LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Storm]

Are you going to address the rest of my post?

 

[Starfish]

Show me a fair and righteous gender-based legal discrimination. Just one.

How do you feel about the draft? Women required to fight in combat? No gender recognition in the military whatsoever?

A lot of this stuff seems silly. But law suits are happening today that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.

 

[Storm]

How do you feel about the draft? Women required to fight in combat? No gender recognition in the military whatsoever?

I don't like it, but I don't like the draft, period. I don't think men should be drafted, or required to register for it.

If a woman WANTS to join the military, she should be treated exactly the same as any male volunteer.

 

[Starfish]

Medical needs? What medical needs does the law address?

Can insurance companies be challenged for covering mammograms, pregnancy, female health issues, if they aren't offered to men? Especially if we move to national health care?

Again I know this sounds silly, but . . .

 

[Starfish]

I don't like it, but I don't like the draft, period. I don't think men should be drafted, or required to register for it.

If a woman WANTS to join the military, she should be treated exactly the same as any male volunteer.

If a woman joined the military where gender does not exist, she must be prepared to live among men 24/7. No separation, no privacy.

 

[Storm]

Can insurance companies be challenged for covering mammograms, pregnancy, female health issues, if they aren't offered to men? Especially if we move to national health care?

Again I know this sounds silly, but . . .

You're right, it is silly.

If a woman joined the military where gender does not exist, she must be prepared to live among men 24/7. No separation, no privacy.

Yes, she should. And the men should be prepared for it, too. That's the ideal, anyway; we're not there yet. As the military's shameful treatment of sexual assault cases shows.

But again, you're stretching the proposition beyond what I said. I never advocated for the removal of social conventions like gender segregation, only equal treatment under the law.

 

[Starfish]

You're right, it is silly.


Yes, she should. And the men should be prepared for it, too. That's the ideal, anyway; we're not there yet. As the military's shameful treatment of sexual assault cases shows.

But again, you're stretching the proposition beyond what I said. I never advocated for the removal of social conventions like gender segregation, only equal treatment under the law.

Yet there will always be those who push the limits. Much of what we hear in the news today IS a stretch. For example, the case of the non-mandatory noon-time prayer at the naval academy that has been the tradition for 135 years. Suddenly now it's offensive to the non-religious. 50 years ago this argument would have been quickly written off as silly since the prayer is totally volutary. Today it's a lawsuit.

If you remove gender from the law, you will open a Pandora's box. A line will be crossed that has never before been crossed in history.

 

[Storm]

Yet there will always be those who push the limits. Much of what we hear in the news today IS a stretch. For example, the case of the non-mandatory noon-time prayer at the naval academy that has been the tradition for 135 years. Suddenly now it's offensive to the non-religious. 50 years ago this argument would have been quickly written off as silly since the prayer is totally volutary. Today it's a lawsuit.

As well it should be, but that's off topic.

If you remove gender from the law, you will open a Pandora's box. A line will be crossed that has never before been crossed in history.

What, real equality?

 

[Starfish]

I'm grateful that I grew up in a land where women were protected under the law, allowing them to be mothers. If my mother had been drafted, as my dad was, into WWII, I might not be here today. Certainly some of my siblings would not have been born. She was allowed to be at home with the babies, while my dad was in Germany. It's in a country's best interests to keep its birthrate up, and to encourage families and stable homes. The law needs to protect women to enable them to be mothers.

Bottom line: Men and women are very different. Even the law needs to acknowledge this to some extent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This might create a problem in that men are very different than women. Total equality in the law must then include child custody, military draft and combat, medical needs, etc. Sexual harrassment laws become complicated, locker rooms and bathrooms must become non-gender, etc. etc, etc. Basically gender is eliminated from our society, in the eyes of the law.

How far are you willing to see this go?

Why should child custody take into account gender for its own sake and not simply the best needs of the child?

Why shouldn't military draft and combat standards apply equally to women as to men? I'm sure that there are strength and fitness requirements for combat soldiers, but if a woman can meet them (and I'm sure that many women can), why shouldn't she fight?

