LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[emiliano]

Says who? Your religion? I shouldn't have to follow your religion, sir.

Do I have to explain social contract again? That what they've decided. They the majority.

 

[Green Gaia]

Do I have to explain social contract again? That what they've decided. They the majority.

Do I need to explain what a Democratic Repuplic is and why it is important to minority rights?

 

[painted wolf]

You got it, that is what the social contract is,

So if the majority passed a law saying you had to convert to Islam you would be ok with that?
You would convert as it is the social contract.

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

Do I need to explain what a Democratic Repuplic is and why it is important to minority rights?

Where do you get the idea that Democracy means to govern in accordance to the opinions of the minority from? Not in this planet, minorities can lobby till they become the majority will of the people to achieve changes, they cannot rule over the majority. Simple, isn’t it?

 

[Green Gaia]

Where do you get the idea that Democracy means to govern in accordance to the opinions of the minority from? Not in this planet, minorities can lobby till they become the majority will of the people to achieve changes, they cannot rule over the majority. Simple, isn’t it?

Uh... no. If that were so, women and African Americans still may not have the right to vote in certain parts of this country.

 

[emiliano]

Uh... no. If that were so, women and African Americans still may not have the right to vote in certain parts of this country.

These organization campaign till the majority agreed, what you want is for the opinion of a minority to be law, that wont happen. It is easier to campaign for racial equality than for a third sex in humans, that for sure, you are entitle to your opinions but minorities are not obeyed in a Democracy, that is the right that you have, voice it and solicit support, it will no became law till the majority will it so.
Like the Governator said, keep trying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Our founding fathers never intended the concept of separation of church and state to be cause for casting God out of our system, indeed they understood the paramount importance of keeping Him there hence the overwhelming (albeit dwindling) presence of reference to God in our social and governmental establishments.

I agree. I think that the separation of Church and State was meant as a mechanism to encourage religion. I know that the American Founding Fathers has range of views on the subject, but generally, I think they saw government promotion of one single religion as something that would harm all other forms of worship. The didn't want one faith dictating to other faiths what they should believe and how they should express those beliefs... they wanted freedom of worship and religious practice for all.

However, when it comes to same-sex marriage, isn't this exactly what the anti-same-sex marriage movement has done? You've been given a choice between two options: First, to make same-sex legal but force no church to perform it; each church would be free to follow the dictates of its own conscience and faith in deciding on the best course of action. Second, to make same-sex marriage illegal altogether; all churches are forced to follow your beliefs whether they agree with them or not.

In this matter, the LDS Church and several mainstream Christian groups and other religious organizations have banded together and decided that their shared understanding of what marriage is should trump the understanding that the Metropolitan Community Church, many liberal Quaker meetings and a whole host of non-Christian religions share: that same-sex marriage is acceptable.

Is sauce for the goose sauce for the gander? If American Catholic and Protestant churches banded together to take their views on the Trinity, baptism, or other matters where your beliefs differ from theirs and impose them on the LDS Church, would you think that was fair or right?

Man cannot serve two masters. Ours is not selfishness, it is devotion to our master. Yours is the selfish stance for you demand that we serve two masters.

No - ours is the stance that asks each person to serve their own master as best they can. Yours is the stance that demands not only that we serve your master, but that we serve him in the way that you've decided, even if we feel that we're guided to do otherwise by logic, compassion or the divine.

 

[Green Gaia]

These organization campaign till the majority agreed, what you want is for the opinion of a minority to be law, that wont happen.

No. The majority of white males never agreed (voted) to give women and blacks the right to vote. The court system and Congress did.

It is easier to campaign for racial equality than for a third sex in humans,

Third sex? Are you trying to be purposefully ignorant and offensive?

you are entitle to your opinions but minorities are not obeyed in a Democracy, that is the right that you have, voice it and solicit support, it will no became law till the majority will it so.

