LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[happyhummingbird]

It is actually very possible as there is already precedent:
post 2200:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312153-post2200.html

Gay couple wanted to use an area used for religious worship for their wedding, were rejected. they sued the Methodist Church that owned it.

excerpt from link Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR :

Did you bother to read the NPR article that you quoted?

 

[madhatter85]

Oh, I believe that here will most likely be lawsuits.
However, I also believe that they will be rightfully thrown out.

This irrational fear that some people have that allowing same sex marriage will somehow cause their church to have to marry same sex couples is nothing more than fear mongering.

post 2200 and 2277.

 

[dallas1125]

It is actually very possible as there is already precedent:
post 2200:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2312153-post2200.html

Gay couple wanted to use an area used for religious worship for their wedding, were rejected. they sued the Methodist Church that owned it.

excerpt from link Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR :

It could happen but I doubt any homosexual couple would want to get married in the meeting house. Although if this does happen the church will lose tons of money if they lose the taxt exemption status on those properties.

 

[dallas1125]

Oh, I believe that here will most likely be lawsuits.
However, I also believe that they will be rightfully thrown out.

This irrational fear that some people have that allowing same sex marriage will somehow cause their church to have to marry same sex couples is nothing more than fear mongering.

I agree, its too bad though that many people wont be able see it as it is...

 

[Sententia]

Hmm. But at the end of the day, isn't the state itself the entity that protects the legal separation of church and state? If we took that idea of non-interference to its logical extreme, it would mean that religious people would have no recourse when their religious rights are violated.

Negative Freedom?

Seriously if your religion dictates that murder is fine in the eyes on Mulastalordofevilandsuch and all your practitioners murder someone everyday and the state steps in and says right... so... If ya'll want to follow Mulastalordofevilandsuch you can't murder people...

Its kinda stepping on the religious rights of the people that follow Mulastalordofevilandsuch.

In a less extreme notion homosexuality is supported by the whole everyone is equal bit. So a man loves another man that also loves him... or a woman loves another woman that also loves her... So what? How does whatever your god think dictate that you should legally enforce that two people who love each other should not be together because they both have the same private parts?

You might have been raised that way. You may not agree with their choice. You may think your god has some stance one way or the other. Your freedom to accept your god and your beliefs is also permission for another to accept their own gods or not and their own beliefs. Which means your beliefs may be at odds with another's... in my example murdering people... even if your god commands it... is clearly wrong and will not be permitted... so was slavery... how does legally enforced heterosexual encounters compare? If you have a homosexual encounter and fall in love and get married should it be off with their heads or will 20 years in prison suffice?

 

[madhatter85]

Did you bother to read the NPR article that you quoted?

did you bother to think about how I quoted it? :areyoucra

really?:areyoucra
:areyoucra:areyoucra:areyoucra:areyoucra:areyoucra:areyoucra

read also: yes i read the article

 

[dallas1125]

Have you really? Have you told your bishop that you won't stand for it? Your stake president? Have you gone to rallies? Signed petitions? Done any activist work? You do remember the scripture, "..faith without works is dead?" (James 2:20)

I havent told my bishop but if its so important I will. I dont even know my stake president...As for rallies? You think there is a pro-gay marriage rally in Idaho? Not much I can do as an activist in Rexburg, Idaho.

Well, if they don't speak up and do something, I will hold them accountable.

You know that the church is split pretty evenly on the issue?

Any LDS member, absolutely yes.

Ok, whatever floats yo boat.

You don't have to, there are plenty.

Which I donate too.

You've donated money to cause strictly to promote gay marriage? That would be a first, it would also mean that you aren't "worthy" to hold a temple recommend. Gotta give it to the LDS Church for making people chose between their religion and their conscious.

Actually, it doesn't make me ineligible for a temple recommend at all. But we will find out for sure when I tell my Bishop about my stance during my mission interview.

This is just the internet. The people who you interact with everyday, the people in your church, the people around you are the ones who matter. They are the ones voting in your area and helping laws be enacted.

