LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And thanks to the reaction to Prop 8 from gay rights groups, those who have supported them have also funded hate and discrimination.

How so?

 

[McBell]

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.

Yet you (meaning the LDS church) are the side trying to claim moral superiority.

 

[dallas1125]

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?

What?

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.

?

 

[Autodidact]

Let me see if I can explain why I see it the way I do; I'm really struggling to put this into words, so bear with me. Speaking strictly of issues that affect only members of the Church (e.g. who can be ordained to the priesthood), Latter-day Saints believe the authority to hold the priesthood is determined by God, as opposed to men. Therefore, it would be pointless for a woman to insist that she is "entitled" to the priesthood. People who really believe in God don't tell Him that He messed up and needs to rethink things. If a woman sincerely believed that she was entitled to hold the priesthood, she would be rejecting the notion that the Church was being directed by revelation. Consequently, holding the priesthood would be something she would have to concede to be meaningless.

No, that's not what I was driving at. The Church will do what it does, which is its right. (regardless of whether it's right.) My point is that it would be wrong for me, or U.S. law, to discriminate against Mormons, despite the fact that they can change their religion at any time. So what makes discrimination wrong is not whether it's based on something immutable, such as race, or even whether it's a matter of choice. It's wrong because it's irrational, unfair, and detrimental to societal well-being. We want to protect people's freedom of religion, and we should protect people's freedom to love as well.

 

[Autodidact]

So theoretically, couldnt the church be sued for not letting gay couples get married in the meetinghouse?

This is highly improbable for obvious reasons but I am interested in this possibility.

If a church or religious group owns and operates a public facility, open to the public, then they must operate it in accord with any anti-discrimination laws that apply to public facilities. A good example might be the YMCA. They may not bar African-Americans from renting a room at the Y.

So if a Mormon Church rents out its facilities to the public, they may not be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples, depending on the discrimination laws in that state.

 

[dallas1125]

If a church or religious group owns and operates a public facility, open to the public, then they must operate it in accord with any anti-discrimination laws that apply to public facilities. A good example might be the YMCA. They may not bar African-Americans from renting a room at the Y.

So if a Mormon Church rents out its facilities to the public, they may not be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples, depending on the discrimination laws in that state.

Well they dont rent it out. If someone requested it, then they might let them use it. So as I said the possibility of that circumstance happening is unlikely.

 

[Katzpur]

You've repeated yourself three times now. I've provide a picture and two links which don't seem to go with your story.

I don't really care. You've not provided a picture of the masthead I described. I can't help it if there's not an online photograph.

Because on something this important and big, I consider you guilty by association.

Like I give a damn what you think, little girl.

 

[Autodidact]

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's not an "area used for religious worship." It's a pavilion on a boardwalk. Here's a picture of the actual facility:

It happens to be owned by a church, who rents it out for weddings, bar mitzvahs, retirement parties, etc. Being owned by a church does not create an exemption from discrimination laws.

The group did, however, say the decision in no way should require religious groups to endorse or perform civil unions.

“Only that a public accommodation must be open for equal use by all, regardless of sexual orientation.”

Do you disagree? If a Catholic Church opens a low-income apartment building, should they be able to discriminate against African-Americans who want to rent there?

 

[Autodidact]

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

Well why did you quote it then, since it has nothing to do with churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages, as you claimed?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Example?

 

[Autodidact]

Well they dont rent it out. If someone requested it, then they might let them use it. So as I said the possibility of that circumstance happening is unlikely.

I don't think the law would compel them to open it to same-sex couples then. I'm confused though. Do gentiles get married in Mormon facilities?

 

[Autodidact]

I repeat: Purported proponents of religious freedom do not seem troubled by the denial of religious freedom to the many churches and synagogues that do perform same-sex marriages, when the state refuses to recognize them.

 

[Katzpur]

Yet you (meaning the LDS church) are the side trying to claim moral superiority.

I really do believe it's important that people realize that the actual membership of the Church is divided on this issue. There are many of us who are in favor of granting all United States citizens the same rights under the law. Apex, Dallas and I have all voiced our support of same-sex marriage. I believe that MadHatter is the only Latter-day Saint on RF who is among those "claiming moral superiority." Instead of acknowledging that we have stood up for what we believe, the focus continues to be on the fact that we are members of a Church which opposes the right of gays to marry. You do realize, don't you, that you are preaching to the choir?

 

[Autodidact]

I really do believe it's important that people realize that the actual membership of the Church is divided on this issue. There are many of us who are in favor of granting all United States citizens the same rights under the law. Apex, Dallas and I have all voiced our support of same-sex marriage. I believe that MadHatter is the only Latter-day Saint on RF who is among those "claiming moral superiority." Instead of acknowledging that we have stood up for what we believe, the focus continues to be on the fact that we are members of a Church which opposes the right of gays to marry. You do realize, don't you, that you are preaching to the choir?

That's very interesting, a little surprising, and extremely cool.

