LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Apex]

Then you would agree that anyone who holds the position that homosexuality is bad and harmful to society in general is bigotted? That view is actually worse than what FH said.

How is that view worse than what Father Heathen said? He stated Mormonism was "far, far more immoral and dangerous to children"(emphasis added). He did not state they were on the same level. This makes his statement more bigoted, in my opinion. If he would of been saying they were on the same level, then they would of been equal.

It doesn't matter. Do you still think that homosexuality is wrong and hurts society? If so, then you are on the same page with FH. He has no problem with you practicing Mormonism, but he strongly disagrees with it.

Do I think its wrong, yes. But they do not share my religious beliefs so it is basically an issue of indifference for me. Do I think they hurt society, I really do not have an answer on that. I would lean towards no.

If you don't like homosexuality and think it's wrong, then you are bigotted by your own standards.

Nope. I think I know my own standards better than you.

 

[Magic Man]

How is that view worse than what Father Heathen said? He stated Mormonism was "far, far more immoral and dangerous to children"(emphasis added). He did not state they were on the same level. This makes his statement more bigoted, in my opinion. If he would of been saying they were on the same level, then they would of been equal.

It's much worse because FH has rational, real-world explanations for his disagreement with Mormonism. He has good reason to say that it's dangerous for children. Namely, the reasoning shown by so many Mormons here on subjects like homosexuality, among others.

Do I think its wrong, yes. But they do not share my religious beliefs so it is basically an issue of indifference for me. Do I think they hurt society, I really do not have an answer on that. I would lean towards no.

Well, I'm really glad to hear that. That's quite unusual, at least around here.

Nope. I think I know my own standards better than you.

You disagree with homosexuality the same way FH disagrees with Mormonism. If you think his disagreement with Mormonism is bigotry, then it would be inconsistent to say that your disagreement with with homosexuality is not bigotry.

You seem to have a good view on the matter, by your comments in the middle portion here. I don't want to discourage that. I just think you overreacted to FH's comment because you took it as an offense to Mormonism. It was not meant to be that. It was only meant to show that one can completely disagree with something and even think it's sending the wrong message to kids, but not take action to stop people from doing that thing. It was obviously not directed at you, since you don't seem to think that homosexuality causes any damage to society, and aren't trying to prevent homosexuals from having certain rights.

 

[Father Heathen]

Here, I will try again, click at your own risk!
Have to love the onion!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

You do realize that The Onion is a satirical humor site, correct?

 

[gnomon]

I read this in the same faith debates section and it got me to thinking:



The LDS Church's stance is that same-sex marriage is not "ordained by God". While I find this lamentable, I still wonder: does the fact that something is viewed as prohibited, not ordained by God, sinful, heretical or otherwise disapproved necessarily mean that it should be made illegal in secular law as well?

Not just looking at the LDS Church, but also at other religious groups that have opposed secular legalization of same-sex marriage on the grounds of their own religious beliefs, is this a principle that is normally applied in other areas of human endeavour? Do these groups generally seek to make things illegal for everyone when those things aren't in accordance with the teachings of their faith?


Also (and going back to the LDS Church specifically), the 11th Article of Faith is as follows:



Can marriage ever be considered an aspect of worship of God? If so, is the statement to the California churches in conflict with the 11th Article of Faith?

I'm just going to get all high and mighty and state that the author of the letter is an imbecile. I'll leave it at that before I say something offensive.

 

[madhatter85]

I'm just going to get all high and mighty and state that the author of the letter is an imbecile. I'll leave it at that before I say something offensive.

Insulting my religious leaders is indeed offensive to me.

 

[McBell]

Insulting my religious leaders is indeed offensive to me.

Your leader wrote that tripe?
Your kidding right?

 

[Riverwolf]

Insulting my religious leaders is indeed offensive to me.

Why do you personally care about what we say about them? Unless you yourself are a religious leader.

 

[madhatter85]

Your leader wrote that tripe?
Your kidding right?

The one asking LDS members to support the constitutional ammendment. or did i miss something?

