LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

You think that married gay couples"degrade the moral fabric of our society" more than unmarried gay couples?

Personally, compassion factors highly in what I consider to be "the moral fabric of society"; for instance, I would not want someone's child to suffer because of my personal stance on morality. I guess views on that vary.

 

[madhatter85]

Have never once heard that.

Even I never said anything that crazy.

However, It is interesting that they bounce back and forth using "sex" and "marriage" interchangeably while at the same time they demand that sex and marriage are mutually exclusive.

 

[Autodidact]

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

And similarly, refusing to acknowledge LDS membership as a societal norm and refusing to vote to legalize it would not be persecuting Mormons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even I never said anything that crazy.

However, It is interesting that they bounce back and forth using "sex" and "marriage" interchangeably while at the same time they demand that sex and marriage are mutually exclusive.

Who exactly is the "they" you refer to?

And speaking as someone who is married himself, I most certainly do not demand that sex and marriage be mutually exclusive!

 

[Autodidact]

I think there are two basic approaches to morality. One view, the modern, Enlightenment view, is that morality has to do with virtues such as compassion, honesty, recognizing the equality of all people, and avoiding human suffering. The other view is that morality is about guarding purity and obeying tribal purity taboos, such as not eating certain foods or not having certain types of sex, or wearing or not wearing certain kinds of clothes. This is the more ancient, tribal approach. They have nothing to do with each other. In fact, it would be better if we had different words for them. madhatter's "morality" is of the latter type. He is concerned that societal purity will be contaminated if it tolerates its members violating sexual purity taboos.

 

[gnomon]

If the official LDS proclamation on the family states that it does not oppose heterosexual marriage that is not sealed in a temple than why the heck do they care what anyone else does?

James Faust cared. Here's his wisdom on the topic:

The Church's stand on homosexual relations provides another arena where we offend the devil. I expect that the statement of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve against homosexual marriages will continue to be assaulted. Satan is only interested in our misery, which he promotes by trying to persuade men and women to act contrary to God's plan. One way he does this is by encouraging the inappropriate use of sacred creative powers. A bona fide marriage is one between a man and a woman solemnized by the proper legal or ecclesiastical authority. Only sexual relations between husband and wife within the bonds of marriage are acceptable before the Lord.

In other words, it is the work of Satan to promote marriage equality.

There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn sexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair.

Pay heed to the highlighted passage. For ever increasing knowledge of human sexual development in the biological sciences, including neuroscience, is pointing towards a thoroughly hormonal and genetic development not only of physical sexual characteristics but psychological as well. That's right. Even debates about the male/female brain will likely dissolve into discussions of the spectrum of brain types based on androgen absorption by individuals in utero.

Any alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative lifestyles must not be accepted as right because they frustrate God's commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis. If practiced by all adults, these lifestyles would mean the end of the human family.

Yeah, well. That passage has all sorts of problems with biologically determined sexual identity. Unless, of course, some people just want to fall back on some "chosen people" mentality. When you add in the theological position that gender was an essential characteristic of existence prior to birth it's really a mess.

I wonder if Dallin Oaks would change his views and write another article if he actually caught up on what the science is revealing about human sexual development. His statement that people should refrain from using the term homosexual as a noun would possibly change.

 

[Katzpur]

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.

If you truly understood my argument, I would think that you would at least take a stab at answering the questions I asked. All you did was restate your position. I already know what your position is. I would like to see you actually answer my questions. That's why I asked them.

Besides, it has nothing to do with "legalizing behaviors." Allow me to quote you:

Nobody is outlawing homosexuality or the behavior associated with it.

But in the following quote, you are saying you wish they would.

I am simply refusing to acknowledge their behavior as a societal norm and refusing to vote to legalize it.

Those last two statements are direct contradictions, Madhatter. Why can't you see that? Besides, are you seriously suggesting that gays and lesbians are going to stop "behaving" the way they do if we continue to deny them the right to marry?

 

[Commoner]

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

But I mean it, you know. It's one thing to believe something is immoral and not really knowing exactly why that is (or do you?), it's another thing to then assert it. I'm just saying, we've got to be careful about things like that, no?

Not that you were necessarily doing that.

 

[Katzpur]

But I mean it, you know. It's one thing to believe something is immoral and not really knowing exactly why that is (or do you?), it's another thing to then assert it. I'm just saying, we've got to be careful about things like that, no?

Not that you were necessarily doing that.

I hope I wasn't. In my post #2611, I think I made it pretty clear that I was merely stating what I personally believe.

