LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[happyhummingbird]

Gay marriage, to me, does not benefit society in the least part.

So you consider gay couples and their children as second-class citizens? Actually gay marriage probably benefits you more then you realize, but you, like an ostrich with his head in the sand, you refuse to look around and see reality, all you see is the crap in your little dark whole.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"Sanctity" may have no meaning to you, but it may have meaning to another and there's no reason why that meaning should not influence his or her vote.

I absolutely agree with you. It is the anti-gay-marriage crowd that trashes the sanctity of marriage, family, and religion. This definitely influences my vote, after all the sanctity and dignity of marriage has got to be defended from the efforts of the LDS Church to trash it.

 

[Magic Man]

"Sanctity" may have no meaning to you, but it may have meaning to another and there's no reason why that meaning should not influence his or her vote.

Aren't you studying law? It's not that sanctity has no meaning to me. It has meaning, when it comes to religious ceremonies and such. What I'm saying (very clearly, I might add) is that it has no meaning in terms of legal contracts. That's not a "to me" or "to you" thing. It's an objective fact that it holds no meaning in the case of legal contracts.

And yes, there is a reason it should not influence his vote. Because it has nothing to do with a legal contract. The vote isn't about religious marriage, where the idea of sanctity is relevant. It's about a legal contract that has nothing to do with holiness or sanctity. This is the biggest problem with the issue, that religious people ignorantly believe legal marriage is the same thing or similar to their religious ceremony. That's just plain false.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Sanctity" may have no meaning to you, but it may have meaning to another and there's no reason why that meaning should not influence his or her vote.

Do you think that there's anything you hold dear that someone else would consider a violation of the "sanctity" of something?

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral or ethical.

 

[Watchmen]

Aren't you studying law? It's not that sanctity has no meaning to me. It has meaning, when it comes to religious ceremonies and such. What I'm saying (very clearly, I might add) is that it has no meaning in terms of legal contracts. That's not a "to me" or "to you" thing. It's an objective fact that it holds no meaning in the case of legal contracts.

And yes, there is a reason it should not influence his vote. Because it has nothing to do with a legal contract. The vote isn't about religious marriage, where the idea of sanctity is relevant. It's about a legal contract that has nothing to do with holiness or sanctity. This is the biggest problem with the issue, that religious people ignorantly believe legal marriage is the same thing or similar to their religious ceremony. That's just plain false.

Laws and morality are connected and people should be able to vote based on their morals. If their morals turn out to be unconstitutional, the checks and balances in place will take care of it. That's exactly what is playing out with Prop 8. Your position that personal belief should not influence a vote is ridiculous.

 

[Watchmen]

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral or ethical.

Exactly. Which is why we have checks and balances. But to say a person should not vote based on their morals is absurd.

 

[Autodidact]

In the LDS church, simply suffering from same-sex attraction is not a sin of itself. It is only when you act on those misplaced feelings that we consider it to be a sin.

Some LDS are confused on that point.

I don't suffer from it; I delight in it.

 

[Autodidact]

I never said that suffering from same-sex attraction is a choice.

Love ! = suffering. Only discrimination brings suffering.

We don't get special concessions. This country was founded upon the idea of religious freedom.

What about the religious freedom of the churches who do perform same-sex marriages, and cannot get them recognized by the state?

They already have the same rights everyone else has. They are asking for extra rights based on a perceived lack of volition when it comes to behaviors.

No, This is a false statement. I don't have the same right to marry a woman that you have.

 

[Autodidact]

So if we banned the LDS Church for everyone across the board (it's equal! Aren't you happy?), you'd be okay with that?

Or just allow madhatter the same right to join any other Christian Church that every one else has. He's asking for special rights--the right to join the LDS church.

 

[Autodidact]

non-religions are not technically religions because they are well... non-religions.

Now, there are those who think that it's OK that's up to them. They have the right to perform any ceremonies that they wish. It doesn't mean that it is legally binding nor does it dictate acceptance of any specific behavior as a standard way of life.

And after all, who cares about their religious freedom? It's only madhatter's religious freedom that matters. Oh and the people who agree with madhatter.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not talking about banning them from practicing their homosexuality. As i said before they can have all the gay fun-times they want it doesn't matter. But marriage as an institution does not need redefined.

And I'm not talking about banning your from believing that American Indians are descendants of Jews. You can have all the Mormon fun times you want; it doesn't matter. But Christianity as an institution does not need redefining, so you will have the same right to join the Baptist Church as anyone else; just no special privileges to join the church you actually want to join; the LDS church.