 

[Autodidact]

You are not calling me a liar, I was just cutting and pasting, this is who you are calling a liar:
Wrong again. I'm wondering if you can post anything accurate. Nothing in what you said is in any of those articles. For example, I believe that a single study found that 90% of lesbian couples reported verbal unpleasantness within the last year. That may be true. (I haven't read the article, and doubt anything you say at this point.) What is a lie is that means that gay relationships are more violent than heterosexual relationships. They're not. Saying they are is a lie. Lying is morally wrong. Therefore idea is immoral.
Or, to use another example, AFAICR (not reviewing thread) it may be true that of the adolescent males who contracted AIDS before 1990, a large percentage did so from gay sex. It does not follow, and is a lie, that children of gay parents are more likely to contract AIDS than children of straight parents. That is a lie, which is immoral. It is not gay people who are immoral, but idea. (and anyone who engages in this dishonest, hateful propaganda.) I could go down the line, but you get the idea.

This kind of hate-propaganda reminds me of the anti-semitic and anti-black lies of certain other groups, who also spew the same filthy lies about gay people. It's really despicable.

 

[Autodidact]

The above is a non sequitur: the last abode of those with no argument.

No, actually, it's a little something we in the internet community like to call a joke, a form of rhetorical exagerration meant to draw attention to the extreme nature of your position. You state an extremely radical view as though it were fact. In fact, to dispute the holding in Marbury v. Madison is a rather unorthodox view. That's not to say that it's wrong, or that I want to argue it--that would be a subject for a separate thread. I merely want to point out the obvious fact that it is in fact the law of the land and has been for 200 years, so you are rejecting the settled law of these United States.

For some reason this argument is only raised when "conservative" laws are overturned. I did not hear any conservative raise it, for example, when the court recently overturned the D.C. gun ban on the basis of the second amendment. Suddenly democracy was no longer the supreme value.

Very well, then we can dispense with any more statements about inalienable rights.

Not so fast, cowboy. Gay marriage is not a fundamental right. Marriage is. Ergo, strict scrutiny--compelling state interest. There is none for discriminating against gay people in this regard, and so the court ruling in this case.

I see. So this deference to the Court opinion would indicate you accept as correct all decisions by the Court simply because it is the Court? This would include the lovely list like Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Ozawa v. United States, Korematsu v. United States etc. If that is not your view, then your siding with the Court on this issue is simply personal advantage and thus ad hoc.

No, but I disagree on the substance of the case, not on the basis that it was made by the court. Using Korematsu as the quintessential wrong decision (as far as I'm concerned), it was still the province of the court to make that decision. The fact that I don't like the decision they made does not cause me to discard our entire system of judicial review. Because I don't hate America. (lol, I better give you a hint when I'm attempting to use humor.)

Quite so! And insofar as the American System is a constitutional democracy you should abandon your autocratic leanings.

I would put emphasis on constitutional. Specifically, we are a democratic republic, which I like. Why do you hate America? (That's a joke. It means--you are fundamentally opposed to the American system of justice.) btw, I cannot think of any modern nation that is an absolute democracy, can you?
?

This feigned umbrage is uninteresting. It is also vacuous. I gave a serious reply that was met with tripe. Unless a woman can produce semen or men eggs then gay marriages cannot produce children which indicates a clear distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages and a clear reason the state has no vested interest in promoting gay marriage.

I had my kids the same way many heterosexuals do: insemination and adoption.
[/quote]

If you think my opinion odd or an unusual legal position, then you are unstudied in jurisprudence.

Are you familiar with the term ad hominem? If you want to argue that rejecting one of the oldest precedents in our history is mainstream, feel free. Calling me ignorant will not advance such an argument.

 

[Autodidact]

OK, here you go, let’s have a look at the moral stable modest parental candidates, straight from their pep rallies and parades... Let's hear what they are all about from their own mouths...

Wonderful parents and role models, love the water balloons, and duck tape bikini.
link


beautiful isn’t it? Just the kind of program I want my tax dollars going to.
link


homosexual movement and your kids:
link


homosexuality for kids
Link

inspirational stories from children of GLTB families
link

So I take it that you have no mainstream published research to support your position? And that's why you have to resort to ant-gay hate propaganda?

