LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Sententia]

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

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.

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.

Beyond how wrong and immoral this stance is did I miss the whole explanation for how this ideology gels with:

Also (and going back to the LDS Church specifically), the 11th Article of Faith is as follows:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I mean you could follow Lord So and So who preaches to be yourself, love when you can and strive for moral happiness. That is to say So and So doesn't actually say don't be gay.

Now the followers of Lord So and So have to share their town with this quoted and aptly named Mad Hatter who says Bah Gay People and Enough with the witches... Conform to Mormon God Morality or we will legally force the issue. Really?

Way to be american buddy. Way to be divisive. Your entire understanding of Bi and Gay Sexuality is so twisted up in your religion that you are officially more mormon than american. Does that pose a problem for you or do you think my assessment is wrong?

On a side note: To my knowledge most people think god is a dude because he never forbade the lying of women with women... its just the men with men bit he took issue with.... Does the mormon official books forbid women lying with women?

Just thinking about it... In the good old days of Joey Smith the dude married women who already had husbands... Whats that cable show where there is like 3 wives married to 1 dude... Sure not sanctioned mormonism today... but It was in the past yes? So all these chicks hanging out and not working because thats just what all the wives do I guess... Raise kids... cook.... sigh.... I could be wrong I saw like one episode... Big Love. Hah I remembered... Anyways... so Dude has to go to work... Maybe he is really into his new asian wife... their third... (This is hypothetical... I dont follow the show) So the other two wives which turn out to be the Girl from Lie to me and Cuddy from house might have the opportunity and desire with a little wine to accidentally hook up... I mean technically their wives in law so isnt that permitted? And maybe husband wanders in... Wait one sec.... What state in the US consumes the most pornography?

Oh...

Ok back on track... mad hatter here is a trans-humanist... Wikipedia: Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities.

So Madhatter would you support using Science and Technology to engineer humans that could only be heterosexual?

 

[dallas1125]

I really disagree with the churches stance on the matter. I firmly believe the articles of faith are contradictory to what is going on. I think the biggest thing is the leaders are old and once they start to leave we will see new leaders who are not so contradictory on the issue.

 

[madhatter85]

Hi Balance, long time no see. Interesting how you dug up such an old thread.

Now I must admit that the way I presented this previously (almost what, a year ago? lol) was not the most tacful way to present it to you. Also, there is no reason for me to justify my belief system to you or anyone else. You can either accept it or reject it, completely up to you. That being said, let me try to reason with you on your own level so that you may understand my position from an academic standpoint rather than a religious one.(because all the gay supporters try to do is blast religion with the same meaningless rehtoric over and over and talk in circles.)

The problem is how the gay community in general categorizes thier problem. They feel it it what identifies them as people when in reality it does not. The gay community on one hand demands acceptance of thier "condition" while on the other hand they demand being treated differently by forcing thier communities to do just that. they are as much a "community" as people who love Star Trek and not Star Wars(or vice-versa, whichever you prefer). Those who identify as being homosexual are no different than any other person on this planet and they are already treated equally as everyone else. As with any atypical behaviour pattern there will be those who are "putt off" by it or dislike the behaviour. This happens with any behavior caused by any number of factors including (but not limited to), upringing, personality (including disorders), genetics (again, including disorders). I personally see no reason why we have to make concessions to acommodate homosexual behavior in society or accept it as a normal behavior which requires special concessions to be made. And you can read any number of my posts regarding this from an academic standpoint about nature and how it is blatantly obvious that for any species to propogate and survive the natural order is to mate in a manner which would produce offspring.

The reason i bring it up that way is the gay community always tries to use the argument that it is "in thier nature," that it "cannot be helped," as if they loose all volition on the subject. They bring thier own condition to an inherently primal level likening it to race or ethnicity. When, at the same time they refuse to accept any argument at the same level. when presented with arguments similar to what I have already presented, they jump up to higher levels of thought like, "overpopulation" or even more rediculous things like "well penguins and dolphins do it!" to try to argue thier points. This is not an effective strategy. we should be comparing apples to apples should we not? You are not a penguin or a dolphin, if you want to be one, i hope you believe in reincarnation because right now you are human (at least I assume you are :areyoucra).

