LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[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.

nobody is telling you what to think at all :thud:

We are allowed to vote and worship however we see fit because of the wonderful concept of freedom. If i think something is bad for this country then I will vote against it. If i see something as benefiting society, then I will vote for it. Gay marriage, to me, does not benefit society in the least part.

Because it's better that the children of gay and lesbian couples to have parents who are unmarried?

 

[Autodidact]

"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.

It's a religious concept. For someone who claims to value freedom of religion, he seems cavalier about imposing this religious concept on others.

 

[Autodidact]

"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.

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.

I despise everything the Westboro Baptist Church stands for. I defend their right to express their reprehensible bile, because as an American, I believe in freedom of speech and religion. Matters of religious conscience, like not eating pork, are for each individual. It would not be right for Jews and Muslims to prohibit the rest of us from eating pork. It's like that.

 

[Magic Man]

Laws and morality are connected and people should be able to vote based on their morals.

You need to separate two concepts here. I'm not trying to take away people's right to vote based on anything stupid, ignorant notion they want. I want them to have that right. I just want people to understand that it's also their responsibility to inform themselves on an issue like this.

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.

No, the position that a personal belief like this should not influence a vote is not ridiculous. The point is that it doesn't matter what your personal belief is. What matters is what should be legal. Everyone should understand that no matter what they think of something, unless it causes harm to someone, there's no reason for it to be illegal.

Frankly, it's your position that personal belief should influence someone's vote that's ridiculous. I don't care so much whether someone thinks homosexuality is wrong or immoral. What I care about is that they realize that that is irrelevant to the question of same-sex marriage.

 

[madhatter85]

Freedom that you force on others by preventing them marrying WHOEVER they want.

Sure they can marry, but only if it doesn't offend you christian folk.

Gay marriage benefits the well-being of society. Allowing people to be happy and promote uniform equality. Preventing marriage because of certain traites can be paralleded with Adolf Hitler (to a minor extent) who also denied rights to homosexuals and treated them like second class citizens, much like you seem happy to do

comparing it to Hitler is a very gross overstatement even in the least degree. I am not advocating treating them any different than anyone else which is what my argument has been the whole time. They mask their demand for special treatment as "equality" when it is anything but. Not giving them education, employment, or housing opportunities, etc. based on their suffering from same-sex attraction is wrong and the law already protects them from discrimination. Marriage, on the other hand, has prerequisites and for good reason. (can't get married to children, have poly-amorous marriages or be married to someone of the same sex)

 

[madhatter85]

You don't consider gay couples and their kids to be part of society?

even though they masquerade as a family when they aren't of course they are part of society. It does not mean I have to sanctify same-sex marriage or support gay couple adoption.

 

[madhatter85]

I wonder if your wife would feel special if (heaven forbid) you were in an accident, the nurses refused to let her see you on your death bed, the state took away custody of the children, and she was denied your pension and social security. Because that is the danger for same-sex couples in states with no gay marriage.

so?...

 

[madhatter85]

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.

That is exactly my point. Watchmen, we may disagree on the potential outcome of same-sex marriages but at least you understand the idea correctly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

even though they masquerade as a family when they aren't of course they are part of society. It does not mean I have to sanctify same-sex marriage or support gay couple adoption.

That remains to be seen, but it does mean that when you said "Gay marriage, to me, does not benefit society in the least part", you were incorrect. Same-sex couples are part of society; so are the children raised by same-sex parents. Both of these groups of people benefit tremendously from the legalization of same-sex marriage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

so?...

So prohibiting same-sex marriage is unnecessarily cruel to people, especially at times when they're at their most vulnerable. You're kicking people when they're down.

 

[Magic Man]

That is exactly my point. Watchmen, we may disagree on the potential outcome of same-sex marriages but at least you understand the idea correctly.

I really wish you'd read replies that don't just agree with you. Please read what I said to Watchmen, and then you'll realize why it doesn't matter whether that was your point because your point was refuted.

 

[Autodidact]

comparing it to Hitler is a very gross overstatement even in the least degree. I am not advocating treating them any different than anyone else which is what my argument has been the whole time. They mask their demand for special treatment as "equality" when it is anything but. Not giving them education, employment, or housing opportunities, etc. based on their suffering from same-sex attraction is wrong and the law already protects them from discrimination.

