LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

Correction. No one is inherently entitled to those benefits, those desiring them must qualify. Regardless, they are benefits, not rights.

Bingo! You just lost them. Anyone who makes this argument is hereby disqualified from enjoying this benefit.

btw, the Supreme Court strongly disagrees with you. The have held several times that the right to marry and the privacy of the family are fundamental rights.

 

[madhatter85]

"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.

In essence yes, I believe i am living righteously because i adhere to the laws of the Land as well as the Laws of God.

Sez who?

God

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.

The same direct pipeline veryone else has access to. It's not may fault there are people who opt out of using it. LEt's see, there are scripture, prophets, and personal revelation.

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

It's not my fault that you refuse to aknowlege God exists. That is my defense and say what you will about it it's my belief.

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

You are making it sound as if it is some sort of homosexual exclusion to my statements when clearly i have pointed out that homosexuality is no different to us than sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. It's all part of the law of chastity.

My backup is the words of God's Prophets on the earth today:
The Family: a Proclamation to the World

Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

It;s not my fault you chose not to listen to God's prophetic council.

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

I fixed your post

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.

please tell me how love unfeighned, charity, and long suffering are immoral. i would love to see your argument.

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.

We aren't outlawing homosexuality. we just don't want you marrying.

we aren't tellign you who you can or cannot love. we are telling you who you can and cannot marry. you can live with your lover all you want. you just won't get marriage benefits.

 

[Autodidact]

Sure it does. Through democratic processes the state has the right to set the qualifying terms for certain benefits.

So if the majority votes to deny this benefit to all Mormons, that would be Constitutional?

We're talking about legal marriage, not simply the companionship of two individuals.

Yes, we all know that.

 

[Autodidact]

It's somewhat simliar to the home mortgage deduction. That tax deduction isn't there because the State wants to discriminate against renters - it is there as an incentive to get people to buy a home.

Marriage benefits for heterosexual partners are not there to discriminate against homosexuals, but as an incentive to get heterosexual people to marry.

Again, the Supreme Court disagrees with you in the strongest terms.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Loving v. Virginia
Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and since the classification at issue here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, we believe that "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required. Zablocki v. Redhail

 

[Autodidact]

And such a marriage is currently available to homosexuals.

That's really beside the point though. Incentives aren't there because nobody would do whatever it is you are trying to incentivize them to do without them - they are there to promote the behavior.

Let's try another analogy on you. Let's make everyone free to worship at the synagogue of their choice. Do you feel free to exercise your Constitutional right now? Why not?

 

[Autodidact]

The incentive most likely being to provide stability to family life.

And gay families don't need stability?

 

[Autodidact]

If the state had a reason to suppose that subsidizing Catholocism was in it's best interest it could. Many countries have a State Church for that very reason.

Many countries are not the United States, where our Constitution prohibits this.

 

[Autodidact]

As long as the people choose to support said state, then they do as far as the state is concerned.

I agree. I don't believe that it is in the best interest of society to have a state church. That's why I don't support the US having one.

And that's exactly why opposition to gay marriage is wrong in the U.S.

 

[Autodidact]

That whole system should probably be revised. Homosexual marriage isn't going to fix it.

It will fix at least one part.

 

[Autodidact]

Just one nit-pick: I don't think the term "illegal" really fits. "Not recognized by the state" is better.

I see how you can stretch that one to fit though.

Maybe you should ask Mildred Loving about that difference.

 

[Autodidact]

Marriage is not a right.

Maybe you should tell the Supreme Court.

I guess you wouldn't mind then being excluded from this benefit?

 

[Autodidact]

The simple answer is because it does not fit with the meaning of what a right is. Do you understand what claiming a right entails?

Define "right" such that marriage isn't one.

 

[Autodidact]

Making an "unequal treatment under the law" claim and then privileging gender and location (California) appear to contradict.

What are you basing these assertions on?

The holding of the California Supreme Court.

 

[Autodidact]

If your claims recognize different laws only have applicabilty in certain locales, then I assume there will be no general assertions about law and rights being made hereafter.

There is no privilege of gender in what you reference. Further, your assertion is undercut because it does not take into account the base operative for any "unequal treatment" charge. That operative is known in law as "similarly situated". This is what "same terms to all citizens" means. This is why men can be barred from women's restrooms for example, or sixteen year olds are not allowed to vote.

Is there some reason you can't talk in plain English? The California case was based on the California Constitution. Its reasoning applies only to places with similar Constitutions, which the U.S. does not have.

How are men and women differently situation with regard to marriage?

 

[Autodidact]

you are the one making it circular. I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as anyone else is. I'm not trying to convice anyone of anything. unlike you and all of those who are left wing fanatics I have never said your beliefs are irrational, We just disagree and that clearly will not change, so get over it.

Great. So you support gay marriage then?

 

[Autodidact]

We are tinkering around the edges here the OP as I see is to debate the LDS president’s call to it member to support proposition 8, which call for a return to proposition 22, people here bring the right to this and that, does the LDS president and his members have rights? The right to organise his member to bring proposition 22 back?

Yes. That doesn't make it right.

 

[Autodidact]

Loving your neighbour means that you do what you can to prevent their physical and spiritual destruction, the fun that these people engages on is very risky, they seem to have little control over their sexual urges and that make the success of safe sex schemes unlikely.

I love you so much that I'm going to devote my life to preventing you from persisting in your primitive delusional myth system. Do you appreciate my love? Or would you rather have your rights respected?

 

[Autodidact]

The unnatural sex that homosexual engage in is, and is extremely risky because the skin breakage that occur in such an act, it leaves the body at risk of been invaded by those dreadful blood to blood transmitted diseases. Engaging in vices weaken the capacity to abstain.

Define "unnatural."
I'm pretty sure I don't do anything that results in skin breakage. In fact, I'm sure you are much more likely to cause skin breakage than anything I've ever done. Better cut our that unnatural heterosexual sex before you lose your capacity to abstain.
Newsflash: It's not a vice; it's a virtue.

 

[Autodidact]

Well that is Christian thing, you won’t understand.

Let's keep it to just you Christians then.

 

[Autodidact]

As though heterosexuals never engage in anal intercourse. And what of lesbians?
And how natural do you think this practices are? I was told that the satisfaction that homosexuals get from sex is a sort of prostate massage. How much pleasure do these guy (anal intercourse) think that the female get out of it? Lesbians may gave more fun as they use sex toys. Still the pleasure is one way and is selfish in both case, I’ll even say exploitative, what do you think?

I don't think; I know. You're completely 100% utterly wrong.