I already told you the people I interact with everyday know my stance. Im here to let more people that I cant interact with on a daily basis know.

 

[happyhummingbird]

I think you missed the point. Im pretty sure the LDS were not fond of the U.S. back then especially after trying to leave it only to end back up in it. Also considering the extermination order, the murder and rapes. They sure did love the law!

So, it's totally okay to justify breaking the law?

Yeah and it takes the same amount of time to travel to Utah back then. The LDS did not know about the law until later on.

Until later on? What a sorry excuse. If they left the US because polygamy/bigamy was illegal, you would think that one of the thousands of them (including the so-called Prophet) would have bothered to look at the laws.

Polygamy was not widely practiced in Missouri and Illinois, it became a larger practice when they got to Utah.

Not as extensively, but it was practiced, and it was breaking the law. Stop trying to justify it. They broke the law, plain and simple. Including Joseph Smith.

They already had been oppressed. They tried to get support from the government but look what they got? Van Buren siding with the oppressors.

Logically, why would they be "oppressed"? They broke the law. When groups of people break the law, other people tend to get upset. When a group of religious people who shun outsiders practice polygamy get into an area where it is illegal and people don't practice it, people are going to get upset. What about that do you not understand?

They didnt stand up for it? What about the whole history in Illinois and Missouri?

In this country, when you want something enacted to law, you go about it through the right channels. You propose laws, bills, propositions, etc. You don't blatantly shove your illegal practice in others faces.

True, but what is so different between polygamy and sleeping with a different woman who your not married to every night?

Are you really asking this? Why are you asking this question? What are you hoping to get from it?

 

[McBell]

post 2200 and 2277.

Neither one support your claim.
Care to try again?

 

[happyhummingbird]

did you bother to think about how I quoted it? :areyoucra

really?:areyoucra
:areyoucra:areyoucra:areyoucra:areyoucra:areyoucra:areyoucra

read also: yes i read the article

Then you will realize that they are talking about public places, not private places.

If you are serving the public, there should be absolutely no discrimination. If you clearly state that you are a private organization, that you own private land, etc. etc. etc. then you might have a case.

For instance, BYU is a private, religious university. The University of Washington is public university. You see a difference?

Quotes from the article I think you might have missed:

"..Because I do think that if a gay couple ends up being told their wedding cannot be filmed, five couples will not sue, but the sixth couple will."

"Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."

 

[dallas1125]

So, it's totally okay to justify breaking the law?

Yes when your threatened.

Until later on? What a sorry excuse. If they left the US because polygamy/bigamy was illegal, you would think that one of the thousands of them (including the so-called Prophet) would have bothered to look at the laws.

You keep using the law as this ultimate power. Neither side was following the law.

Not as extensively, but it was practiced, and it was breaking the law. Stop trying to justify it. They broke the law, plain and simple. Including Joseph Smith.

Yes they broke the law. Joseph Smith did go to jail, then he got murdered while he was their.

Logically, why would they be "oppressed"? They broke the law. When groups of people break the law, other people tend to get upset.

So its okay to rape the woman, murder the husbands and some children, force them from their homes, and then do it again?

When a group of religious people who shun outsiders practice polygamy get into an area where it is illegal and people don't practice it, people are going to get upset. What about that do you not understand?

Oh I completely understand. I thought Nauvoo was in the middle of nowhere though?

In this country, when you want something enacted to law, you go about it through the right channels. You propose laws, bills, propositions, etc. You don't blatantly shove your illegal practice in others faces.

Yes, but back then it didnt work. The laws did not protect the LDS.

Are you really asking this? Why are you asking this question? What are you hoping to get from it?

The fact that there is no difference except for this crazy ceremony. Same with any other type of marriage. Let people marry whom they will without infringing on others rights.

 

[happyhummingbird]

I havent told my bishop but if its so important I will.

I would pay to be in that room.

As for rallies? You think there is a pro-gay marriage rally in Idaho? Not much I can do as an activist in Rexburg, Idaho.

