Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I invite my readers to review my posts in this thread and determine whether this is an accurate characterization.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LDS letter on same-sex marriage
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
I invite my readers to review my posts in this thread and determine whether this is an accurate characterization.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
The only arguments I have seen in favor if it have been comparing the gay community to the black community.
You cannot compare behavioral traits to an ethnic/racial trait. It is not anywhere near the same.
And that's why Mormons should no be protected by anti-discrimination laws.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
madhatter are you suggesting that the only reason we shouldn't discriminate against blacks is because it's not a "behavioral trait"? What if people could choose their skin color? Would that change anything?
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
No, she's very good at smashing your empty arguements and you simply cannot stand get beaten.
Face it, your opposition to gay-marriage is rediculous.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
no, because Skin color is not a behavioral trait.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
You didn't answer the question: What if people could choose their skin color? Would that change anything?
no-body
Well-Known Member
You would think people who are prejudiced against would be the first to defend others, but no, history bears this out. You can deflect your own prejudice by focusing on the weak. Pretty ironic but it shows that the religious are absolutely not guided by God.
Frankly I can't wait till a "revelation of God" changes all this stuff and the Mormons start accepting gays, it is inevitable and I will have a good laugh when I am an old man.
Frankly I can't wait till a "revelation of God" changes all this stuff and the Mormons start accepting gays, it is inevitable and I will have a good laugh when I am an old man.
happyhummingbird
Member
He probably won't answer the question, because he knows by the logic he presents he would be wrong and you would be right.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I'll be laughing with you. Just look at the photo on the LDS Church history website, it's a smiling black family. This is good PR but some of us will not forget what side of the civil rights movement the church was on when it really counted. When they have a photo of a gay couple on their website, I'll laugh and remember which side the church was on.no-body said:
Last edited:
madhatter85
Transhumanist
i did, I said No(read also: it would not change anything), because (read also: the reason why it would not change anything) Skin color is not a behavioral trait (real also: not all *SKIN COLOR HERE* people act the same way).
madhatter85
Transhumanist
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Please read carefully. Yes, I know skin color is not a behavioral trait. I am asking you, what if it was a behavioral trait? What if people could choose their skin color? Would that change anything?
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
If you say so
Ignorance is bliss. Continue to ignore everything you don't like, it makes life a lot easier especially not having to deal with Auto
madhatter85
Transhumanist
lmao. i already said "no." and since they can't it is irrelevant anyways
.No. adverb 1. (a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request)
2. (used to emphasize or introduce a negative statement): Not a single person came to the party, no, not a one.
3. not in any degree or manner; not at all (used with a comparative): He is no better.
4. not a (used before an adjective to convey the opposite of the adjective's meaning): His recovery was no small miracle.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Unlike, say, being a Mormon.
happyhummingbird
Member
lmao. i already said "no." and since they can't it is irrelevant anyways
No. adverb 1. (a negative used to express dissent, denial, or refusal, as in response to a question or request)
2. (used to emphasize or introduce a negative statement): Not a single person came to the party, no, not a one.
3. not in any degree or manner; not at all (used with a comparative): He is no better.
4. not a (used before an adjective to convey the opposite of the adjective's meaning): His recovery was no small miracle.
You still will not answer it because you know that your silly little argument will be smashed to pieces if you answer a theoretical question.
So, what I should say is that you CAN'T answer it, because your argument would become null and void.
Bloody hell this is frustrating.
Stop arguing for the sake of argument and think about the issue for a moment: yes, every circumstance is unique, but principles that apply on a particular basis in one case apply on the same basis in other cases, even if the case has differences in other regards.
The right to equality on the basis of race isn't derived from genetics; it comes from the principle of equal protection under the law for all people, which entirely applies in the case of same-sex marriage.
The right to freedom of religion isn't based on the idea that religion is a "choice"; it's a subset of the larger right to freedom of belief and conscience, which entirely applies in the case of same-sex marriage.
When you bring up these irrelevant differences between same-sex marriage and other issues, you lose any pretense of trying to make a rational argument. Instead, you come across as just pig-headedly shouting against same-sex marriage without worrying about whether your arguments are valid or even logically coherent.
You might as well wave a big flag that says "I missed the point!"
Without same-sex marriage, a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman. Please explain how the right (or privilege, in case you're planning on throwing out that old and false "marriage isn't a right" red herring) to marry a woman is equally protected under the law for all people.they already have equal protection under all laws.
Please explain how the right to be free of discrimination on the basis of gender, which is most certainly a right and is part of equal treatment under the law, is protected when opposite-sex marriage is legal but same-sex marriage is not.
In favour of same-sex marriage? Neither do I.
I'm just glad that your country is not as callous toward your rights as you are to the rights of others.Completely subjective. Justice is blind. Oh, sorry 'bout that.
so you are then saying sexuality is then a choice? :sarcastic
they already have equal protection under all laws.
I don't see any valid arguments. :sorry1:
Completely subjective. Justice is blind. Oh, sorry 'bout that.
Really? Last time I checked it was perfectly legal for me to be fired from my job (in at least 30 states) because of who I **** in my off time (or if you prefer, the fact that I like the boys instead of the girls), regardless of performance at work. However, it is NOT perfectly legal (and in fact is ILLEGAL) for me as a manager to fire your *** because I don't like your religion, your age, your sex, or your prescription for prozac. How exactly is that "equal protection under all laws"?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
No, it's not. It's full of examples of the government enforcing the idea of equal rights for everyone.
The first example with the pavilion. It's a place they rent out to the public for events. If you're going to do that, you can't discriminate. The alternative is to not rent it out to the public. That way, you can preserve your stupid religious beliefs. Besides, this has nothing to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage. Fail #1.
Example #2: A photography company that does weddings, among other things, for the public that refuses to photograph a same-sex wedding. Well, duh. When you're a business that serves the public, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation or several others things. Again, this is irrelevant to the question of same-sex marriages. Even if this was just a private ceremony with no legal ramifications, this case would still be the same. Fail #2.
Example #3: Yeshiva University "was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory". This university was sued, yes, but they changed their policy on their own. Apparently the lower courts agreed with them, but the lawsuit went higher. There was no "ordering" of them to change their policy. Besides, the whole situation would have been made easier with legal same-sex marriage. They wouldn't have had to change their policy with that in place. The original policy was that unmarried couples sharing a room in the dorm had to both be students. If you were married, you could have your spouse live with you regardless of not begin a student there. Fail #3.
Example #4: "A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students." I'm not even going to bother looking this up, especially considering how vague it is. The question is not whether someone has been sued, but whether they won. Maybe this happened, but it remains to be seen whether the lawsuit was upheld in court or rejected. Again, this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, though. Fail #4.
Example #5: "Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California." The first one: Duh. You get government funding for your operation, you have to comply with the laws that go along with that. If you want to be a completely private organization, that same standard doesn't apply. Boston Catholic Charities got government funding. The second one here is too vague to be concerned with. If they want to provide more info so that we can actually find the details of the case, that would be great. But they don't want to do that; they just want to throw out possible examples that scare people like you. Fail #5.
Example #6: A Mississippi psychologist who refuses to counsel a lesbian couple. Again, if you're going to go into a business that serves the public, you can't discriminate based on certain things including sexual orientation. And again, nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Fail #6.
I see they go into more detail on some of the examples farther down. Anyway, I know that you jump on things like this because it supports your fear and prejudice, but none of this has to do with same-sex marriage. All of these cases would come up up regardless of legal same-sex marriage.