Boyd Packer: Mormons cannot change

[tomato1236]

It's no argument, unless you think you should be prohibited from eating pork, which I was taught is wrong.
How can what I do go against your religious convictions? No one's asking you to marry a man.
You feel it's important to impose your morality on other people? Didn't your mama teach you that's wrong?
So what? I feel the same way about caraway seeds; should you be prohibited from eating them? Come to think of it, I feel the same way about your sex life, but I'm not voting to prohibit you from marrying.
So what? Since it's perfectly moral, who cares?
No, we're seeking equality under the law in all areas. This is just one of them.

Voting IS imposing your will on others. That's the point of voting. Even if it's about whether or not to put a park in your little town. You're voting to voice your opinion, which is inevitably affected by your religious convictions, or your lack thereof. And my religious convictions don't only dictate to me what individuals do, but also, what kind of world I would like to live in, and raise my son in, and at least slow the moral decline of the civilization I enjoy being a part of. It is also part of my religious conviction that all others should enjoy the same right and privilege to vote to shape the world in the way they like it, and to uphold the government whose constitution is designed to protect minorities if the majority votes to oppress them. If America's courts of law can't even decide unanimously whether or not it is a right, and if it should be legal, then to me that's evidence that it's not a closed matter.

 

[AuroraWillow]

Voting IS imposing your will on others. That's the point of voting. Even if it's about whether or not to put a park in your little town. You're voting to voice your opinion, which is inevitably affected by your religious convictions, or your lack thereof. And my religious convictions don't only dictate to me what individuals do, but also, what kind of world I would like to live in, and raise my son in, and at least slow the moral decline of the civilization I enjoy being a part of. It is also part of my religious conviction that all others should enjoy the same right and privilege to vote to shape the world in the way they like it, and to uphold the government whose constitution is designed to protect minorities if the majority votes to oppress them. If America's courts of law can't even decide unanimously whether or not it is a right, and if it should be legal, then to me that's evidence that it's not a closed matter.

There's quite a big difference between voting to put a park somewhere and voting to keep people from having equal rights.

 

[tomato1236]

You have the power of one vote, and it's your responsibility to use it correctly. Using it to impose your religious taboos on non-Mormons is wrong, so you should not vote to do so.

Haha religious taboos? You mean the fundamental taboos our national culture has held for centuries? I certainly don't claim that things should never change because "it's the way things have always been" (ie. Slavery, women's suffrage, etc.) but I also don't feel that all things must change just because they're old-fashioned.

 

[tomato1236]

There's quite a big difference between voting to put a park somewhere and voting to keep people from having equal rights.

I know. Just using an illustration.

Again, though, if it's so indisputably a right, why hasn't it passed unanimously in appeals to the law and constitution?

 

[AuroraWillow]

I know. Just using an illustration.

Again, though, if it's so indisputably a right, why hasn't it passed unanimously in appeals to the law and constitution?

Because of people like you who think oppression is ok?

 

[tomato1236]

Because of people like you?

What power do I have over the nation's judges?

 

[tomato1236]

Because of people like you who think oppression is ok?

Oh I see.

 

[AuroraWillow]

What power do I have over the nation's judges?

I'm saying that there are too many people in government with the same opinion as yours - that oppression is ok as long as we disagree with the oppressed.

 

[AuroraWillow]

Oh I see.

No, I really don't think you do.

 

[tomato1236]

I'm saying that there are too many people in government with the same opinion as yours - that oppression is ok as long as we disagree with the oppressed.

Wow. There must be a lot of pretty corrupt and biased judges.

 

[AuroraWillow]

Wow. There must be a lot of pretty corrupt and biased judges.

Yes, they're called conservative Christian Republicans.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is really all a question of, never say never.

All things change over time, and this will take longer than most, however God Will find a way to demonstrate his love and show that there is a place for everyone.

It is not only the LDS that have problems with this one, It is splitting many churches down the middle.

 

[Autodidact]

Voting IS imposing your will on others. That's the point of voting. Even if it's about whether or not to put a park in your little town. You're voting to voice your opinion, which is inevitably affected by your religious convictions, or your lack thereof. And my religious convictions don't only dictate to me what individuals do, but also, what kind of world I would like to live in, and raise my son in, and at least slow the moral decline of the civilization I enjoy being a part of. It is also part of my religious conviction that all others should enjoy the same right and privilege to vote to shape the world in the way they like it, and to uphold the government whose constitution is designed to protect minorities if the majority votes to oppress them. If America's courts of law can't even decide unanimously whether or not it is a right, and if it should be legal, then to me that's evidence that it's not a closed matter.