Have you bothered to look? There is a lot you can do as an activist in Rexburg. You would be the voice of dissent among a homogenous, yes-sir-no-sir-I-will-do-what-you-tell-me-to-do-sir, group. That's sort of what activists do.

You know that the church is split pretty evenly on the issue?

You know this because....

Actually, it doesn't make me ineligible for a temple recommend at all. But we will find out for sure when I tell my Bishop about my stance during my mission interview.

You do know the temple recommend questions right?

"Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?"

Meaning, do you support them and their revelations? You do remember what the Proclamation said, right? That marriage is between a man and woman only? If you don't believe that, or support that, then you don't sustain them. One question you can't answer.

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Again, this is another question which you would not be able to answer to get into the temple. Any group that promotes gay marriage, any person, etc. is against the teachings of the LDS Church. Two down.

 

[happyhummingbird]

You keep using the law as this ultimate power. Neither side was following the law.

Actually, until people harmed people of the LDS Church, then yes, the "other" side was following the law, the LDS Church was not. It is really that simple. Polygamy WAS illegal. The people of the LDS Church broke the law first.

Yes they broke the law. Joseph Smith did go to jail, then he got murdered while he was their.

The death of any human being is tragic, but it doesn't make one human being more special then another. Joseph Smith broke laws, he went to prison. It is horrible that he was murdered, but it doesn't make him any more special then anyone else who was murdered.

You keep using the law as this ultimate power. Neither side was following the law.

Actually, until people harmed people of the LDS Church, then yes, the "other" side was following the law, the LDS Church was not. It is really that simple. Polygamy WAS illegal. The people of the LDS Church broke the law first.

So its okay to rape the woman, murder the husbands and some children, force them from their homes, and then do it again?

Not at all. Is it okay for men in their 30's to marry girls in their teen years (especially when they haven't developed fully; mentally, physically, sexually, spiritually or emotionally)

Oh I completely understand. I thought Nauvoo was in the middle of nowhere though?

Uh, no. Take a look at a map.

Yes, but back then it didnt work. The laws did not protect the LDS.

The members of the LDS Church were breaking the law, the should have been imprisoned, fined, what-have-you, not murdered.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you on this at all.

 

[dallas1125]

I would pay to be in that room.

You should pay to be in the room if my parents find out I cant go on a mission.

Have you bothered to look? There is a lot you can do as an activist in Rexburg. You would be the voice of dissent among a homogenous, yes-sir-no-sir-I-will-do-what-you-tell-me-to-do-sir, group. That's sort of what activists do.

Well, ya know. Its -50 outside and 20 mph winds everyday. Id have to form a protest group...I just dont have time. Truth be honest. If all I had to do was show up to a already organized protest I would.

You know this because....

Well, me and Katzpur are 2 on this site.

Here are some atricles: LDS Split On Gay Marriage Speech
Mormons Divided on Same-Sex Marriage

You do know the temple recommend questions right?

"Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?"

Ill be safe with this one. I do view homosexuality in the churches view. I do support the civil rights though. I uphold the churches revelations and civil rights at the same time.

Meaning, do you support them and their revelations? You do remember what the Proclamation said, right? That marriage is between a man and woman only? If you don't believe that, or support that, then you don't sustain them. One question you can't answer.

I do believe this.

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

I still believe this.

Again, this is another question which you would not be able to answer to get into the temple. Any group that promotes gay marriage, any person, etc. is against the teachings of the LDS Church. Two down.

I did answer them. A mormon can uphold his religion and civil rights at the same time.

 

[dallas1125]

Actually, until people harmed people of the LDS Church, then yes, the "other" side was following the law, the LDS Church was not. It is really that simple. Polygamy WAS illegal. The people of the LDS Church broke the law first.

Yes and they did go to jail. This still doesnt justify the acts against them. Plus the extermination order was a tad to far dont ya think?

The death of any human being is tragic, but it doesn't make one human being more special then another. Joseph Smith broke laws, he went to prison. It is horrible that he was murdered, but it doesn't make him any more special then anyone else who was murdered.

