LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[madhatter85]

Technically, you're right. Nobody is outlawing homosexual intimacy. What they are doing, however, is attempting to punish them for being gay by making sure they aren't given the same rights as everybody else. You may argue (as you have in the past) that just as you were free to marry any woman you wanted, all men are currently given that same right. You may insist that just as I was free to marry any man I wanted, all women are currently given that same right. So far, so good. The problem is that there are many men and women who are not currently being given the right to marry any person they want. I'm just willing to leave it between God and them; you're not. That's where we differ and will always differ.

And I completely understand your position. I just see it as degrading our society even more than it already is. I guess if you want the Lord to come sooner rather than later II could see arguing for allowing same-sex marriages. But I don't want that to happen yet. People need time to prepare.

 

[madhatter85]

Non-Mormons aren't subject to the discipline of the Church at all.

I understand that. He was speaking to members directly there.

So... does it work this way for all issues? If people have issues with the LDS Church, do you think it's acceptable to have their frustrations used as the basis of laws against the Church?

They can do whatever they want but I know there won't be

 

[Sententia]

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.

Even when they masquerade as Christians when they aren't of course they are part of society. It does not mean I have to sanctify temple marriages or support prophets and mission work.

I grew up with just a mom, my sister and my brother. Lacking the father head I guess we masqueraded as a family but at least we were granted the ability to part of a society?

The idea that "same sex couples" are any less then "different sex couples" is religious based hooey. And if your god says different or your prophets then they're wrong. And your prophets and god were wrong before. Lots of times.

What is needed is less my god says, and more reason and science. Just sayin.

 

[Katzpur]

That's cool.. no need to derail the thread.
I'm sure my knowledge is incomplete...I left early in my time as member of the relief society. Heck, my knowledge of many subjects is incomplete.... but I try to muddle along and learn more.

wa:do

ps. I'm sorry if I accidentally implied that outer darkness was for run of the mill unbelievers. :yes:

No problemo! Jeesh, you've got nearly 11,000 posts and I just noticed for the first time that you're female. If you hadn't mentioned Relief Society, I'd still be thinking you were male.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand that. He was speaking to members directly there.

So you knew that the statement was irrelevant on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage under civil law? Hmm.

Tell you what: if you drop your opposition to same-sex marriage, I'll let you excommunicate any same-sex couple or declare them anathema or apply whatever "Church discipline" you want. Deal?

They can do whatever they want but I know there won't be

So you recognize the hypocrisy of your position, but hide behind the law?

 

[Sententia]

Sexual morality is definitely a part of LDS theology, but as I've said before, I believe it is a huge mistake to try to legislate morality. In my mind, people don't have the right to pass laws prohibiting every behavior they consider to be wrong.

Rape is immoral should we legalize that and hope people don't do it? Murder?

Why not? How does that contrast with outlawing same sex marriage?

Here is is sexual morality: If you all agree and its fun and enjoyed by all then go for it. Be safe. If someone doesn't agree then don't do it.

Respect each others freedom. You are free to be straight and they are free to be gay. You are free to raise a family and so are they. There is nothing immoral about it.

 

[Katzpur]

And I completely understand your position. I just see it as degrading our society even more than it already is.

See, this is where your position confuses me. Let's say you have four gay or lesbian couples. For the sake of my argument, let's assume same-sex marriage is legal.

1. Couple #1 is completely celebate. They live apart and are just platonic friends.
2. Couple #2 is sexually intimate even though they do not live together.
3. Couple #3 is sexually intimate, unmarried, and live in the house to the left of yours.
4. Couple #4 is sexually intimate, but married to each other, and live in the house to the right of yours.

Couple #3 and couple #4 are both good neighbors. They offer to water your lawn and feed your dog while you're out of town. The keep their house in good repair and their yard neat. They wave when they see you in your yard but because they know how you feel about them, they respect your wishes and do not approach your children. They are quiet, don't have loud parties that keep the whole neighborhood up all night. You really couldn't have much better neighbors.

I'm assuming that you do not find couple #1's behavior "degrading," but that you do consider couples #2, #3, and #4's behavior degrading. Now, I realize that you'd probably put your house on the market if either couple #3 or couple #4 were really to move in next door to you, but until it sold, you've have "degrading behavior" going on on both sides of you. Can you tell me why you see couple #4's situation as being any more problematic than couple #3's? How is your life more negatively affected by couple #4 than by couple #3? (When you get right down to it, how is your life personally affected in any way by either couple #3 or couple #4?)

 

[Katzpur]

Rape is immoral should we legalize that and hope people don't do it? Murder?

Why not? How does that contrast with outlawing same sex marriage?

Here is is sexual morality: If you all agree and its fun and enjoyed by all then go for it. Be safe. If someone doesn't agree then don't do it.

Respect each others freedom. You are free to be straight and they are free to be gay. You are free to raise a family and so are they. There is nothing immoral about it.

It looks like you're addressing these questions to me and I'm not quite sure why. You do realize my stance on this issue, don't you?

It's one thing to believe a behavior is morally wrong. It's another thing to try to legislate against it. Rape and murder actually harm innocent victims. I wouldn't even try to compare them with same-sex marriage.

 

[Sententia]

It looks like you're addressing these questions to me and I'm not quite sure why. You do realize my stance on this issue, don't you?

It's one thing to believe a behavior is morally wrong. It's another thing to try to legislate against it. Rape and murder actually harm innocent victims. I wouldn't even try to compare them with same-sex marriage.

Ok I am not following you I guess. Why don't we want to legislate against things that are morally wrong?

