LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[idea]

no, you have the privilege to marry the person you love. i don't.

This statement could be said for all kinds of couples. Did you know that it is illegal for a brother and a sister to get married? Do you agree or disagree with those laws? How about MBLA stuff? If they both claim the love each other, should we allow them to get married? How about polygammy? Once you re-define marriage, where does it stop?

 

[Magic Man]

This statement could be said for all kinds of couples. Did you know that it is illegal for a brother and a sister to get married? Do you agree or disagree with those laws? How about MBLA stuff? If they both claim the love each other, should we allow them to get married? How about polygammy? Once you re-define marriage, where does it stop?

This is a tired argument. In other cases, there are very good reasons, generally. Incest is banned because evidence seems to indicate children of such couples have birth defects. In other words, it verifiably has negative real-world effects. I don't know what MBLA stuff is. Polygamy presents a lot of problems legally. I have no problem with polygamy, and maybe they will legalize it. It would take a lot more for that, though.

It's not redefining marriage. It's using a general, standard definition that even people against same-sex marriage would agree to if the idea of same-sex marriage isn't brought up. The main point is that no form of marriage should be banned unless there is a good, rational reason. There is not such thing against same-sex marriage, so there's no reason to even consider what might happen if we allow it. It should be allowed, and that's it.

 

[Father Heathen]

This statement could be said for all kinds of couples. Did you know that it is illegal for a brother and a sister to get married? Do you agree or disagree with those laws? How about MBLA stuff? If they both claim the love each other, should we allow them to get married? How about polygammy? Once you re-define marriage, where does it stop?

I see no legal reason to prevent those (as disturbing as some may be) accept for the OBVIOUS one of preying on children, even if they do "consent". It's coercion since they're not developed, mature, and informed adults and thus cannot made independent decisions on such matters.

 

[Father Heathen]

This is a tired argument. In other cases, there are very good reasons, generally. Incest is banned because evidence seems to indicate children of such couples have birth defects. In other words, it verifiably has negative real-world effects. I don't know what MBLA stuff is. Polygamy presents a lot of problems legally. I have no problem with polygamy, and maybe they will legalize it. It would take a lot more for that, though.

It's not redefining marriage. It's using a general, standard definition that even people against same-sex marriage would agree to if the idea of same-sex marriage isn't brought up. The main point is that no form of marriage should be banned unless there is a good, rational reason. There is not such thing against same-sex marriage, so there's no reason to even consider what might happen if we allow it. It should be allowed, and that's it.

"MBLA" is man/boy love association. In other words she's trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

 

[Magic Man]

"MBLA" is man/boy love association. In other words she's trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

Ah, thanks. I've never heard that term before.

 

[Father Heathen]

Ah, thanks. I've never heard that term before.

Actually it's "nambla", a very controversial organization for obvious reasons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually it's "nambla", a very controversial organization for obvious reasons.

And a marginal and ostracized organization that is not reflective of any mainstream position. Invoking them in discussions on homosexuality is like invoking the Heaven's Gate cult in discussions on religion: it's a red herring and a mischaracterization of an entire group based on a fringe element that the group as a whole rejects itself.

 

[Theocan]

Peopel can dow hatever they want, people WILL do whatever they want. It's thier right as human beings to live how they want.

But when it comes to protecting the sanctity and privilege of marriage I will stand my ground.

How nice, by "standing your ground" your invading on other people's civil rights who are not even invading yours. How pathetic.

 

[Father Heathen]

And a marginal and ostracized organization that is not reflective of any mainstream position. Invoking them in discussions on homosexuality is like invoking the Heaven's Gate cult in discussions on religion: it's a red herring and a mischaracterization of an entire group based on a fringe element that the group as a whole rejects itself.

Yeah, I get tired of refuting these same tired straw man analogies over and over.

 

[madhatter85]

This is a tired argument. In other cases, there are very good reasons, generally. Incest is banned because evidence seems to indicate children of such couples have birth defects. In other words, it verifiably has negative real-world effects.

