LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Starfish]

To be honest, I've seen a lot of threads debating the issue (all of which seem to end up being locked) and I've yet to see any rational and substantiated argument against it. Everything was thoroughly and repeatedly refuted as people kept regurgitating the same ol' tired fallacies over and over.

Well then why do it again?

 

[Storm]

If your so tired of it, Starfish, why are you posting at all?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is my religious belief that it is wrong to murder too... not to steal, etc... so is that enforcing my morals on others?

Perhaps, but wouldn't it be a greater imposition on someone to be murdered?

And just because an idea like "murder is wrong" is sometimes expressed in a religious context does not mean it's exclusively religious.

No one is telling others not to live together, or what to do behind closed doors. Do what you want if it is not hurting anyone.

Great - so legalized same-sex marriage it is.

I have a few relatives who are homosexual, I know it is a physical condition etc...(a handicap) It is a hard topic. I can see how it would be easier to love someone of the same sex - I mean they are the same, you know and understand what is the same. The real test is if you can love everyone - love, not someone like yourself, but someone unlike yourself in every way, that is where you really learn how to love.

Why do you think that opposite gender means "unlike yourself in every way"? Most married couples I know have a great deal in common. Some husbands and wives I know finish each other's sentences.

"arranged marriage for socio-political gain"

How is traditional marriage "arranged"?
What is the "socio-political" gain?

You're familiar with the term "dowry", aren't you?

 

[Starfish]

If your so tired of it, Starfish, why are you posting at all?

I came in to correct this statement:

"Yes, people are telling others what to do behind closed doors."

 

[McBell]

I came in to correct this statement:

"Yes, people are telling others what to do behind closed doors."

You did not correct it.
You merely attempted to excuse it.

 

[Starfish]

You did not correct it.
You merely attempted to excuse it.

The statement was false, as it pertains to the OP.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well then why do it again?

Because I just gotta keep chopping those hydra heads off. Zombie hydra. A poisonous zombie hydra.

 

[McBell]

The statement was false, as it pertains to the OP.

No it isn't.
The ban of same sex marriage is nothing more than a way to control same sex couples.

To use a popular homophobic argument tactic:

If we let them ban same sex marriage, what will they want to ban next, anal sex? oral sex? all positions but missionary? love?
​

 

[Autodidact]

It comes down to how we believe such principles effect other people and society as a whole. As in the case of same-sex marriage the LDS church believes that the legal and social embracing of same-sex marriages and relationships will result in a negative effect on our society.

On what do they base this belief?

It will likely lead to more children being raised without a father and a mother, which pattern we believe to be divinely established by God for the greatest benefit of man.

Why do you believe this?

It will likely lead to decreased sexual inhibitions in general which will over time degrade our society's moral fabric, which we believe to be the heart of a strong society. In attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage and the moral character of our society, the church feels a duty to publicly support measures that block attempts that we feel threatens these moral values.

What on earth do you think gives you the right or duty to be in charge of someone else's morals?

Here's what I mean, Polaris. I strongly believe that LDS is inherently immoral, because it is based in its very foundation on a very careless attitude toward truth. Not only does it seem to be based on no foundation whatsoever, and to be utterly mistaken in its most basic beliefs, not to mention its blithe disregard of evidence, but to compound its negative effect on society as a whole, LDS actually sends out missionaries to proselytize as much as possible. Does that make it my job to deny the free exercise of what I believe to be your extremely harmful religion? That's exactly how much it is your job to deny the free exercise of my way of life.

Further, if you believe my way of life is harmful, you are mistaken. It is factually incorrect that my loving another woman has the slightest harmful effect on society; in fact it has several positive ones.

So unless you think we should all be imposing our personal moral standards on others, I suggest you keep yours to yourself.

 

[Autodidact]

This one's not too hard to foresee. More same-sex parents leads to more same-sex parents with adopted (or otherwise conceived) children, means more children without either a father, or a mother.