 

[madhatter85]

If you truly understood my argument, I would think that you would at least take a stab at answering the questions I asked. All you did was restate your position. I already know what your position is. I would like to see you actually answer my questions. That's why I asked them.

Besides, it has nothing to do with "legalizing behaviors." Allow me to quote you:

But in the following quote, you are saying you wish they would.

Those last two statements are direct contradictions, Madhatter. Why can't you see that? Besides, are you seriously suggesting that gays and lesbians are going to stop "behaving" the way they do if we continue to deny them the right to marry?

I am talking about two different things. homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage. in my statement's proper context they are not contradictions at all.

as for your questions

Can you tell me why you see couple #4's situation as being any more problematic than couple #3's?

because it would be sanctified by the state

How is your life more negatively affected by couple #4 than by couple #3?

because it would be sanctified by the state

 

[Commoner]

I hope I wasn't. In my post #2611, I think I made it pretty clear that I was merely stating what I personally believe.

That's why I responded to Wolf's post - I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. Because someone might have misinterpreted how she paraphrased it, you know.

 

[madhatter85]

Who exactly is the "they" you refer to?

people like Auto. and by that I don't mean "the gays" I mean people with the same mental attitude as her.

And speaking as someone who is married himself, I most certainly do not demand that sex and marriage be mutually exclusive!

Frubals my good man!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

because it would be sanctified by the state

In situation #3, same-sex couples cohabitating unmarried is "sanctified" (BTW - is that even the right word here?) by the state. You consider this okay?

because it would be sanctified by the state

And how does this negatively affect your life, exactly?

 

[Katzpur]

In situation #3, same-sex couples cohabitating unmarried is "sanctified" (BTW - is that even the right word here?) by the state. You consider this okay?

I believe he meant "sanctioned." (I just finished watching some old Archie Bunker reruns, so this inaccurate choice of words just cracked me up. Remember how ol' Archie did that all the time?)

And how does this negatively affect your life, exactly?

I don't think we're going to see an answer to this question.

Well, folks... I'm outta here for awhile. I just can't deal with this thread for more than a handful of posts a few days apart. It's seriously going to drive me to drink. And you know we Mormons aren't allowed to drink. It would be "immoral." Hopefully you all understand my position by now anyway.

 

[astarath]

LDS doesnt approve of same sex marriage? really? I am shocked
(please not the high level of sarcasm contained in the message above)
Can a group that doesnt allow soda be expected to allow gay marriage?

 

[Katzpur]

Can a group that doesnt allow soda be expected to allow gay marriage?

The LDS don't allow soda? really? I am shocked!

 

[astarath]

LDS is mormon right?

 

[Sententia]

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

LOL

Morals are not subjective. Defend your position using reason and science rather then god and your personal opinion.

While I agree you can have your opinion I also agree your position is indefensible and immoral.

So think what you want and consider it subjective morality but know that morally speaking in secular terms you are wrong. And not a little wrong at that...

You are wrong in the same sense that people thought owning slaves was moral. You are just wrong. But meh... mormons once though slaves good and blacks bad but now they changed.... You still think if the temple says jump you should ask how high... whatever... So you fail at critical thought... Its not all that bad... If you can learn from it than great but if not meh...

Ultimately you are the idiot standing on the street corner preaching gravity is a farse. You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Sententia]

The LDS don't allow soda? really? I am shocked!

LOL. I am good friends with Mormons who don't allow caffeinated soda and when I asked them about it they justified thier position based on another position that they also do not allow alcohol or cigarettes. But then I went to their house and had Ginger Beer. Gasp... Soda....

Hardcore LDS serving up Ginger beer?

Honestly I do not understand why you want to misconstrue this... Mormons think caffeine is bad. Its not soda... decaf coke is fine... ginger beer is fine... Jolt is like what? The Devil's brew?

Mormons have faced this odd issue before: The Word of Wisdom, Caffeine, and Hypocrisy

Ack Soda... Ack Coffee. Ack.. umm wait nevermind... if god wanted our prophet to say whats what it wouldnt be through the media...

I agree... he would use his magic powers to convey his will to all. Hmmm No magic powers tell me coffee is bad...

 

[Commoner]

Well, folks... I'm outta here for awhile. I just can't deal with this thread for more than a handful of posts a few days apart. It's seriously going to drive me to drink. And you know we Mormons aren't allowed to drink. It would be "immoral." Hopefully you all understand my position by now anyway.

Hehe...