But now you're saying that marriage is only for procreation.... what if they don't have any kids? what now? take that away and what's wrong with a brother marrying his sister? you can't use one argument one way and not use it another. My point is it's morality, you find it disgusting for a brother and a sister to have sex.

I don't know what MBLA stuff is. Polygamy presents a lot of problems legally. I have no problem with polygamy, and maybe they will legalize it. It would take a lot more for that, though.

I'm not for legalizing poligamy, I like my one wife she's plenty for me, i don't want twenty wives all nagging me to take out the garbage.

It's not redefining marriage. It's using a general, standard definition that even people against same-sex marriage would agree to if the idea of same-sex marriage isn't brought up. The main point is that no form of marriage should be banned unless there is a good, rational reason. There is not such thing against same-sex marriage, so there's no reason to even consider what might happen if we allow it. It should be allowed, and that's it.

I tis indeed redefining marriage because it ALWAYS has been ONLY between one man and one woman for the raising up of children. the ONLY societies that have changed it before recently were either Anarchist or they fell to thier enemies.

 

[madhatter85]

And a marginal and ostracized organization that is not reflective of any mainstream position. Invoking them in discussions on homosexuality is like invoking the Heaven's Gate cult in discussions on religion: it's a red herring and a mischaracterization of an entire group based on a fringe element that the group as a whole rejects itself.

Um, look at the highlighted parts... was it not that long ago that Gays were viewed the same way?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But now you're saying that marriage is only for procreation.... what if they don't have any kids? what now? take that away and what's wrong with a brother marrying his sister? you can't use one argument one way and not use it another. My point is it's morality, you find it disgusting for a brother and a sister to have sex.

There's a big difference between acknowledging that marriage can result in procreation and demanding that it must result in procreation.

I tis indeed redefining marriage because it ALWAYS has been ONLY between one man and one woman for the raising up of children. the ONLY societies that have changed it before recently were either Anarchist or they fell to thier enemies.

:areyoucra

I think you're stepping out too far here. There have been many, many societies throughout human history that had marriage arrangements that were something other than one man and one woman.

For instance, you may be familiar with one of them that put down roots in Utah in the 19th Century. Was the early LDS Church Anarchist, or did it fall to its enemies?

Um, look at the highlighted parts... was it not that long ago that Gays were viewed the same way?

Ah... so gay rights groups' views should be considered to representative of the views of society as a whole?

Great - the issue's settled, then.

 

[madhatter85]

There's a big difference between acknowledging that marriage can result in procreation and demanding that it must result in procreation.

You still didn't answer the question.

I think you're stepping out too far here. There have been many, many societies throughout human history that had marriage arrangements that were something other than one man and one woman.

For instance, you may be familiar with one of them that put down roots in Utah in the 19th Century. Was the early LDS Church Anarchist, or did it fall to its enemies?

I was mainly talking about societites in which homosexulaity abounded....
anyways...
Look at the doctrine of polygamy, It even states that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

Ah... so gay rights groups' views should be considered to representative of the views of society as a whole?

Great - the issue's settled, then.

nice try, you didn't even adress the comment. you're saying that just because they are a small minority that they should be ignored because they are not reflective of ANY mainstream position.

How many "in the closet" pedophiles are there? how many variations of pedophilia are there? how "mainstream" will it get once they get a foothold as a community? how much more mainstream will it get when they start "coming out"

Hell, Even Kid Rock's new song singing about having sex with a 17 year old girl after giving her drugs and getting her drunk, not just singing about it, But glorifying it in "how good it was".

 

[Magic Man]

But now you're saying that marriage is only for procreation.... what if they don't have any kids? what now? take that away and what's wrong with a brother marrying his sister? you can't use one argument one way and not use it another. My point is it's morality, you find it disgusting for a brother and a sister to have sex.

Nope. I have no problem with a brother and sister getting married. I have actually argued for incest in another thread. I don't agree with it, and wouldn't do it myself, but I don't have much problem with it as long as it involves two consenting adults, and no adverse effects on the people involved or on offspring. My wife tells me there have been studies that show negative psychological effects of such relationships, but unless it's conclusive and pertinent, it doesn't matter to me.