I suggest you read up on our democratic republic, sir. It DOES protect the rights of minorities from the willful tyranny of the majority. The founding fathers did this purposefully.

 

[painted wolf]

So emiliano you never answered my question...

So if the majority passed a law saying you had to convert to Islam you would be ok with that?
You would convert as it is the social contract.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

They were part of a tangent about being prepared for disasters. In that context, they are perfectly reasonable.

It's reasonable to talk about disaster preparation in the context of gay marriage? Please explain to me how that's reasonable.

 

[doppelganger]

Do I have to explain social contract again? That what they've decided. They the majority.

No. That's not even close to accurate. The social contract is the mythological structure for legitimizing the exercise of collective coercion (i.e. the power of the state). It is sometimes consistent with what the majority wants, but frequently it is not. Apartheid comes to mind as one rather obvious example of the latter.

 

[Autodidact]

Still nothing concrete to say on the issue?

What issue?

You're group

What group?

has no deity that has given you guidance in favor of your position,

Well I'm an atheist, if that's what you're referring to. And yes, that means that I don't believe there is any such thing. Actually I don't believe that you have a deity either, you just think you do.

you have thousands of years of human consensus that undermines your position and no real history to support it,

Really? Humanity has reached a consensus on the existence and nature of God? That's fascinating. Tell me more. What is this God's name, for starters.

and then there are the physical compatibility issues that even mother nature (or God if you will) has dictated that it takes the union of a man and a woman before procreation is allowed.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about atheism. You're saying there's a consensus about what now? Anyway, yes, gay sex is not reproductive. We all know that. And?

All this and then there is the fact that physically and emotionally there are things that one gender can bring to the family unit that the other cannot. (Ok, OK, I know, it takes a healthy heaping of common sense to support that last statement and there seems to be a real lack of it on your side of the issue, so go ahead, lambaste away)

Actually it would take some facts. Got any?

You claim that I am blatant, overbearing, and unjust when it is you that ignores, denies, and/or makes light of anything and everything that runs against the grain of your position and there is a lot that runs against it.

NO, I claim that you are a prejudiced, irrational bigot.

Homosexuality is your choice but please, try to support your position with something concrete that shows the wisdom in it.

You're saying that I chose to be gay? Uh, don't really remember choosing that, but anyway, if I had a choice, I would, because it's a better way of life for a woman. I recommend it to women in general. I have a happy, fulfilling, rich life, with the love of a wonderful woman and strong family, and the freedom to develop myself and share my gifts with the world.

You remind me of a little child with tear-stained cheeks and a stern, unyielding stare standing belligerent with nothing more to say than "It's what I want".

Did I say that once? However, you are the one telling me what you want, with no rational whatsoever. You remind me of a big bully, shaking his fist at me with nothing more to say than, "It's what I want, so do it." Now did you want to discuss the issues rationally? (I realize that would be a departure for you.)

There has been plenty enough of you stomping your little feet, sneering at our assertions and claiming the we are trying to deny you your rights while you declare that we have no rights to maintain our position on the whole issue.

Sorry, you're not in charge here. I sneer at your assertions because they're hilarious. You are trying to deny my rights. And when did I deny that you have a right to maintain your position? You can retract that lie any time you grow some integrity. You have a perfect right to be irrational, superstitious and bigoted. Why would you want to?

 

[Autodidact]

No, the gay life style, from an eternal perspective, is much more dangerous. These things only kill the body, being found guilty of that which is an abomination in the eyes of God stops eternal forward progression - that's why it is called being "Damned"

Woo woo! Off into superstition land we go. It's scary when you consider that Evandr probably votes based on these ancient superstitions, don't you think?

 

[Autodidact]

A lot of divine inspirations can be called common sense; it just depends on the level of intelligence of the person receiving it

Well, you call it intelligence. But then, we've already seen that you believe the appropriate response to gay marriage is buying canned soup, so we'll draw our own conclusions about your intelligence.