 

[madhatter85]

I really disagree with the churches stance on the matter. I firmly believe the articles of faith are contradictory to what is going on. I think the biggest thing is the leaders are old and once they start to leave we will see new leaders who are not so contradictory on the issue.

So do you believe homosexual relationships are in keeping with the Plan of Salvation?

 

[madhatter85]

Oh and I completely forgot to answer your question balance.

Yes, I believe once we advance far enough in science we will find the root cause of homosexual behavior to be an undesirable trait and treat it as such. call it eugenics or whatever you want it makes no difference to me. I am not advocating killing or harming those suffering from same-sex attraction. But if there were some sort of "cure" (weither it be through genetics or physicological means) created by scientific means I think it would be good for society as a whole. And on that note I thinkt here are a lot of undesirable traits that we could eventually get rid of like genetic causes for obesity, heart disease, mental deficiencies, and other disorders. I view those traits as undesireable and unnessecary.
Now again, i am not advocating forcing anything on anyone. This is strictly something that if available, people could choose to participate in or not. It would be completely up to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So do you believe homosexual relationships are in keeping with the Plan of Salvation?

Do you think that married people in homosexual relationships have a different place in the "Plan of Salvation" than unmarried people in homosexual relationships?

 

[dallas1125]

So do you believe homosexual relationships are in keeping with the Plan of Salvation?

Nope, but I dont believe forcing our religion upon those who dont believe is part of it either.

 

[Sententia]

So do you believe homosexual relationships are in keeping with the Plan of Salvation?

Even if it is not...

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Why do you care? Let them worship, how, where and what they want. Your mormon thoughts are for mormons why would you legally demand baptists agree with you? Maybe baptists are cool with gay preachers or atleast gay parishioners... Be a mormon american not a mormon mormon.

Unless you find fault with america?

 

[madhatter85]

Do you think that married people in homosexual relationships have a different place in the "Plan of Salvation" than unmarried people in homosexual relationships?

I don't think it would be any different for them than a heterosexual unmarried couple

But, you didn't really understand the question i posed to him. From an LDS perspective marriage is ordained of God and is the only way for us to achieve our full potential. What i am asking him is, from an LDS point of view does he believe that a homosexual couple has the same potential that a heterosexual couple has in the eyes of God?

 

[Sententia]

call it eugenics or whatever you want it makes no difference to me. I am not advocating killing or harming those suffering from same-sex attraction. But if there were some sort of "cure"

 

[madhatter85]

Nope, but I dont believe forcing our religion upon those who dont believe is part of it either.

You do realize that this is a "slippery slope" into forcing others to worship in a seemingly "politcially correct" manner. (as in punishing religious establishments for not recognizing homosexual marriages or preaching against homosexual behavior) don't you?

The Prophets have the best PR advisor in the world, And I am 100% certain that they would not hastily say things like this.

 

[madhatter85]

Even if it is not...
Why do you care? Let them worship, how, where and what they want. Your mormon thoughts are for mormons why would you legally demand baptists agree with you? Maybe baptists are cool with gay preachers or atleast gay parishioners... Be a mormon american not a mormon mormon.

Unless you find fault with america?

So are you saying that all gay people worship.... homosexual behavior?:areyoucra

 

[dallas1125]

You do realize that this is a "slippery slope" into forcing others to worship in a seemingly "politcially correct" manner. (as in punishing religious establishments for not recognizing homosexual marriages or preaching against homosexual behavior) don't you?

The Prophets have the best PR advisor in the world, And I am 100% certain that they would not hastily say things like this.

Okay I think you misunderstood me.

The 11th article of faith says "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

We believe that it is immoral. Yet we also dont believe in forcing people to abide by our beliefs.

 

[darkendless]

Okay I think you misunderstood me.

The 11th article of faith says "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

We believe that it is immoral. Yet we also dont believe in forcing people to abide by our beliefs.

I remember when prop 8 was big news, people were using "their preferred opinion" as an excuse to shoot down same sex marriage rights.