I'm not for legalizing poligamy, I like my one wife she's plenty for me, i don't want twenty wives all nagging me to take out the garbage.

I figured you wouldn't be. Just because you don't want more than one wife, though, doesn't mean that others shouldn't be able to choose differently than you.

I tis indeed redefining marriage because it ALWAYS has been ONLY between one man and one woman for the raising up of children. the ONLY societies that have changed it before recently were either Anarchist or they fell to thier enemies.

For one thing, that isn't even the definition that's been used in Christianity all along. For another thing, we're not just talking about your definition here. Pretty much all cultures that we have record of have had some form of marriage. You have your definition, and others have another. The only standard that can be applied is two people joining together for the rest of their lives.

Your last sentence is ridiculous. It is false, first off. There are plenty of societies that use or have used a different definition than yours that aren't anarchistic and didn't "fall to their enemies". The inference that there was any connection whatsoever between a society supporting homosexuality and it being destroyed or falling is wishful on your part at best. There are plenty of societies right now that support homosexuality and same-sex marriages, including such prominent countries as Canada (among many, many others).

 

[Magic Man]

Look at the doctrine of polygamy, It even states that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

So, the doctrine contradicts the very core of the idea?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You still didn't answer the question.

You mean about childless incestuous marriages? I think it's so marginal that it's not even an issue. It's only brought up to imply some sort of slippery slope where none exists.

I was mainly talking about societites in which homosexulaity abounded....
anyways...
Look at the doctrine of polygamy, It even states that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.

Polygamy is between one man and one woman? :areyoucra

nice try, you didn't even adress the comment. you're saying that just because they are a small minority that they should be ignored because they are not reflective of ANY mainstream position.

No, I'm saying that NABMLA is just as irrelevant to the merits of the same-sex marriage debate as the Heaven's Gate cult is to the merits of religion.

Do you really want to judge the whole based on the fringe? Some group of pedophiles is not representative of the gay and lesbian community any more than a whacko suicide cult is representative of you and your community of religious adherents. Frankly, to draw a parallel between the two of them is very insulting.

How many "in the closet" pedophiles are there? how many variations of pedophilia are there? how "mainstream" will it get once they get a foothold as a community? how much more mainstream will it get when they start "coming out"

How many "in the closet" suicide cults are there? How many variations on suicide cults are there? How "mainstream" will suicide cults become once religion gets a foothold in the community?

Do you think this works as an argument against religion? If not, why do you think it works as an argument against homosexuality?

Hell, Even Kid Rock's new song singing about having sex with a 17 year old girl after giving her drugs and getting her drunk, not just singing about it, But glorifying it in "how good it was".

If it's the song I'm thinking of, it describes consensual sex between underage teenagers of approximately the same age while both knowingly taking drugs and/or drinking. While I'm sure that many people have objections on many levels to that sort of activity, it's not what you're portraying it as, and it's certainly not pedophilic predation.

 

[Father Heathen]

polygamy is between one man and one woman? :areyoucra

lol!

 

[Theocan]

lol!

Oh sweet God, that was humorous.

:clap

 

[McBell]

I tis indeed redefining marriage because it ALWAYS has been ONLY between one man and one woman for the raising up of children.

Bold faced lie.
One that be proven by the men in the BIBLE that have had multiple wives.

the ONLY societies that have changed it before recently were either Anarchist or they fell to thier enemies.

Now this, I have now idea what you are talking about.
However, I suspect that this is nothing more than a load of nonsense to support the BOLD FACED LIE above.

 

[madhatter85]

Bold faced lie.
One that be proven by the men in the BIBLE that have had multiple wives.


Now this, I have now idea what you are talking about.
However, I suspect that this is nothing more than a load of nonsense to support the BOLD FACED LIE above.

It is not a bold faced lie.

Marriage is only between one man and one woman UNLESS the Lord decreed otherwise for a time. The doctrine of Plural wives was a limited practice and was used SOLEY for the bringing forth of more offspring unto the Lord.

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;


17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.