Can insurance companies be challenged for covering mammograms, pregnancy, female health issues, if they aren't offered to men? Especially if we move to national health care?

Again I know this sounds silly, but . . .

Yes, it is silly.

There's no gender discrimination in saying that every person who meets medically valid risk criteria for breast cancer (which would include actually having breasts) should be screened and treated as required. The same would apply to prostate screening: every person, woman or man, who meets the risk criteria (which include having a prostate) should receive regular screening.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm grateful that I grew up in a land where women were protected under the law, allowing them to be mothers. If my mother had been drafted, as my dad was, into WWII, I might not be here today. Certainly some of my siblings would not have been born. She was allowed to be at home with the babies, while my dad was in Germany. It's in a country's best interests to keep its birthrate up, and to encourage families and stable homes. The law needs to protect women to enable them to be mothers.

Personally, I think that a better solution would be to eliminate the draft altogether. I consider slavery to be immoral in all cases; calling it a draft doesn't make it okay.

However, this is probably a subject for another thread.

 

[Starfish]

Why should child custody take into account gender for its own sake and not simply the best needs of the child?

Why shouldn't military draft and combat standards apply equally to women as to men? I'm sure that there are strength and fitness requirements for combat soldiers, but if a woman can meet them (and I'm sure that many women can), why shouldn't she fight?


Yes, it is silly.

There's no gender discrimination in saying that every person who meets medically valid risk criteria for breast cancer (which would include actually having breasts) should be screened and treated as required. The same would apply to prostate screening: every person, woman or man, who meets the risk criteria (which include having a prostate) should receive regular screening.

How about the huge amounts of money devoted for breast cancer research, that isn't equally alloted to cancers affecting only men? That would have to stop. (Not that breast cancer can't happen to men--another thread.)

Yes, it's silly. As I said, a lot of things sound silly today. But what about tomorrow? Many of our issues today, well, our great-grandparents would have looked at us cross-eyed!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about the huge amounts of money devoted for breast cancer research, that isn't equally alloted to cancers affecting only men? That would have to stop. (Not that breast cancer can't happen to men--another thread.)

Allocating money to cancer research in the same proportion that people die from it, or in proportion to the potential to find a cure, is not discrimination based on gender.

If the government were funding breast cancer only because of the fact it affects women, then maybe you might have a point, but that's not the case. Breast cancer research is funded because breast cancer kills people. Prostate cancer research is also funded because prostate cancer kills people. The government allocating money so that it has the best potential to save as many lives as possible is not unequal treatment on the basis of gender.

Yes, it's silly. As I said, a lot of things sound silly today. But what about tomorrow? Many of our issues today, well, our great-grandparents would have looked at us cross-eyed!

I'm not sure that the slippery slope argument applies here.

 

[Sententia]

The LDS Church's stance is that same-sex marriage is not "ordained by God". While I find this lamentable

See why is it lamentable? I believe that they can believe whatever they want. The problem is when they try to convince non-LDS members of their way.

Let me restate your statement with SOME translation. (Im not that irreverent, sheesh)

The Latter day saints, a religious group that believe they have prophets who live today which can actively talk to a made up god and believe this sincerely :yes: have taken the stance that same-sex marriage is not "ordained by a made up authoritive supernatural figure whose exact definition varies not only among this church of self proclaimed saints but also differs quite fantastically among the entire gamut of religions". While I find this lamentable it is also quite humorous.

Now I know your trying to focus here on just latter day saints but there are other religions who agree with LDS on this.

To me this is not a religious question... I mean sure.. debate it among your faith and chit chat internally but when it comes to US Law we are all created as equals. Life long partners of different sexes enjoy the ability to declare themselves legally joined which entitles them to various rights regardless of their religion, sexual practices in bed or if they have any children.

The exact same rights should be enjoyed whether the couple is of the same sex or of differing sexes in the eyes of the law.

If the sanctity of marriage is somehow questioned then they should be allowed civil unions which legally are recognized in all 50 states with the same legal rights as a married couple of differing sexes.