I have to say that then and now even its astonishing that people refuse to allow homosexual marriage because of their religios beliefs. Wasn't religion responsible for live and let live?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think it would be any different for them than a heterosexual unmarried couple

But, you didn't really understand the question i posed to him. From an LDS perspective marriage is ordained of God and is the only way for us to achieve our full potential. What i am asking him is, from an LDS point of view does he believe that a homosexual couple has the same potential that a heterosexual couple has in the eyes of God?

No, I got your intended meaning. What I was trying to get at is that the question of whether God likes opposite-sex marriage better than same-sex marriage is irrelevant in the question of whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not, because the same-sex marriage debate is about whether married same-sex couples are better than unmarried same-sex couples, not about whether same-sex couples are better than opposite-sex couples.

You want a gay man to be with a woman instead? Well, it doesn't matter, because it's not going to happen regardless of what happens with same-sex marriage. The same-sex marriage debate is entirely about how the law should treat that man's relationship, not about some fantastic idea that legislation can magically make him straight.

So... as I tried to get at before: forget about opposite-sex marriage. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever happens with same-sex marriage, it will have no effect on the rate at which opposite-sex couples marry. If you think that God's opinion matters on this issue, then ask yourself about what he would prefer between the only two options that are actually on the table:

- married same-sex couples
- unmarried same-sex couples

Anything outside of this narrow scope is a sunk cost... a factor that's common to both options, so therefore not a valid basis for deciding between those options.

 

[Magic Man]

(because all the gay supporters try to do is blast religion with the same meaningless rehtoric over and over and talk in circles.)

Nice how you say you're going to try to reason this out, and then throw this in there. At times, of course, the LGBT community and their supporters react harshly to those who oppose equal rights for them, but that's to be expected, since it's a matter of being treated as less than straight people. You'd get pretty angry too. However, most of the time on here and in real life, all we try to do is reason with those who oppose things like same-sex marriage. That's not an easy thing to do when you're talking about doing it with people who aren't using reason or logic to support their position.

The gay community on one hand demands acceptance of thier "condition" while on the other hand they demand being treated differently by forcing thier communities to do just that.

They don't demand acceptance, just ambivalence. You don't have to accept what they do, just let them do it as long as they're not harming anyone. And they don't demand to be treated any differently. They just want to be able to serve openly in the military, marry the person they choose as long as that person is a consenting adult, and generally be treated the same as anyone else.

they are as much a "community" as people who love Star Trek and not Star Wars(or vice-versa, whichever you prefer). Those who identify as being homosexual are no different than any other person on this planet and they are already treated equally as everyone else.

Woops, sorry, but no, they're not. They can't marry the person they choose. That means they're treated differently. You can also look at it from the gender perspective. A woman is allowed to marry a man, but a man is not allowed. That's unequal. You're right that they're no different, so we shouldn't treat them any different, and thus we should let them marry the consenting adult of their choice.

I personally see no reason why we have to make concessions to acommodate homosexual behavior in society or accept it as a normal behavior which requires special concessions to be made.

We don't have to make any concessions or accommodate anything, but we do have too treat it as normal behavior, since that's what it is.

And you can read any number of my posts regarding this from an academic standpoint about nature and how it is blatantly obvious that for any species to propogate and survive the natural order is to mate in a manner which would produce offspring.

It's equally blatantly obvious that a species doesn't need 100% of its members to reproduce for it to continue to survive or even thrive. Plus, this ignores the question of people who just don't want to have kids, along with the fact that our species can't continue to grow in number as we have for that much longer. I doubt you have a problem with a couple getting married and just choosing not to have children. But the mindset of not wanting to have kids, as far as natural reproduction and the survival of the species is concerned, is just as abnormal and "harmful" as homosexuality is. Actually even more so, since some gay people actually want to have children, biological or otherwise.

The reason i bring it up that way is the gay community always tries to use the argument that it is "in thier nature," that it "cannot be helped," as if they loose all volition on the subject. They bring thier own condition to an inherently primal level likening it to race or ethnicity. When, at the same time they refuse to accept any argument at the same level. when presented with arguments similar to what I have already presented, they jump up to higher levels of thought like, "overpopulation" or even more rediculous things like "well penguins and dolphins do it!" to try to argue thier points. This is not an effective strategy. we should be comparing apples to apples should we not? You are not a penguin or a dolphin, if you want to be one, i hope you believe in reincarnation because right now you are human (at least I assume you are :areyoucra).

