a decade.
9) Started going inactive around 2010 but really sealed the deal in 2012.

I should also say that I was a skeptic long before number 1. I was mostly just playing along. Perhaps I was also purposely blind, as Paul Haggis discusses in this interview. Scientology is obviously more extreme than Mormonism in many ways, but there are certain common features with Mormonism and also religion in general: (Church discipline of dissenters, lack of freedom of speech, belief in the absurd.)

Fast forward to around 3:45. For Haggis, it started with a Prop 8 issue. I think this discussion is quite interesting.

At 6:10 he talks about being purposely blind

At 9:45 he talks about belief in the absurd and why he played along. This is also a good discussion about systems of belief, people being within a fortress and not looking out, not willing to undergo investigation or take criticism, squashing dissent, and believing that the world is out to get them.

#5 made me laugh a lot.

[scottie]

#5 made me laugh a lot.

LAL

[UVACoug]

The question isn't whether there are benefits to society from polygamous marriages or not. It is whether the state has a good reason to discriminate against polygamous families as compared to monogamous families. Shelby says that moral approbation isn't a good enough reason, so you have to come up with some kind of showing that polygamy, as an institution, is harmful.

Besides, even if the standard was some kind of benefit to society, I'm sure the polygamy supporters could come up with stuff that is just as legitimate as the stuff the gay marriage supporters have come up with. There are very few things in this world that are 100% bad 100% of the time.

[Commando]

The question isn't whether there are benefits to society from polygamous marriages or not. It is whether the state has a good reason to discriminate against polygamous families as compared to monogamous families. Shelby says that moral approbation isn't a good enough reason, so you have to come up with some kind of showing that polygamy, as an institution, is harmful.

Exactly. No reason on Earth to ban polygamy at this point. I feel like if marriage is going to become a sterile, contractual issue, than what's the problem?

[Jacob]

This is really unbelievable. That the judge won't be impeached and has a life-time appointment is incredible. This decision will fall. There will shortly be a stay by the 10th circuit who will then overturn this decision.

And this is just ridiculous:

Shelby said the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.

This is what passes for legal reasoning these days?

[SoonerCoug]

This is really unbelievable. That the judge won't be impeached and has a life-time appointment is incredible. This decision will fall. There will shortly be a stay by the 10th circuit who will then overturn this decision.

And this is just ridiculous:


This is what passes for legal reasoning these days?

Do yourself a favor and make a little poster of your statement. Put it up on the wall. Remember what you've said 30 years from now as you look back and contemplate what the world has become.

People like you will go down in history just like opponents of the civil rights movement.

[Commando]

Do yourself a favor and make a little poster of your statement. Put it up on the wall. Remember what you've said 30 years from now as you look back and contemplate what has come of the world.

People like you will go down in history just like opponents of the civil rights movement.

Yeah, ASSHOLE!!!

[Jacob]

Do yourself a favor and make a little poster of your statement. Put it up on the wall. Remember what you've said 30 years from now as you look back and contemplate what the world has become.

People like you will go down in history just like opponents of the civil rights movement.

That's funny. I didn't even say anything about gays or marriage. One can no longer even criticize legal reasoning without being a bigot. It's a beautiful world we live in.

Also, we don't have to wait 30 years. Everything I predicted in that post will come to pass in very short order.

[Jacob]

It is so very amusing that this judge relied heavily on the Windsor decision as the basis for his absurd ruling. That case held that marriage law was the sole province of the states. It overturned DOMA largely because DOMA contradicted state marriage laws, some of which allow gay marriage. And the majority in that case explicitly limited its ruling to certain cases so that people like Judge Shelby wouldn't rely on it to overturn normal marriage laws. So, Judge Shelby takes that case, and turns it on its head to stand for the proposition that all states marriage law must adhere to federal law. And to add insult to injury, he mockingly quotes the dissent in the same case as supporting his logic because it was Scalia who wrote it.

[SoonerCoug]

It is so very amusing that this judge relied heavily on the Windsor decision as the basis for his absurd ruling. That case held that marriage law was the sole province of the states. It overturned DOMA largely because DOMA contradicted state marriage laws, some of which allow gay marriage. And the majority in that case explicitly limited its ruling to certain cases so that people like Judge Shelby wouldn't rely on it to overturn normal marriage laws. So, Judge Shelby takes that case, and turns it on its head to stand for the proposition that all states marriage law must adhere to federal law. And to add insult to injury, he mockingly quotes the dissent in the same case as supporting his logic because it was Scalia who wrote it.

Let me help you:

1) Being gay is a normal biological variant of being human.
2) Americans have the right to equal protection under the constitution.
3) Laws passed against gays are not constitutional. It's not really too different from passing laws specifically against Jews or Mormons.
4) Sexual orientation and laws regarding it should not be any of the Church's business.
5) Someday the church will accept gays and allow them to marry. It will be a great day, especially for gay Mormons experiencing internal conflict on the matter.

[Jacob]

Let me help you:

1) Being gay is a normal biological variant of being human.
2) Americans have the right to equal protection under the constitution.
3) Laws passed against gays are not constitutional. It's not really too different from passing laws specifically against Jews or Mormons.
4) Sexual orientation and laws regarding it should not be any of the Church's business.
5) Someday the church will accept gays and allow them to marry. It will be a great day, especially for gay Mormons experiencing internal conflict on the matter.

Sure dude. Look, I don't care what the church teaches or what they do or don't accept. And you appear to have no clue regarding constitutional analysis or legal reasoning.

[SoonerCoug]

Sure dude. Look, I don't care what the church teaches or what they do or don't accept. And you appear to have no clue regarding constitutional analysis or legal reasoning.

Tell me how my reasoning is bad.

What you're failing to realize is that religion and ignorance are the driving forces in anti-gay legislation.

I know all about legal reasoning: Lawyers make shit up as they go. That's all it is.

If lawyers were scientists, science wouldn't make much progress.

If scientists were lawyers, there would be a lot less greed and a hell of a lot less bull shit in this world.

[Jacob]

Tell me how my reasoning is bad.

What you're failing to realize is that religion and ignorance are the driving forces in anti-gay legislation.

I know all about legal reasoning: Lawyers make shit up as they go. That's all it is.

If lawyers were scientists, science wouldn't make much progress.

If scientists were lawyers, there would be a lot less greed and a hell of a lot less bull shit in this world.

You haven't presented any reasoning for me to disagree with. You made a list of declarations. Until this past post in which you just made some embarrassingly bad arguments. Traditional marriage laws are neither anti-gay legislation nor the result of religion and ignorance.

[old_gregg]

Traditional marriage laws are neither anti-gay legislation nor the result of religion and ignorance.

[SoonerCoug]

You haven't presented any reasoning for me to disagree with. You made a list of declarations. Until this past post in which you just made some embarrassingly bad arguments. Traditional marriage laws are neither anti-gay legislation nor the result of religion and ignorance.

Listen dude. I read legal opinions all the time. They are called opinions for a reason.

Lawyers don't deserve to even use the word reasoning.

There is also a good reason that lawyers are generally despised by people.

Now I'd like to go on record saying that I like and respect plenty of lawyers (SeattleUte, Nikuman, Levin).

But lawyers are generally not in the business of seeking truth. They advocate for their side and seek favorable opinions for their clients. It is not about truth. It's not even really about genuine reasoning. Very frequently, attempts are made to persuade on emotional basis rather than on genuine fact. It is so far from science that it isn't funny. It is an anti-science.