 

[gnomon]

Insulting my religious leaders is indeed offensive to me.

Such tragedies in this life.

 

[Autodidact]

My source was a homosexual parade. A homosexual parade, NOT an anti-gay parade. Don’t be upset at how homosexuals act in their own parade.



If the “Leather Alliance” was not part of the gay population, why were they invited to the homosexual parade? You don’t see Easter bunnies in the Christmas parade do you? That would be because in Christmas parades everything has a Christmas theme – get my drift?

The Mardi Gras is not named the “heterosexual pride party” because it is not. If you can find a “Heterosexual parade” please let me know, we can look at the participants of and discuss trends among Heterosexuals…

One good representative of the “church going bible bashing hypocritical bigots” as you describe them – if you want to see a representative of these “horrible” people, go to one of their “conventions” – go to church – you will not find anyone scantily clad cussing people having sex in public – you will find men and women talking politely with one another dressed professionally.

If you want to see what republicans are about, go to a republican event and look at the types of people that show up – that is who republicans are.

If you want to know what Christians are about, go to a church, look around, that is who Christians are.

If you want to know what gay and lesbians are about, go to a gay and lesbian parade – that is who gay and lesbians are.

The people from these festivals are the same who want children:
7) Boy (12) Oakland:...... When I was younger, I went to women’s festivals with my mother. There’s this kind of famous picture of me and my biological mom. She’s on stage with long hair and her breasts are hanging out and she’s got me in her arms. I always try to hide that picture,... It’s kind of embarrassing. My mother was one of the first lesbians to choose to have a child…
18) Woman (19) student in Wisconsin, heterosexual:.... my mother, my sisters and I attended these [lesbian/feminist] merrymakings.... I’d sometimes bring my best friend and we’d pretend to ‘be together’ to avoid being hit on." (pp. 102-106) Em, Sc, E



testimonials of kids raised by gays and lesbians link – here are some quotes from the kids:

Children who want a father in their life, and don’t have them, male children who are told they are "mutants" and the "most despicable thing on earth" because they are male, such a balanced environment - for sure.

Girl (7) California: … What really bothers me is when my friends come over and them they get into [asking me] if I know my dad. So I tell them no, not really.... I ask my mom about my dad but... you see, I wonder about him. I don't know where he is. I don’t think my mom knows either.

7) Boy (12) Oakland:... usually I’m not around a lot of men. I’m mostly around women... my little brother, who is half black, asked [the gay roommate] to be his father........... I might have been two years old when I first asked, ‘Where’s my daddy’. She probably said, ‘you don’t have a daddy, you have a donor’.... Right now I don’t have any reason to find out who my donor was. He could be a real *******." (pp. 50-53) Hy, Em, D, F, I
8) Woman (25) Massachusetts,.... I was having trouble spending the weekdays with lesbians, who discussed the evils of the patriarchy and the value of women-only space, and then spending an orthodox Shabbos with the other side of my family...... by junior high things were very bad at home... I was discouraged from having male friends, and any female friends were to be made aware that I lived in a lesbian household before I could have them over........ men were called mutants, straight women were considered disowned sisters who wasted woman-energy on men, … Anyone who was not like us was evil... [at age 14] I moved out and went to live in a lesbian boarding house.... I also learned to fear the world’s judgment, to see relationships as temporary, to be distrustful, and to withhold communication as a means of self- protection and punishment…. I see evidence of how emotionally detached I’ve become.… L and my mother… explained their parenting style by saying that the patriarchy was pushing me hard in one direction, and they wanted to counteract that pressure by pushing just as hard in the other. I’m lucky I didn’t get squashed.
11) Girl (7) adopted Indian girl:.... I say daddies are as dumb as bubble gum. I like L being with A because I get to snuggle with them in the nighttime....
20) Man (27), "Lesbians should not fill their children with their own fears and hatred. … I distinctly remember a woman telling me, ‘you are a most despicable thing on earth because you are nothing but a future man’.... for me, this kind of hatred ruined my life. This hatred, of men by women, of women by myself, has existed in my life until recently.... … I have built such immense and thick walls around my spirit that nothing but the thinnest vein of emotion seeps through.... I have survived by staying in shallow water." (pp. 110-116) Hy, Em, Sx, T, V, E, Dis, N, C
who said they were not sexist?
link