 

[Autodidact]

No one is dictating anything to you, only making positions known. You can do what you want but, by the same token, so can I.

No, I can't. I can't get married. That's what the thread is about, remember? You can. That's the distinction.

I realize that it is maddening to some whose opinion is out-weighed by others in a general consensus, but that is the price that must be paid to maintain order.

Poll the thread, Evandr. You're the one in the minority here.

If someone wants something changed then they must change it by garnering sufficient support on their issue to tip the scale in their favor and a dignified person will do it without injecting discord into everything they get involved in.

I agree. This is exactly what we are doing. However, when you're trying to reason with someone who bases their world view on myths and supersitions, it's hard to persuade them. You would need to be open to reality, and that's too big a job for me.

As of yet the homosexual community has not obtained sufficient support but I believe that the time is not far off that they will.

I agree. That seems to be the direction it's going.

When that happens you can be sure that I will maintain dignity and continue to be reasonably vocal in my opposition (it’s just my nature to do so) all the while reinforcing my preparations to weather the storms as I prepare to meet God without wanting to hide in shame.

What exactly do you think (imaginary) God is going to do?

 

[Autodidact]

A little less God!!
It is the throwing God out of our system that is crumbling our society as it is. Our forefathers understood this all too well; it is the reason that God and references to God are so pervasive in every corner of our social system including the courts and public buildings and art, our money, and every other aspect of our government. Our country began strong because of the values associated with God, regardless of the multitude of religions that were present. It is not surprising that the speed at which our moral fiber is being dummied down to the level of apes is directly proportional to the speed at which God is being erased from our society. And, by the way, keeping the commandments of our Lord, God, and creator is reason enough, there need be no other reason.

I just had a thought, could it be that homosexuality is trying so hard to come out of the closet is because we are pushing God into it? LOL

Compassion you say, it is compassion that drives me to stand against this trend, otherwise I wouldn't give a tinkers dang about what you do. You may not like it and even accuse me of all sorts of unfeeling attitudes but there will come a time when you will lament the fact that I was not successful at dissuading you from your course of action. I truly believe that, as do millions of others. Homosexuals are like children experiencing the first signs of withdrawal from a first time use of heroin and then thinking the laws and communities that try to intercede before they go too far as being uncompassionate for trying to stop them from getting their next fix. I may not dissuade you but you will never be able to say I didn’t try.

(The preceding comparison was a dramatized allegory not meant to suggest that homosexuality and heroin have anything in common other than the regret associated with the consequences so try to refrain from making it out to be more than that, unless of course you simply must display your juvenile side)

Well, you call it compassion. I call it bigotry. As a person on the receiving end of your so-called compassion, you might want to listen to what I have to say.

 

[Autodidact]

LDS or not we have the same rights as you do to voice our opinion and shape our laws. Simply because it seems to be politically correct to become aghast when Mormons are tied to anything is no reason to believe that the source of our convictions invalidates them and makes us unjust - to think such is to be a hypocrite

No, they're wrong just because they're wrong, no matter where you got them. They're still wrong though.

Our founding fathers never intended the concept of separation of church and state to be cause for casting God out of our system, indeed they understood the paramount importance of keeping Him there hence the overwhelming (albeit dwindling) presence of reference to God in our social and governmental establishments.

False.

Man cannot serve two masters. Ours is not selfishness, it is devotion to our master.

You get to be devoted to your (imaginary) master. You don't get to force me to do the same. That's unamerican.

Yours is the selfish stance for you demand that we serve two masters.

? If you want to live in the U.S., you have to abide by the U.S. Constitution.

9/11 is a sad event and clearly show what can happen when the councils of God are twisted and warped, or, in your case, tossed out with the trash.

This is what I mean by crazy. I mean, that's just insane, and you really can't reason with someone who thinks that their ancient war god wreaks revenge on humans for failing to comply with His cleanliness taboos.

It is extremely presumptuous of you to call me blind, you know nothing of my experience.