And simultaneously, more children with two mothers, or two fathers. And?

When one believes that homosexual activity is immoral to begin with, its not a stretch to suggest that the societal embracing of such activity will not further perpetuate it.

When one believes that LDS belief and behavior is immoral to begin with, it's not a stretch to suggest that the societal embracing of such activity will not further perpetuate it.

I disagree. The organized religions don't damage society or children, evil men's misuse of them sometimes do. On the other hand organized religion provides many opportunities to help strengthen society and nurture children.

You mean the evil men in organized religion? Organized religion provides many opportunities to help brainwash innocent children and sometimes abuse and take advantage of them.

Who do you think has molested more little boys, Polaris, all the gay people in the world, or all the Catholic priests in the world?

 

[Autodidact]

Any action by society that endorses and celebrates any immoral behavior has the tendency of perpetuating that behavior.

O.K., let's prohibit the LDS Church now.

Look you can disagree all you want. I just believe that every child deserves to be raised and nurtured by a father and mother when possible. I believe that the sanctioning of same-sex marriage poses a threat to the moral values of our society. I have the right to believe and vote according to my conscience and you have the right to believe and vote according to yours.

No. You have the right not to marry another man, and that's all. You do not have the right to tell anyone else in the world who they can love or who they can marry. Your freedom ends where mine begins. You wouldn't like me to tell you who you can marry, would you?

This is particularly true because your beliefs are factually false. It is false that children raised by one man and one woman do better in any measurable way than children raised by two men or two women. Asserting that they do is lying, which is of course very immoral. Yet another reason to prohibit the immoral LDS Church from spreading its immoral behavior.

 

[Autodidact]

You don't think that as more same-sex couples get married that the number of same-sex couples seeking to raise children will also increase? I do, on two fronts: as same-sex relationships gain acceptance and even endorsement in society, more people will choose to take that path; and as the number of same-sex couples increases so will increase the number of same-sex parents.

That's so silly. Do you honestly believe that if it's O.K. to be gay, more people will become gay? That homosexuality is so inherently appealing that it is only by suppressing and punishing it that we can keep it under control? On second thought...maybe you're right.

 

[Orontes]

To be honest, I've seen a lot of threads debating the issue (all of which seem to end up being locked) and I've yet to see any rational and substantiated argument against it. Everything was thoroughly and repeatedly refuted as people kept regurgitating the same ol' tired fallacies over and over.

Hello,

I'm surprised by your comment. Simply looking at this thread I have addressed jurisprudential issues as they relate to, and in support of, Proposition 8. These included: judicial overreach, the invention of rights claims, errors in equity claims and the ability of religious groups to participate in the political process. None of these explanatories have been refuted.

Now the thread has moved in an odd direction. It seems to be tacking toward sex acts. This indicates people either do not know the contents of proposition 8, do not understand proposition 8 or are simple sloppy thinkers. Now, if you feel there are "fallacies" in any of the arguments I've put forward or that there was some repeated refutation: indicate the fallacy and/or where these refutations are. Otherwise, your comment is in error.

 

[Autodidact]

in fact is is a clear cut as it sounds. in all instances it is important for the mother and the father to be present in rearing thier children. Because, when one is not present it becomes increasingly difficult to raise children in righteousness. Unfortunately there are circumstances outside of our control in which we must abide by the law of the land.

"Righteousness"? Righteousness?!?! Are you asserting that your bizarre lifestyle is somehow more righteous than mine? I beg to differ and would be more than happy to argue the point.

Of course there are going to be co-habitating people, and sex outside of marriage (which is only to be between a man and a woman) no matter who they are is immoral.

Sez who?

It's not that we are saying one is fine and one isn't, both are equally disgusting before God. We don't want it being accepted as a society because it will just further perpetuate moral degredation in our society as a whole

Oh, so if we want to know what God wants, we should ask madhatter, who apparently has a direct pipeline. All the non-Mormons just shut up and listen to madhatter, who will set you straight. btw, God's not so happy about your beverage consumption, either.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asked to defend our positions./QUOTE]

Of course you're going to defend your position. we can't stop you.