It's a good thing that no child of heterosexuals has ever been beaten. Or molested. Or neglected. Or kicked out of the house. Or mistreated in any way. I'm so glad that all the straight parents in the world take wonderful care of their children, like say, Andrea Yates, now that's a good example of a good Christian parent, don't you think? Heterosexual, married, and oh, so, stable.

So, I see you declined my offer to limit ourselves to mainstream published scientific work. That would be because it all disproves everything you're saying, I would guess? So you have to resort to scary anecdotes from a few individuals? Or is it that you don't know what science is or how it works?

 

[Autodidact]

I would like to point out one way that gay parenting is more moral and better for children than straight parenting. It is NOT because gay people are better than straight people. It is because, due to biology, gay sex cannot result in accidental pregnancy. As a result, every child of gay parents is wanted, planned for and cared for. What a better place the world would be if this were the case for every child.

 

[Autodidact]

So, as I have now asked twice, for the Mormons in this thread, do any of you know any gay families at all? That includes you, idea, Mr. Evade and Dissemble. Do you know any kids with gay parents?

 

[emiliano]

9_10 Penguin wrote:

Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

As you know we Christians believe that the Apostle Paul wrote inspired by God, his ministry was to organised the church so when he says they (homosexual) shall not inherit the kingdom of God, it is God that says so through his servant, the servant of the Lord is the mouthpiece. The servant is called for this purpose Exo 18:13 And on the next day it happened that Moses sat to judge the people. And the people stood by Moses from the morning to the evening.
Here Moses judges because he is the servant of God.
1Ki 3:9 And give to Your servant an understanding heart, to judge Your people, to discern between good and bad. For who is able to judge this, Your great people?
The Great servant Jesus: Joh 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you, but He who sent Me is true, and I speak to the world those things what I heard of Him.
These are God’s servants, it is clear that they are the prophets, the Apostles, the minister of the word, not just every Tom, Dick and Harry.

I see a common message that repeats over and over again in the New Testament: that the Old Law, i.e. the laid down, rigid code of behavior, has been set aside. In its place, people are free to be guided by fundamental virtues and the Spirit. Here is the clearest example that I know of, 1 Colossians 2:13-23

I see, you think that after Calvary, the Law was abrogated and no matter what kind of life one lives is OK and one has a ticket to the Kingdom, because God has set aside the Moral Law.
Now the Apostle Paul who wrote that Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals shall enter God’s Kingdom says:1Co 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged by no one
1Co 2:16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
And the mind of Christ is that we repent
Luk 13:3 I tell you, No. But unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.
Rev 2:5 Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent, and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and will remove your lampstand out of its place unless you repent.

 

[emiliano]

I would like to point out one way that gay parenting is more moral and better for children than straight parenting. It is NOT because gay people are better than straight people. It is because, due to biology, gay sex cannot result in accidental pregnancy. As a result, every child of gay parents is wanted, planned for and cared for. What a better place the world would be if this were the case for every child.

The adoptions by gay people is a recently conferred right, so we are yet to find this out, so far it doesn’t look good for them, but at present we can tell either way.

 

[madhatter85]

I would like to point out one way that gay parenting is more moral and better for children than straight parenting. It is NOT because gay people are better than straight people. It is because, due to biology, gay sex cannot result in accidental pregnancy. As a result, every child of gay parents is wanted, planned for and cared for. What a better place the world would be if this were the case for every child.

So? doesn't change the fact that you're still in a homosexual relationship.