Well please, enlighten us.

I do not attack homosexuals,

Right. Other than calling us evil, that is.

I have said that those I know are good people whom I enjoy being in the company of.

Yes you seem unable to learn from that experience.

I stand against the practice as being contrary to the word of God and if you can't see that then it is you who are blind.

No, you are. Here, try this: cite me the scripture that prohibits lesbianism.

Again, your comments drip with presumption. You will obviously say anything that supports your indignation including grand accusations that I am attacking the individual and not the philosophy.

It doesn't matter, either way you're wrong.

I have attacked and berated no one, I have stood against you and your philosophies.

Other than that little "evil" thing, you mean.

Your nervousness at the weakness of your stance is showing quite clearly because you are grasping at straws, taking things out of contest, and basically saying anything you can to stay afloat.

lol! That's a good one.

It is possible to love the sinner whilst hating the sin.

Feel free, just don't bother me with it. I mean, if it's not your "sin," then what business is it of yours. I think you live in sin, but I'm not trying to interfere with your rights, am I?

Don't you mean all freedom, even the freedom to stand against something, even if others do not?So what you are saying is that others can have their religions and there beliefs but I can't - brother - you apparently have not the first idea of what it means to be an American You say our citizens as if I am alone - I am not nor do I attack anybody, only those philosophies that, in my right as an American citizen, I believe to be wrong. It is you who are ignoring the basic tenants of American Freedom and getting all indignant because everyone does not believe as you do. My arguments have substance, yours do not.

Are you nuts? Oh yeah, we already know you are, sorry. Anyway, no one's trying to interfere with your crazy religion. It's your perfect right to live your entire life in blissful whackiness, if you so desire. Who's trying to interfere with your freedom of religion, for heaven's sake? You do realize that I'm likewise free to believe it's completely insane, right?

Your entire body of comments points inexorably at the fact that you are trying desperately to dissuade me from exposing the evident weakness of your own platform by drawing me away from the fact that the homosexual philosophy has no historical support to indicate that it is anything but something to be rejected every time it becomes an issue.

Well then you don't have a problem, do you, since everyone agrees with you on this issue.

 

[1tim115]

In america we are defined as a nation as having a clear seperation between church and state. Now we have in god we trust on our funds and we are a nation under god. We have religious views controlling the masses for the promised rewards and benefits not in this life or for our nation but for each person in their own contrived view of the afterlife.

I am an atheist mate.

We as americans have banded together as a nation to support your freedom to practice your religion and your beliefs.

What is your preference for the money? It isn't important because the money is Caesar's not mine. He can put on it whatever he legislates. Also, the pledge bothers you, much the same as in the money.

I don't see this, "I am an atheist mate. We as americans have banded together as a nation to support your freedom to practice your religion..." as being too harmoniusly intwined. However, I would guess that if I could teleport you back to that day you would be highly supportive of God and America. :run:

 

[Autodidact]

It's simple, the tendency toward homosexuality is not new, it's as old as man yet it's still in the woods - somebody is keeping it there irrespective of the millions that you claim stand behind you. Please, Please, Please, show me something that supports your idea that being gay is good for anybody save the participants. Surly your tenacious stance must be anchored to something worth listening to. As of yet all you have shown me is how sophisticated you are at throwing a fit.

No, it doesn't work that way. If you want to limit it, it's on you to show that it's bad for anyone else.

In general, I would say that love is a good thing for everyone, and anyone who wants the world to be a better place should want to increase the love in the world.

 

[Autodidact]

My stance is simple, not complex at all - Our Heavenly Father has indicated that it is an abomination and there can be no leeway. What you are ignorant of could fill volumes so there is no point in any furthur discussion with you; it's like trying to reason with an obstinate angry child who wants what they want and demands that others give it to them. Good Luck With That

So is mine. You have the right to believe this silliness. You do not have the right to require the rest of us to do so; therefore your argument is completely irrelevant.