 

[Katzpur]

We want to protect people's freedom of religion, and we should protect people's freedom to love as well.

Yes, we absolutely, positively should.

 

[Duck]

What?


?

The reference to being fired was alluding to one of several other areas in which the LGBT community is discriminated against. 30 or more states within the United States allow employers (secular employers) to fire employees for being LGBT. This is one of the other civil rights violations suffered by LGBT people and defended by religious individuals using the 'forcing me to accept homosexuality in violation of my religion' canard.

So, to modify the question to fit more in line with the discussion regarding gay marriage...How is my desire to not be fired from Bob's garage (a secular, aka NOT RELIGIOUS), employer, for having married someone of the same gender (presumably because I am gay), by my christian manager (or other person with hiring/firing authority) who thinks 'homosexuality is morally wrong', 'forcing religious beliefs' on someone?

I don't care if your religion claims that I am living immorally, I don't really care if your religion feels that I am doomed to roast in hellfire (or be cast into outer darkness, sent away from God's love or whatever). Believe what you want. What I care about is that YOU live by your religion's dictates and leave me and mine the **** alone. If your religion feels that same-sex marriage is wrong, fine! Don't perform them, excommunicate those damn dirty *******, don't have a same-sex marriage, but keep YOUR religious dictates off MY rights.

Like it or not, the leadership of the Mormon church encouraged its members to support, pay for, donate time and effort to pass Proposition 8; Proposition 8 was titled: "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." The ballot summary read that the measure "changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." source While there were quite a few other religious organizations involved (notably the Catholic Church) the Mormon church was prominent, even instrumental, in the campaign to remove rights from a group of people. Then, after actively working to remove rights from a group of people members of the Mormon faith had the temerity to be upset that there was a backlash. Personally, I was shocked that the backlash was limited to peaceful protest, for the most part. Even the peaceful protest by a group of people recently stripped of rights was held up by members of the christian community (and here I speak mostly of the designated hate groups of FRC, AFA, AFTAH, and almost any other group with "family values" in their mission statement) as examples of persecution against the members of a religion that actively worked to strip a group of people of their rights.

I grant that I could have been a little less snarky in my initial comment regarding persecution of christians by LGBT people. Obviously, protesting outside a church (or temple or whatever it is called) is worse than actively working to strip a group of people of their rights.

 

[Meow Mix]

I repeat: Purported proponents of religious freedom do not seem troubled by the denial of religious freedom to the many churches and synagogues that do perform same-sex marriages, when the state refuses to recognize them.

I've never thought of it that way. However, the state also refuses to recognize polygamy.

 

[Autodidact]

I've never thought of it that way. However, the state also refuses to recognize polygamy.

IMO, that's what the Mormons are really mad about. They're jealous that gay people advocated for recognition of their marriages and are prevailing, while their leadership instead gave in on what was previously a basic tenet of their faith.

 

[Duck]

I've never thought of it that way. However, the state also refuses to recognize polygamy.

Tbh, I feel that the refusal to recognize multiple marriage (regardless of the gender ratio) is also discriminatory. While I don't foresee circumstances in which I would enter into a poly- relationship, and personally I find the relationship dynamics to be at bewildering at best, I don't have a problem with poly- relationships (granted, I don't currently know of any, so I am not sure how I would react when presented with the reality...). My only concern in any adult relationships is that 1) all parties are adult (humans, for those trolls who seem required to automatically jump to marrying chickens or ******* the family dog) and 2) able to consent to (and have consented to) the relationship (again, for the trolls: this means everyone is an adult, is sane, is drug free, is mentally competent, of species Homo sapiens sapiens and is aware of the parameters of the relationship and agrees to the relationship).

I don't have a problem legalizing poly- relationships. There would no doubt be some legal complications and perhaps even ramifications, but within the confines of my above statements 1) and 2) I have no issues, do it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Tbh, I feel that the refusal to recognize multiple marriage (regardless of the gender ratio) is also discriminatory. While I don't foresee circumstances in which I would enter into a poly- relationship, and personally I find the relationship dynamics to be at bewildering at best, I don't have a problem with poly- relationships (granted, I don't currently know of any, so I am not sure how I would react when presented with the reality...). My only concern in any adult relationships is that 1) all parties are adult (humans, for those trolls who seem required to automatically jump to marrying chickens or ******* the family dog) and 2) able to consent to (and have consented to) the relationship (again, for the trolls: this means everyone is an adult, is sane, is drug free, is mentally competent, of species Homo sapiens sapiens and is aware of the parameters of the relationship and agrees to the relationship).

I don't have a problem legalizing poly- relationships. There would no doubt be some legal complications and perhaps even ramifications, but within the confines of my above statements 1) and 2) I have no issues, do it.

Why not just give benefits in percentiles so it adds up to the same amount? Poly-groups would receive the same benefits as couples so there's no incentive to marry poly just for benefits, and then everyone gets equality.