<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mormons prove marriage separate from discrimination laws</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/11/15/mormons/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/11/15/mormons/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:13:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leopard1996</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/11/15/mormons/comment-page-1/#comment-6975</link>
		<dc:creator>Leopard1996</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/?p=1355#comment-6975</guid>
		<description>The religion of peace would be all over allowing a homosexual marriage stand in their mosque /sarc.  

I do believe there would be a little resistance, and the fundamentalists would probably cause some bodily harm.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The religion of peace would be all over allowing a homosexual marriage stand in their mosque /sarc.  </p>
<p>I do believe there would be a little resistance, and the fundamentalists would probably cause some bodily harm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: revivefederalism</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/11/15/mormons/comment-page-1/#comment-6974</link>
		<dc:creator>revivefederalism</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:53:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/?p=1355#comment-6974</guid>
		<description>I think it had to do with a church getting sued for refusing to rent itself out for an alternative lifestyle ceremony. I&#039;m  not really up to date on how this is working its way through the courts. I also recall a similar lawsuit against eHarmony that forced them  to start offering homosexual matchmaking services. If a terrible result like this stands, then there is a silver lining. Such a precedent must be applied equally against all faiths. It would be a real hoot to watch Farfour &amp; Khalid sue to rent out a mosque for their ceremony!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it had to do with a church getting sued for refusing to rent itself out for an alternative lifestyle ceremony. I&#8217;m  not really up to date on how this is working its way through the courts. I also recall a similar lawsuit against eHarmony that forced them  to start offering homosexual matchmaking services. If a terrible result like this stands, then there is a silver lining. Such a precedent must be applied equally against all faiths. It would be a real hoot to watch Farfour &amp; Khalid sue to rent out a mosque for their ceremony!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike gamecock DeVine</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/11/15/mormons/comment-page-1/#comment-6973</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike gamecock DeVine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/?p=1355#comment-6973</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leopard1996</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/11/15/mormons/comment-page-1/#comment-6972</link>
		<dc:creator>Leopard1996</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/?p=1355#comment-6972</guid>
		<description>There is a total difference between making sure the rights that are already given for individuals are protected regardless, and I always had issues with some who would allow government and people to discriminate based on any reason (I call it the difference between prejudice and racism).  

As far as the marriage front, I do believe that what is wanted is a special right of marriage which will in turn be allowed to use that right to crap on the rights of churches and church orgs. (Catholic charities), their rights to practice their religions as they see fit.  If they made it so that marriage just allowed the benefits that the state grants it and leave it at that, I would not have a problem but like with everything else it is a give an inch take a mile mentality that makes me withhold my support for gay marriage as it seems to be pressed at this time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a total difference between making sure the rights that are already given for individuals are protected regardless, and I always had issues with some who would allow government and people to discriminate based on any reason (I call it the difference between prejudice and racism).  </p>
<p>As far as the marriage front, I do believe that what is wanted is a special right of marriage which will in turn be allowed to use that right to crap on the rights of churches and church orgs. (Catholic charities), their rights to practice their religions as they see fit.  If they made it so that marriage just allowed the benefits that the state grants it and leave it at that, I would not have a problem but like with everything else it is a give an inch take a mile mentality that makes me withhold my support for gay marriage as it seems to be pressed at this time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike gamecock DeVine</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/11/15/mormons/comment-page-1/#comment-6971</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike gamecock DeVine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:19:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/?p=1355#comment-6971</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: revivefederalism</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/11/15/mormons/comment-page-1/#comment-6970</link>
		<dc:creator>revivefederalism</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:54:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/?p=1355#comment-6970</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s all start a movement to demand that the government keep track of who our best friend is, whether or not it&#039;s a platonic relationship. People who sign a best friend contract with witnesses in front of a justice of the peace will be given special benefits. If one of your co-workers tells you that its wrong for you to be friends with your official best friend, you can get them  fired for discriminating against you. Doesn&#039;t this sound preposterous? It would waste the resources of the state for no discernible benefit. Gamecock might be able to run a side business as an unfriending attorney, but how would it help society at large?

Marriage is the bedrock of our society and all others around the globe. If we hadn&#039;t thought of it, we wouldn&#039;t have any of our advances. Children would not have a permanent man in their lives who took ownership for the development into productive members of society. To the extent that we see the breakdown of marriage in various segments of our society today, we observe poverty, crime, educational deficiencies, and underage pregnancy, thus sowing the seeds for the loss of another generation. 

Sodomy, on the other hand, is of limited social utility. It is practiced by a small proportion of the population that is naturally incapable of reproducing. If no human had ever thought of sodomy, it would have no impact on the lives of the vast majority of the population. The sliver of the population who currently indulge their proclivities for it would just be bored, or be taking matters into their own hands, if the concept had never been conjured and promulgated. Without considering the moral or public health aspects of it, sodomy is at best a decadent activity for consenting adult participants, much like the sharing of cigars. There&#039;s no massive downside to a decrease in the frequency of sodomy (smoking), and there certainly isn&#039;t a large upside to society resulting from  the government provision of public recognition and economic benefits for a pledge of repeated sodomy (smoking).

The people direct the government to endorse contracts between parties because they are important. Marriage and pledges of repeated sodomy are demonstrably different. The former furthers the successful continuation of our species. That latter is just a minor piece of civil society that should revel in the fact that it can be practiced without the intrusion of government supervision.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s all start a movement to demand that the government keep track of who our best friend is, whether or not it&#8217;s a platonic relationship. People who sign a best friend contract with witnesses in front of a justice of the peace will be given special benefits. If one of your co-workers tells you that its wrong for you to be friends with your official best friend, you can get them  fired for discriminating against you. Doesn&#8217;t this sound preposterous? It would waste the resources of the state for no discernible benefit. Gamecock might be able to run a side business as an unfriending attorney, but how would it help society at large?</p>
<p>Marriage is the bedrock of our society and all others around the globe. If we hadn&#8217;t thought of it, we wouldn&#8217;t have any of our advances. Children would not have a permanent man in their lives who took ownership for the development into productive members of society. To the extent that we see the breakdown of marriage in various segments of our society today, we observe poverty, crime, educational deficiencies, and underage pregnancy, thus sowing the seeds for the loss of another generation. </p>
<p>Sodomy, on the other hand, is of limited social utility. It is practiced by a small proportion of the population that is naturally incapable of reproducing. If no human had ever thought of sodomy, it would have no impact on the lives of the vast majority of the population. The sliver of the population who currently indulge their proclivities for it would just be bored, or be taking matters into their own hands, if the concept had never been conjured and promulgated. Without considering the moral or public health aspects of it, sodomy is at best a decadent activity for consenting adult participants, much like the sharing of cigars. There&#8217;s no massive downside to a decrease in the frequency of sodomy (smoking), and there certainly isn&#8217;t a large upside to society resulting from  the government provision of public recognition and economic benefits for a pledge of repeated sodomy (smoking).</p>
<p>The people direct the government to endorse contracts between parties because they are important. Marriage and pledges of repeated sodomy are demonstrably different. The former furthers the successful continuation of our species. That latter is just a minor piece of civil society that should revel in the fact that it can be practiced without the intrusion of government supervision.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