I never said joseph smith was more important. The fact is, he went to jail multiple time for breaking the law. The last time, the guards purposely abandoned their posts to let a mob kill him.

Actually, until people harmed people of the LDS Church, then yes, the "other" side was following the law, the LDS Church was not. It is really that simple. Polygamy WAS illegal. The people of the LDS Church broke the law first.

Yep, and those who broke it were sent to jail. Doesnt justify the rest of the actions though.

Not at all. Is it okay for men in their 30's to marry girls in their teen years (especially when they haven't developed fully; mentally, physically, sexually, spiritually or emotionally)

Are you thinking of the FLDS?

Uh, no. Take a look at a map.

Well, when they first got there it was in no mans land. Settlements pooped up around it after it became the biggest city in Illinois, bigger than Chicago.

The members of the LDS Church were breaking the law, the should have been imprisoned, fined, what-have-you, not murdered.

Thank you. We both agree!

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you on this at all.

I think we have pretty similar views!

 

[Duck]

Well, banning homosexuality is forcing religious beliefs upon others, legalizing it has the possibility of doing it too.

Since the LDS dont agree with with it, we wont perform gay marriages inside our temples. Im all for legalizing gay marriage, as long as churches are not forced to marry homosexuals.

How does my not getting fired simply because of the flavor of adult I take as a lover cause the 'forcing' of religious beliefs on others?

As for the marriage equality deal, EVERY state that has enacted marriage equality (whether by legislation or judicial review) has made exceptions allowing the religious sensibilities of all those poor, sensitive, persecuted christians to not be trampled into the dust by the meanie gays.

 

[Apex]

well, me and katzpur are 2 on this site.

3.


---

 

[Duck]

Just wondering, Why do you never see religious groups flipping out over atheists getting married?
If marriage between homosexuals is supposed to destroy the sanctity of marriage, then if atheists get married, why is it not such a big deal?

'Cause presumably those atheists are hetero. Strictly a case of religiously dictated prejudice against LGBT people. Same way those religious groups don't get the knickers in a twist about divorce, which is of course mentioned (by AT LEAST an order of magnitude) in their holy book more often than any verse that can possibly be construed as to mean LGBT people are doomed to hell fire.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know that guilt by association really is pointless? Why dont we hold all the German citizens during WWII as guilty of war crimes?

If you quote the whole paragraph instead of the first line, you'll see that her point isn't about guilt by association:

Because on something this important and big, I consider you guilty by association. You are paying tithing dollars, fast dollars, etc. to a Church who put money, time and effort into trying (and succeeding) to not allow gay marriages. You are part of a church that had their members give their everything (because of Church teachings) to fund "Yes on Prop 8".

It's not about being blamed for someone else's actions; it's a matter of freely giving material support to (IMO) an evil act perpetrated by your church against other people.

IMO, anyone who donated money to any church or other organization knowing that it would help to fund the anti-same-sex marriage campaign does hold some degree of responsibility for what their organization has done.

Maybe you can justify this by other good work that the LDS Church does with its donations, or by the personal cost you would've borne in your religious community if you stopped tithing, but the harm that this money did to other people certainly does factor into the morality of your decision to give it.

Now, I'm not saying that Mormons are guilty in a way that other anti-same-sex marriage groups aren't. I don't think that the LDS Church is the only bad guy in this; the guilt is spread across many religious denominations. Still, someone who funds hate and discrimination should not be surprised when they're called to task for it... and the members of the LDS Church, through their tithes, (along with the Catholics, many Evangelical Protestants and a boatload of smaller groups that aren't immediately coming to mind) have funded hate and discrimination.

 

[Apex]

Still, someone who funds hate and discrimination should not be surprised when they're called to task for it... and the members of the LDS Church, through their tithes, (along with the Catholics, many Evangelical Protestants and a boatload of smaller groups that aren't immediately coming to mind) have funded hate and discrimination.

And thanks to the reaction to Prop 8 from gay rights groups, those who have supported them have also funded hate and discrimination.
Neither side is exactly innocent in this.