You seem to be misunderstanding. The reason people bring up the fact that some animals engage in homosexual behavior is that it's a retort to the argument that homosexuality is unnatural. The rest of this I can't make any sense of, but hopefully someone else already has.

 

[dallas1125]

I remember when prop 8 was big news, people were using "their preferred opinion" as an excuse to shoot down same sex marriage rights.

I have to say that then and now even its astonishing that people refuse to allow homosexual marriage because of their religios beliefs. Wasn't religion responsible for live and let live?

I might be opposed to it in a religous way but I refuse to let them create a law banning someones right to marry.

 

[madhatter85]

You want a gay man to be with a woman instead? Well, it doesn't matter, because it's not going to happen regardless of what happens with same-sex marriage. The same-sex marriage debate is entirely about how the law should treat that man's relationship, not about some fantastic idea that legislation can magically make him straight.

I am not implying or saying that we should force anyone's behavior in a certain way. If they so choose to be in a homosexual relationship then that is completely up to them. But that in no way dictates that we make special concessions for someone who chooses to behave in an atypical fashion.

So... as I tried to get at before: forget about opposite-sex marriage. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Whatever happens with same-sex marriage, it will have no effect on the rate at which opposite-sex couples marry. If you think that God's opinion matters on this issue, then ask yourself about what he would prefer between the only two options that are actually on the table:

- married same-sex couples
- unmarried same-sex couples

But they are not the only two options. And since I, and my state of residence, do not recognize same-sex marriages there is only one option where i live, unmarried same-sex couples.

 

[Autodidact]

Passage Leviticus 18:22:

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

There are more but this will do. Same sex marriage is a no no.Any idea what 'abomination' means?

1. anything abominable; anything greatly disliked or abhorred.
2. intense aversion or loathing; detestation:
3. a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, habit, etc.

John 8:32
thecomforter.info

Kind of like eating seafood, or wearing clothing of mixed fibers?

 

[Autodidact]

Hi Balance, long time no see. Interesting how you dug up such an old thread.

Now I must admit that the way I presented this previously (almost what, a year ago? lol) was not the most tacful way to present it to you. Also, there is no reason for me to justify my belief system to you or anyone else. You can either accept it or reject it, completely up to you. That being said, let me try to reason with you on your own level so that you may understand my position from an academic standpoint rather than a religious one.(because all the gay supporters try to do is blast religion with the same meaningless rehtoric over and over and talk in circles.)

The problem is how the gay community in general categorizes thier problem. They feel it it what identifies them as people when in reality it does not. The gay community on one hand demands acceptance of thier "condition" while on the other hand they demand being treated differently by forcing thier communities to do just that. they are as much a "community" as people who love Star Trek and not Star Wars(or vice-versa, whichever you prefer). Those who identify as being homosexual are no different than any other person on this planet and they are already treated equally as everyone else. As with any atypical behaviour pattern there will be those who are "putt off" by it or dislike the behaviour. This happens with any behavior caused by any number of factors including (but not limited to), upringing, personality (including disorders), genetics (again, including disorders). I personally see no reason why we have to make concessions to acommodate homosexual behavior in society or accept it as a normal behavior which requires special concessions to be made. And you can read any number of my posts regarding this from an academic standpoint about nature and how it is blatantly obvious that for any species to propogate and survive the natural order is to mate in a manner which would produce offspring.

The reason i bring it up that way is the gay community always tries to use the argument that it is "in thier nature," that it "cannot be helped," as if they loose all volition on the subject. They bring thier own condition to an inherently primal level likening it to race or ethnicity. When, at the same time they refuse to accept any argument at the same level. when presented with arguments similar to what I have already presented, they jump up to higher levels of thought like, "overpopulation" or even more rediculous things like "well penguins and dolphins do it!" to try to argue thier points. This is not an effective strategy. we should be comparing apples to apples should we not? You are not a penguin or a dolphin, if you want to be one, i hope you believe in reincarnation because right now you are human (at least I assume you are :areyoucra).

I don't know about the gay community, but all I'm seeking is the same rights you enjoy.