Since you are using that as an example. How about polygamy? the LDS church practiced that and because of it there was a law enacted to prevent them from worshiping how they felt the Lord commanded them to.

And that's what they're really upset about.

The government said no, so they stopped the practice.

More pity them. How is that my problem?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or just allow madhatter the same right to join any other Christian Church that every one else has. He's asking for special rights--the right to join the LDS church.

Now that I think about it, this is a pretty close analogy to same-sex marriage.

The LDS Church wasn't founded until the 1830s. The term "religion", as used by the American Founding Fathers in the First Amendment, couldn't have referred to the LDS Church; it didn't exist. Apparently, the Mormons are trying to change the traditional definition of religion! (gasp!)

Of course, I don't have any problem acknowledging Mormons' right to believe and worship as they see fit. However, I justify both madhatter's right to freedom of religion and the right to same-sex marriage on the same notion of equality that madhatter argues is invalid.

Hmm.

 

[Autodidact]

I am not talking about banning them from practicing their homosexuality. As i said before they can have all the gay fun-times they want it doesn't matter. But marriage as an institution does not need redefined.

Since you are using that as an example. How about polygamy? the LDS church practiced that and because of it there was a law enacted to prevent them from worshiping how they felt the Lord commanded them to.

The government said no, so they stopped the practice.

Then it would have to go for every other religious (and apparently "non-religious") organizations to be completely fair.

Exactly. It would not be completely fair. Just like letting some people marry the person they love, and denying this right to other people, is not completely fair. I'm glad this analogy helped you recognize that.

 

[Autodidact]

But as I have said before they are already treated equally regardless of their ideas of what marriage should be.

Just like allowing you to join any church but the one you want would be treating you equally.

 

[Autodidact]

But as I have said before they are already treated equally regardless of their ideas of what marriage should be.

how is it dehumanizing? people suffer from all sorts of ailments be it physical or mental. same-sex attraction is no different.

It's not an ailment; it's a source of joy and meaning. For you to call it an ailment is pure bigotry. Kind of like me calling your Mormon beliefs an unfortunate case of mass delusion. Not very nice, is it?

 

[Autodidact]

Like I have said before, they aren't denied any rights that we have.

You keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

And I have already shown how it is an abnormal trait that reduces mating success which would eventually have caused extinction of any species if it were more prolific.

You showed that? Where?

Seeing as a relatively few number of the population is affected by same-sex attraction, logic dictates that since it is found in many different natural settings (i.e. not regional or isolated to a specific ethnic group) it must be some form of either malformed genetic code, unfortunate trauma, conditions of development, or any combination of those.

If it were a problem, but it isn't. It's just another perfectly good way to be a person.

 

[Autodidact]

Like I have said before, they aren't denied any rights that we have. And I have already shown how it is an abnormal trait that reduces mating success which would eventually have caused extinction of any species if it were more prolific. Seeing as a relatively few number of the population is affected by same-sex attraction, logic dictates that since it is found in many different natural settings (i.e. not regional or isolated to a specific ethnic group) it must be some form of either malformed genetic code, unfortunate trauma, conditions of development, or any combination of those.

If you don't think I have a fact-based opinion then why does my opinion matter so much to you?

Two words. Proposition 8.

 

[Autodidact]

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest because our marriage ceremonies are spiritual and not temporal.

Just like my wife and I were married civilly first and then we were married in the temple together for time and all eternity. It was really special for us

So it wouldn't matter to you if you weren't legally married?

 

[Autodidact]

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest because our marriage ceremonies are spiritual and not temporal.

Just like my wife and I were married civilly first and then we were married in the temple together for time and all eternity. It was really special for us

I will always vote to preserve the sanctity of marriage as an institution designed to bear and raise children. It is fundamental to any society that has not been destroyed by natural selection

Except for gay families. For some reason they don't get that sanctity or protection.

 

[Autodidact]

While I opposed Prop 8, your post is absurd. You're telling someone not to vote their conscience. People should be free to vote their conscience and, if their conscience is opposed to the constitution, the checks and balances in place will straighten things out.

I disagree. My conscience says that LDS beliefs are moronic and delusional. But when it comes time to vote, I vote in favor of their right to their stupid myths, because freedom and equality are important. If you believe same-sex marriage is wrong, then you should not practice it. At the same time, you should defend my right to practice it, if you value freedom, equality and love.