1. I'm not suffering, I'm enjoying my lesbian life tremendously.
2. No, actually, it doesnt.

Marriage, on the other hand, has prerequisites and for good reason. (can't get married to children, have poly-amorous marriages or be married to someone of the same sex)

what is the good reason for the last one?

 

[Watchmen]

Frankly, it's your position that personal belief should influence someone's vote that's ridiculous. I don't care so much whether someone thinks homosexuality is wrong or immoral. What I care about is that they realize that that is irrelevant to the question of same-sex marriage.

Perhaps we should start a separate thread. I don't see how you take personal belief out of voting.

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps we should start a separate thread. I don't see how you take personal belief out of voting.

In a democracy with certain rights guaranteed, you should recognize that each individual is entitled to their own personal beliefs, and that you should not vote to impose your personal beliefs on others.

For example, I would not vote to force you into a same-sex marriage, although I believe it's best for you. Nor would I vote to prohibit you from joining the LDS church, although I believe it's harmful and wrong. I believe in your right to do this, which supercedes my disagreement about whether it's correct or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps we should start a separate thread. I don't see how you take personal belief out of voting.

It's not a matter of taking personal belief out of voting; it's a matter of having enough mutual respect for other people that just as I am generally free to believe, think and act as I want, I extend that right to others... even if they come to different decisions that I would about how to use that right.

I don't support freedom of religion because I think that all religions are right or good; far from it. I support freedom of religion because I demand for myself the right to follow my own conscience, so I feel duty-bound to protect that right for others. This means that I support the right of people to believe as they see fit even if I consider their belief systems to be incorrect or even immoral.

 

[Magic Man]

Perhaps we should start a separate thread. I don't see how you take personal belief out of voting.

Others have already responded to this, but I'll add mine, even though it'll be similar to theirs.

You take it out because it's not welcome there. If a bill came up for vote that would ban Mormonism, I'd vote against it. My personal belief is that Mormonism is a bunch of crap, and that no one should practice the religion. However, I understand that people should be allowed to practice whatever religion they want and do pretty much anything they want, as long as they're not hurting anyone. I put my personal opinion about Mormonism aside when it comes to voting.

That's how you take personal belief out of voting.

 

[Watchmen]

Taking personal belief out of voting is absurd.

If there's an initiative that will help business, but harm the environment (or vice versa) how do you vote?

If there's a bond to increase school funding while raising your property taxes, how do you vote?

If there's a proposition to legalize marijuana, how do you vote?

However you vote on these or any issue will depend on your personal beliefs.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I wonder if your wife would feel special if (heaven forbid) you were in an accident, the nurses refused to let her see you on your death bed, the state took away custody of the children, and she was denied your pension and social security. Because that is the danger for same-sex couples in states with no gay marriage.

so?...

I hope everyone pays attention to madhatter's response here. The callousness of this reply speaks for itself. It's clear to me that our differences are irreconcilable and can only be settled by the ongoing political struggle. I believe we will win.

 

[Magic Man]

Taking personal belief out of voting is absurd.

If there's an initiative that will help business, but harm the environment (or vice versa) how do you vote?

If there's a bond to increase school funding while raising your property taxes, how do you vote?

If there's a proposition to legalize marijuana, how do you vote?

However you vote on these or any issue will depend on your personal beliefs.

OK, now you're just not even reading our responses before responding.

The only example here that's equivalent is marijuana. On that I'd vote to legalize it for some of the same reasons I'd vote for same-sex marriage.

But you need to stop ignoring the responses. We already gave you relevant and equivalent examples. What we're saying is that people need to take out their personal beliefs when it comes to issues like gay marriage and religion. Just like we wouldn't vote to ban Mormonism, even though we might think it's immoral and wrong because we understand the value of letting everyone choose their own religion as long as they don't harm anyone, we expect others to not vote to ban something like gay marriage just because they feel that homosexuality is wrong.

Please respond to that rather than making up other examples you think support your point.

 

[Magic Man]

I hope everyone pays attention to madhatter's response here. The callousness of this reply speaks for itself. It's clear to me that our differences are irreconcilable and can only be settled by the ongoing political struggle. I believe we will win.

Don't worry. It's been noticed. It's sad, but unfortunately unsurprising. He's obviously able to not care about others, which is odd, considering his religion tells him he should do just that.