O.K. go for it. Defend your position. We're waiting.

and it should be, I don't think that Gay couples or unmarried hetero couples should adopt either.

"Why not?" asked the lesbian adoptive mother? Because of your prejudice, or do you have some actual evidence on your side?

you misunderstand the statement, you always go "blah blah blah, you're saying it's choice".

It does nto matter if homosexuality in general is a choice or not, The fact is that there ARE people who CHOOSE to be homosexual. and yes whenever there is a "trend" set by someone who is in power or have some sort of following. People will take thier ques from them. It happens. Look at Anne Heche, clear example of choosing to be gay. she says she is and then she isn't.

You're absolutely right, it makes no difference whether it's a choice or not, because it's an inherently moral activity.

LDS behavior, OTOH, is both immoral and a matter of choice. You can stop any time. I'll help and counsel you, if you just reach out and give up your immoral lifestyle.

because of the "trend" attitude of society. when somethign new and accepted comes along people are more inclined to "try it out". because people don't think for themselves, they take Ques from people they admire. and it's a shame, but it's a fact.

This is hilarious. I'm sure you're right, though, homosexuality is so inherently preferable to heterosexuality that the only way to keep anyone straight is to outlaw homosexuality altogether.

 

[Autodidact]

OH! How passionate of Father Heathen holding the progression of society back? And to what exactly is your society progressing to? Have you thought of the dangers to our children that this vices poses? A threat to liberty of libertinage? Why would we want our children exposed to the “if it feel good do it regardless of consequences”? Instant gratification of ones desire? We have more than enough problems with addictions to all sort of things that are the direct consequence of a lack of control and higher moral principal, to have you and your lot putting filth into them. For as long as we are the majority we will defend and protect them from you, so these people that have united to call their member "We ask that you do all you can to support the constitutional amendment...to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman" have their rights. If they are the majority that what the constitution must say? Majority rules doe it not?

Please explain what any of this odd rant has to do with homosexuality.
O.K., so if the proposal loses, you will then support gay marriage? Majority rules, does it not?

Do you find that calling other people names either (1) an effective method of argument (2) makes you feel good?

 

[Autodidact]

[/size][/font]Satisfaction level in and of itself level is not relevant. What is relevant is the process by and through which rights come about. There are no "legal rights" absent the democratic process. Judicial imposition is undemocratic. It is autocratic, and thus must be opposed.

Why do you hate America?

 

[Autodidact]

Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation; But sin is a reproach to any people.
Pr 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination to Jehovah; But he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.

1. When God judges a land, everyone in the land suffers including Christians.

2. In a land where people can vote, those who are Christians certainly can't encourage or support sin by voting for it.

3. Christians at all times and in all places should be encouraging people to repent their sin.

Get your primitive superstition here. Sign up for theocracy right here in the U.S. of A.

 

[Autodidact]

Full circle. No one is denied the right to marry. We are all equally allowed to marry, within limits.

O.K. great. Let's all equally be allowed to marry people of the same sex only. Good with you then?

 

[Autodidact]

State-sanctioned marriage (and the legal benefits that accomany it) is not a right. Marriage is a state-recognized union whose members qualify for certain benefits that encourage and facilitate the rearing of families. Those benefits are just that -- benefits, not rights.

However, under the Constitution of the state of California, such privileges msust be afforded to all California citizens equally.

I guess you'd be O.K. with losing this privilege then? Wouldn't violate your rights or anything?

 

[Autodidact]

Absolutely not. As far as marriage rights/benefits, all are equal. Any man, regardless of orientation, can marry within limits, any woman, regardless of orientation.

And before Loving v Virginia any man, regardless of race could marry within limits any woman of the same race.

Since you don't have a problem with it, I suggest that you be allowed to marry any person of the same sex that you choose, and see how that feels to you.