My argument is if something is morally wrong we should legislate against it. Examples: Murder, Theft, Rape, Arson etc...

If something is not morally wrong then we should not legislate against it. Examples: Various types of Sex, Many drugs, Same sex marriage etc.

 

[darkendless]

Ok I am not following you I guess. Why don't we want to legislate against things that are morally wrong?

If something is not morally wrong then we should not legislate against it. Examples: Various types of Sex, Many drugs, Same sex marriage etc.

Morals differ between people due to things such as religion etc.

What certain religious types think is wrongand what non-religious people consider morally wrong may be completely different.

Should we persecute homosexuals to keep bigots like Madhatter happy?

 

[Katzpur]

Ok I am not following you I guess. Why don't we want to legislate against things that are morally wrong?

My argument is if something is morally wrong we should legislate against it. Examples: Murder, Theft, Rape, Arson etc...

If something is not morally wrong then we should not legislate against it. Examples: Various types of Sex, Many drugs, Same sex marriage etc.

Let me see if I can explain my position. I feel that certain things are "wrong" in God's eyes, but I recognize that many people don't believe in God at all, and that while others may believe in Him, they would not necessarily believe as I do about what He considers "wrong." Since we are a society of people whose beliefs about God vary enormously, I don't think we are in a position to try to impose our beliefs about what we may think God sees as "wrong" on those who don't share our opinions. We legislate against murder, theft, rape and arson because we all (i.e. the overwhelming majority of people in our society) agree that they are harmful to an innocent party. We enact laws to protect ourselves from people whose behaviors would harm us, our loved ones, or our property. It's not that we do this because we don't think God approves of those things. We just want to be safe and know that offenders will be punished. Does that make sense?

 

[painted wolf]

No problemo! Jeesh, you've got nearly 11,000 posts and I just noticed for the first time that you're female. If you hadn't mentioned Relief Society, I'd still be thinking you were male.

LoL.... maybe that's part of why I never quite made it as a member.

wa:do

ps. I think the point Katz is trying to make is that while being gay may be seen as "immoral" it is essentially a "victimless crime" engaged in by two willing partners that has no impact on anyone else. Plus, It's hard to legislate against love.

 

[Commoner]

ps. I think the point Katz is trying to make is that while being gay may be seen as "immoral" it is essentially a "victimless crime" engaged in by two willing partners that has no impact on anyone else. Plus, It's hard to legislate against love.

I that case I think it's immoral to argue that it's immoral. However, you are free not to engage in it for whatever reasons you might have.

 

[Katzpur]

I that case I think it's immoral to argue that it's immoral. However, you are free not to engage in it for whatever reasons you might have.

Well, I think it's immoral for you to argue that it's immoral for me to argue that it's immoral. So there!

 

[Autodidact]

Yeah, well I think...oh, never mind.

 

[madhatter85]

See, this is where your position confuses me. Let's say you have four gay or lesbian couples. For the sake of my argument, let's assume same-sex marriage is legal.

1. Couple #1 is completely celebate. They live apart and are just platonic friends.
2. Couple #2 is sexually intimate even though they do not live together.
3. Couple #3 is sexually intimate, unmarried, and live in the house to the left of yours.
4. Couple #4 is sexually intimate, but married to each other, and live in the house to the right of yours.

Couple #3 and couple #4 are both good neighbors. They offer to water your lawn and feed your dog while you're out of town. The keep their house in good repair and their yard neat. They wave when they see you in your yard but because they know how you feel about them, they respect your wishes and do not approach your children. They are quiet, don't have loud parties that keep the whole neighborhood up all night. You really couldn't have much better neighbors.

I'm assuming that you do not find couple #1's behavior "degrading," but that you do consider couples #2, #3, and #4's behavior degrading. Now, I realize that you'd probably put your house on the market if either couple #3 or couple #4 were really to move in next door to you, but until it sold, you've have "degrading behavior" going on on both sides of you. Can you tell me why you see couple #4's situation as being any more problematic than couple #3's? How is your life more negatively affected by couple #4 than by couple #3? (When you get right down to it, how is your life personally affected in any way by either couple #3 or couple #4?)

I understand your argument but it still does not make sense as to why we should legalize behaviors that will degrade the moral fabric of our society even more.

 

[madhatter85]

Ok I am not following you I guess. Why don't we want to legislate against things that are morally wrong?

My argument is if something is morally wrong we should legislate against it. Examples: Murder, Theft, Rape, Arson etc...

If something is not morally wrong then we should not legislate against it. Examples: Various types of Sex, Many drugs, Same sex marriage etc.

See? It comes down to what each person considers morally wrong. this is completely subjective.

 

[madhatter85]

So you knew that the statement was irrelevant on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage under civil law? Hmm.

Tell you what: if you drop your opposition to same-sex marriage, I'll let you excommunicate any same-sex couple or declare them anathema or apply whatever "Church discipline" you want. Deal?


So you recognize the hypocrisy of your position, but hide behind the law?

I am just being flippant with you is all

 

[Watchmen]

When I try to discuss this issue with LDS, they often assert that the only moral sex is reproductive sex, which I find frankly bizarre.

Have never once heard that.

 

[madhatter85]

Morals differ between people due to things such as religion etc.

What certain religious types think is wrongand what non-religious people consider morally wrong may be completely different.

Should we persecute homosexuals to keep bigots like Madhatter happy?

I am not persecuting homosexuals. I am simply refusing to acknowledge their behavior as a societal norm and refusing to vote to legalize it.