 

[madhatter85]

I am opposed to the LDS Church because it promotes and sanctions immorality. In particular, it specializes in brain-washing little children to believe lies like this. However, unlike you, I defend and respect your right to practice it, because I recognize that I am not in charge of your morality, and the only power that I have or should have over you is the power to persuade you, not to decide your morality for you. The fact that you don't recognize this necessary part of the social compact is why you represent a pernicious influence on society.

So, does this "lack" have any negative effect on the children, outside your head that is?

At least my children don't lack exposure to reality.

you know what this sounds like to me?

"I know you are! but what am I?"

3rd grade antics dont work in the real world babe.

 

[MoonWater]

You say “so what” to teenage girls being more sexually active, are you serious?

The quote was refering to the children of homosexual parents in general and not teenaged girls in particular. But if you want to go that route... I would have no problem with my teenaged daughter being sexually active provided she knew what she was getting into and took the neccessary precautions(testing,protection, etc.) Yes, there is a problem in this country of numerous teenage pregnancies but that has less to do with the fact that these teenagers are sexually active and more to do with the fact that the majority of kids these days are not properly educated about sex and thus don't know the dangers involved or the proper precautions to take when they start becoming "curious"

If you had a teenage daughter you would not mind if she was a ****?

You're focusing only on extremes. Being sexually active in your teenaged years does not automatically make you a ****. A **** is a derogatory term for someone who is sexually promiscuous, that is has multiple sex partners. If my daughter were such I would certainly be concerned(because of the obvious risks) and wouldn't necisarrily approve but that itself would come more out of my own preference towards monogamy and I certainly wouldn't tell her of ans say she's "doing wrong" simply because she sleeps around. It's her choice and her body, not mine.

You don’t support monogamy,

Where did I say that, your putting words in my mouth

and yet, you want marriage rights?

I do have marriage rights, don't tell me your assuming I'm gay simply because I support gay rights? Heck even if I were I'd still have those rights because I happen to live in California so it doesn't matter either way for me:woohoo:

Do you see your hypocrisy?

Do you see that you've been putting words in my mouth and making grandiose assumptions about me?

You think it is good to try and make boys feminine, and girls masculine?

I think it is good to let people be themselves and not try to trap them in societal stereotypes. What's wrong with feminine boys or masculine girls?

You want everyone to be the same – so much for celebrating diversity!

I do celebrate diversity, again your putting words in my mouth and making false assumptions. Where did I ever say I want everyone to be the same?

Throw out America’s melting pot - let’s melt them all into identical robots – no males, no females, everyone the same. You crush both sexes by telling males being masculine is bad, and telling females that being feminine is bad.

nice rant

Males and females are different

Link

Having grown up around both males and females I can safely assert that yes there are differences between the two. Your point?

There is a fact that is undisputed.
Obviously if males and females are different, kids get different things from each of them. Should we support children being raised in a stable environment with both male and female role models to give them a balanced take on life? Or should we encourage bigotry and sexism by encouraging children to be raised by only one sex – Leaving heterosexual girls wanting for appropriate male affection from their lesbian parents, and heterosexual boys wanting for appropriate feminine attention for lack of a mother. Would you encourage this – through benefits? Benefits were meant to support stable balanced families raising children, not to support freedom of lifestyle. Get maried, do what you want, but don't force it onto children who already have a hard enough time growing up in this world, and don't force me to pay for your choices.

Actually this "fact" is very much in dispute.

I am not a bigot, I have homosexual relatives and friends. I don’t claim to know anyone who agrees with all of my viewpoints, everyone is different, that is what makes conversations interesting. I will not tell people what to do behind closed doors unless it hurts an innocent, like a child. There is no law against being homosexual, and there should not be. There is a difference between giving someone freedom to do what they want and having to support them in what they do. I support the democratic process and don’t think a group of judges should be allowed to overturn what the good people of America have voted for.

Except we live in a constitutional democracy and not a pure democracy and thus have a constitution in place in order to protect the rights of the minority. The judges overturned "what the good people of America" voted for because they felt it went against the constitution and in so doing barred citizens from the rights said constitution is in place to protect. If you have a problem with their decision take it up with them not me, I had nothing to do with it. And what does homosexuality have to do with harming children anyway?