If religions choose not to recognize that who cares? I mean so long as their just talking about it and not flying planes into rainbow colored buildings or lynching gay people they are entitled to their opinion. Of course not everyone of their faith will agree with their stringent and stubborn old world doctrines and they only serve to further divide and fragment themselves which ultimately is going to happen anyways. (Atleast one can hope). :angel2:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See why is it lamentable? I believe that they can believe whatever they want. The problem is when they try to convince non-LDS members of their way.

I think it's lamentable because it results in people who are generally good, trying to do what is right, doing horrible things with awful consequences. Their opposition to same-sex marriage in particular and homosexuality in general is (IMO) borne out of a genuine desire to make the world a better place, but it actually ends up making the world worse. I find this tragic and saddening.

 

[McBell]

Bottom line: Men and women are very different. Even the law needs to acknowledge this to some extent.

I agree.
However, you failed in showing why these differences should be applied to marriage.

 

[madhatter85]

I think it's lamentable because it results in people who are generally good, trying to do what is right, doing horrible things with awful consequences. Their opposition to same-sex marriage in particular and homosexuality in general is (IMO) borne out of a genuine desire to make the world a better place, but it actually ends up making the world worse. I find this tragic and saddening.

The ones who make it worse are the extremists who go around preaching extermination of gays and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. Persecution is awful.

LDS do not persecute but instead offer a loving hand to those who suffer from same gender attraction to help them cope and maybe possibly overcome it. This is the same for any other predisposition to sin.

Those who reject this offer of help and love with virlulence and contempt are only cauging hurt for themselves. But again, It is your choice in how you live your life. we are not going to stop you or persecute you or condemn you for not accepting help.

 

[Sententia]

I think it's lamentable because it results in people who are generally good, trying to do what is right, doing horrible things with awful consequences. Their opposition to same-sex marriage in particular and homosexuality in general is (IMO) borne out of a genuine desire to make the world a better place, but it actually ends up making the world worse. I find this tragic and saddening.

I agree with it from that standpoint but I also think they should be allowed to have their own personal beliefs so long as those beliefs dont infringe on others.

We are all never going to agree on everything but we should atleast be able to get a long. We could never convince them through debate as they believe not only that god is real but they can also talk to god and he talks back to them. You can't compete with their world view because they wont let you, no matter how wise or rational, discount their chosen god.

They feel it is their duty to tell you what their god has told them and to live according to his words. This is another morality problem with religion in general. They believe that because their imagined authoritive figure has given them the truth and purpose of humanity they feel it is their right to atleast inform you about how you should live your life and what you should do.

Hmmm... I dunno how to conclude... I think ultimately I agree with you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The ones who make it worse are the extremists who go around preaching extermination of gays and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. Persecution is awful.

Yes, I agree that's worse.

LDS do not persecute but instead offer a loving hand to those who suffer from same gender attraction to help them cope and maybe possibly overcome it. This is the same for any other predisposition to sin.

That's bad too, though, and what I was talking about: it's well-intentioned, but misguided... watching it is like watching someone being bled to correct an "imbalance of the humours".

 

[McBell]

The ones who make it worse are the extremists who go around preaching extermination of gays and calling them evil and condemning them to hell. Persecution is awful.

I disagree with the wording here.
Now if you were to word it like "Some of the ones who make it worse..."

But to be completely honest with you, I have more respect for them extremists than for you.
They do not put on a pretense of love and or tolerance.

LDS do not persecute but instead offer a loving hand to those who suffer from same gender attraction to help them cope and maybe possibly overcome it. This is the same for any other predisposition to sin.

Your wording of this particular part is rather revealing in itself.

Those who reject this offer of help and love with virlulence and contempt are only cauging hurt for themselves. But again, It is your choice in how you live your life. we are not going to stop you or persecute you or condemn you for not accepting help.

Then why the crusade to make same sex marriage illegal?
I mean, if they are "only causing harm to themselves..."

You are not going to stop them?
Really?
Yet you support a ban that does just that...
Interesting how you twist and manipulate your own self justification.