Yes, but it is up to each voter to decide when to do so, and whether it is right.
Jews believe it's against God's will to eat clams, but it would be wrong for them to vote for a general prohibition against clambakes. Jewish religious prohibitions apply only to Jews, and Mormon religious prohibitions apply only to Mormons. As long as they're not prohibiting you from complying with your religious prohibitions, it is just as wrong for you to vote on whom I should or should not marry, as for Jews to vote on your right to eat clams.

As far as what you see as the moral status of the nation, that is something you have the right to declaim, publish, protest, write and generally advocate, but not to decide for others. An attempt to do so is fundamentally un-American and immoral. And, since I think so, I am exercising my right to berate you about it. I don't have the right to prohibit you from doing it, nor should I. See the difference?

There's a difference between whether something is prohibited by the constitution, and whether it's a good idea. However, the courts have virtually unanimously held that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, so you might want to drop that argument--it's not working for you.

 

[Autodidact]

Haha religious taboos? You mean the fundamental taboos our national culture has held for centuries? I certainly don't claim that things should never change because "it's the way things have always been" (ie. Slavery, women's suffrage, etc.) but I also don't feel that all things must change just because they're old-fashioned.

No, they should change because they're wrong--like this one. And yes, it is a religious taboo, pure and simple, one not even held by the majority of Christians.

btw, the LDS leadership was on the wrong side of all those other struggles for equality as well, maintaining an unbroken record of siding with the wrong side. They never seem to learn.

 

[tomato1236]

It is really all a question of, never say never.

All things change over time, and this will take longer than most, however God Will find a way to demonstrate his love and show that there is a place for everyone.

It is not only the LDS that have problems with this one, It is splitting many churches down the middle.

I certainly don't deny that eventually it will probably be legal. I just won't be voting for it. And that's my right.

 

[AuroraWillow]

I certainly don't deny that eventually it will probably be legal. I just won't be voting for it. And that's my right.

And it's our right to tell you that your reasoning for doing so is against the moral foundation of the country, and borders on being stupid.

 

[tomato1236]

Yes, but it is up to each voter to decide when to do so, and whether it is right.
Jews believe it's against God's will to eat clams, but it would be wrong for them to vote for a general prohibition against clambakes. Jewish religious prohibitions apply only to Jews, and Mormon religious prohibitions apply only to Mormons. As long as they're not prohibiting you from complying with your religious prohibitions, it is just as wrong for you to vote on whom I should or should not marry, as for Jews to vote on your right to eat clams.

As far as what you see as the moral status of the nation, that is something you have the right to declaim, publish, protest, write and generally advocate, but not to decide for others. An attempt to do so is fundamentally un-American and immoral. And, since I think so, I am exercising my right to berate you about it. I don't have the right to prohibit you from doing it, nor should I. See the difference?

There's a difference between whether something is prohibited by the constitution, and whether it's a good idea. However, the courts have virtually unanimously held that prohibiting same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, so you might want to drop that argument--it's not working for you.

It is working for me. It's the same argument the lawyers appealing the overturn of prop 8 are using. There have been many cases where judges have ruled in favor of "man-and-woman" definitions of marriage in several states.

Actually, you're right. It's not working for me. No argument would, really, even if it made terrific sense or had scientific backing. You want to marry. You will berate me until that happens. And yes, that's your right.

 

[Autodidact]

I certainly don't deny that eventually it will probably be legal. I just won't be voting for it. And that's my right.

Yes, it's your right to be wrong, but why would you want to be?

 

[tomato1236]

And it's our right to tell you that your reasoning for doing so is against the moral foundation of the country, and borders on being stupid.

Good job. I'll be the first to admit that my position is based more on my feelings that good logical scientific reason. I can use reason to explain it, but when it comes down to it, it's very much about how I feel.

And I feel that when it really comes down to it, for gay marriage advocates, it's very much about how they feel.

 

[Smoke]

I certainly don't deny that eventually it will probably be legal. I just won't be voting for it. And that's my right.

It really isn't your right to vote on it, whether for or against. It is the function of government to guarantee the rights of all its people, not to put them up for a vote. You have no more right to vote on my rights than I have to vote on yours. Unfortunately, circumstances may -- and often do -- allow people to do things they have no right to do.