Comments on: Same-sex marriage and hypocrisy?

By: djinn

djinn — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:36:27 +0000

Oh, btw, I’ve figured out the answer! Yay me! Hypocrisy? For the insubtantial amorphous entity “the church?” Certainly. For individual members? Absolutely not.

By: Paula

Paula — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:40:19 +0000

The preliminary program is up at the Sunstone site right now. Looks like no anti-SSM panelists, at least not yet.
http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/

By: janeannechovy

janeannechovy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:22:39 +0000

I don’t think the church is being hypocritical, becuse I see polygamy and same-sex marriage as being qualitatively different. I’m with Gene England in thinking that there is something special about a relationship between two an donly two people, but I don’t think those two people need to be of different sexes.

I was sort of invited to be on that same Sunstone panel, but I won’t be at Sunstone this year. In any case, I wouln’t have been representing the anti-SSM side. I’m sure Kaimi will do his usual fabulous job.

By: Chino Blanco

Chino Blanco — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:59:34 +0000

My dKos diary on this is now up at:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/11291/1484/408/542680

Your comments are more than welcome. More to the point, I’m hoping y’all might assist by showing up and contributing to an interesting conversation. I’ve never been a big fan of online echo chambers, and I’m thinkin’ y’all might hold the power to inoculate my little post against that particular malady.

By: djinn

djinn — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:37:35 +0000

I think Jon just made my point. As did Gordon Smith, the Oregon senator.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/gordon_smith.php

By: Tracy M

Tracy M — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:21:55 +0000

Historically speaking, Prop 22 passed by and large because ofchurch involvement on the issue. Without us, frankly, it probably would have failed.

If this is even part-way true, it makes the current goings-on in California that much more civically and morally problematic for me. This is really testing my faith- not in the Savior, but in the machinations of the Church.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:53:18 +0000

Steve, I can see how it might look like I am coming down on both sides of the issue. What I am trying to say is that there are political expediencies that one leans on which should not be interpreted as doctrinal pronouncements. We can stand with a sound-byte because a more nuanced exploration of the issue would be counterproductive in the political marketplace. However, we should not feel that we have to define ourselves by it.

By: MikeInWeHo

MikeInWeHo — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:26:12 +0000

Absolutely, mmiles. Thank goodness there’s nothing esoteric or silly about battling gays tooth-and-nail based on the idea that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” which can be “perpetuated beyond the grave….”

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:19:58 +0000

Jon, aren’t you arguing against your own position?

By: mmiles

mmiles — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:52:44 +0000

MikeInWeHo
I really don’t think you can say it is a double standard either. It is a bad idea to argue anything to do with temporal life with any religion based on their ideas of an esoteric afterlife. It’s kind of silly, don’t you think?