LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[MoonWater]

they don't teach about mormons in schools =/ they shouldn't teach about homosexuality unless you are taking a class that would specifically talk about it (like Human Sexuality for instance) which should be reserved for college.

Just as they shouldn't teach religion unless you are specifically taking a class or course in which you are studying that field.

Hey madhatter, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning behind your comment above which I have bolded but I don't want to derail this thread so I've created another one. I'd love to hear your input since your the one who inspired it. Here's the link:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ity-courses-reserved-college.html#post1247668

 

[Magic Man]

I;m not sayign we should advertize against homosexuals in schools. But i don't agree that thier lifestyle should be accepted as a social norm. Just keep it out of school all together. but if it's sanctified by the goverment it will HAVE to be taught about in schools.

I doubt it will ever be a "social norm". The majority of people will most likely remain heterosexual, but we could accept homosexuality as a valid way to live for some people. I agree that sexuality should be kept out of school. How does allowing same-sex marriage mean any kind of sexuality will have to be taught in schools? As far as I was aware, no sexuality is taught in school at present. Why would that change?

did i say that Homosexuals were godless heathens? no. so don't turn around and try to use it yourself.

Huh? Where did he "try to use it"?

 

[Autodidact]

It seems to me that madhatter has a fundamentally Muslim way of thinking. That is, if he lives in a society that permits certain behaviors that his religion believes is wrong, then he himself is not being fully righteous in that faith. This is also fundamentally anti-American, and potentially destructive to our American way of life, if enough Americans adopt this view. I invite him to compare the U.S. to Iran and ask himself which system he thinks is better.

 

[madhatter85]

I doubt it will ever be a "social norm". The majority of people will most likely remain heterosexual, but we could accept homosexuality as a valid way to live for some people. I agree that sexuality should be kept out of school. How does allowing same-sex marriage mean any kind of sexuality will have to be taught in schools? As far as I was aware, no sexuality is taught in school at present. Why would that change?

Because it would not longer be politically correct to say "mother and father" or even have that on paperwork. that would be a travesty to me. It would probably say something stupid like "Parent or legal guardian 1; Parent or Legal Guardian 2"

Huh? Where did he "try to use it"?

When he said this:

What if when your daughter is in school and one of her teachers tells all of the kids that Mormonism is an ungodly blasphemy and false teachings, you would have no problems with that?

 

[Magic Man]

Because it would not longer be politically correct to say "mother and father" or even have that on paperwork. that would be a travesty to me. It would probably say something stupid like "Parent or legal guardian 1; Parent or Legal Guardian 2"

Why would that no longer be politically incorrect, and what does that have to do with anything? That still wouldn't be teaching homosexuality, or any kind of sexuality, in school. So, how is this relevant, and why, even if it was, would it be bad?

When he said this:

Do you think that same-sex marriage is a travesty and an abomination against God's law?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because it would not longer be politically correct to say "mother and father" or even have that on paperwork. that would be a travesty to me. It would probably say something stupid like "Parent or legal guardian 1; Parent or Legal Guardian 2"

Every permission form I can remember ever getting when I was in school (and that's going back quite a while now) only ever said "parent or guardian" next to the signature line. It never occurred to me to think of this as a "travesty".

On the contrary, I think it would be rather callous to single out the kids who wouldn't have their form signed by either a mother or a father due to divorce or death every time they needed to get permission for some class field trip or something.

Edit: madhatter, do school forms where you live even need signatures of both parents? Virtually every form I could remember only needed a signature from one parent, and they always said "parent or guardian", since either a mother, father, or guardian (if applicable) could sign it.

 

[Autodidact]

Because it would not longer be politically correct to say "mother and father" or even have that on paperwork. that would be a travesty to me. It would probably say something stupid like "Parent or legal guardian 1; Parent or Legal Guardian 2"

OHMYGOD!!! That would be horrible for you, madhatter, to let other people be included, and lose that special recognition just for your family structure. Including grandparents, foster parents, single parents and gay and lesbian families as if they were just as valid as yours! That's just awful. I agree, that's much worse than not being able to get married at all!!!

 

[madhatter85]

Every permission form I can remember ever getting when I was in school (and that's going back quite a while now) only ever said "parent or guardian" next to the signature line. It never occurred to me to think of this as a "travesty".

On the contrary, I think it would be rather callous to single out the kids who wouldn't have their form signed by either a mother or a father due to divorce or death every time they needed to get permission for some class field trip or something.

Edit: madhatter, do school forms where you live even need signatures of both parents? Virtually every form I could remember only needed a signature from one parent, and they always said "parent or guardian", since either a mother, father, or guardian (if applicable) could sign it.

Sorry i was not thinking of school forms, I was imagining the forms i filled out when my baby girl was born.

But there are other papers at school where people are asked to put thier mother and father down on paper for this reason or another reason. I can't remember what exactly it was, but i remember putting down only my mother's name because i never had a father growing up.

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry i was not thinking of school forms, I was imagining the forms i filled out when my baby girl was born.

But there are other papers at school where people are asked to put thier mother and father down on paper for this reason or another reason. I can't remember what exactly it was, but i remember putting down only my mother's name because i never had a father growing up.

But what does this have to do with anything? You don't want homosexuals to get married because you're afraid that a few words on a form that you might or might not ever have to deal with will change to different words meaning essentially the same thing?

 

[madhatter85]

But what does this have to do with anything? You don't want homosexuals to get married because you're afraid that a few words on a form that you might or might not ever have to deal with will change to different words meaning essentially the same thing?

I've already stated why, and it is much more than just papers signed.

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry i was not thinking of school forms, I was imagining the forms i filled out when my baby girl was born.

But there are other papers at school where people are asked to put thier mother and father down on paper for this reason or another reason. I can't remember what exactly it was, but i remember putting down only my mother's name because i never had a father growing up.

Which somehow violated the rights of everyone else who did have a father.

 

[Magic Man]

I've already stated why, and it is much more than just papers signed.

You've state why what? Why you don't think homosexuals should get married? You've stated some reasons why, but none of them held up to logic and consistency. You then moved on to this line of reasoning about labels of parents changing on some forms like it actually mattered to the question at hand. I see that this "inconvenience" (and I use that term very loosely) actually does factor into your justification against same-sex marriage. I'm just curious how you think that some little detail like this that doesn't even harm you really outweighs, in any way, others' ability to marry the ones they love.

 

[madhatter85]

You've state why what? Why you don't think homosexuals should get married? You've stated some reasons why, but none of them held up to logic and consistency.

I don't care if you don't agree, they are perfectly logical and rational to me. that's all I care about. I am not required to justify myself to you or anyone else, you asked why, i told you why. It should be as simple as that, respectful of other's beliefs, But you cannot seem to muster up the decency to extend me that courtesy.

I have stated previously i do not campaign against homosexuals, i do not hate homosexuals, they are people like you and I and i respect that they desire to get married but i do not agree with it, so i will be voting against it. It is that simple.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't care if you don't agree, they are perfectly logical and rational to me. that's all I care about. I am not required to justify myself to you or anyone else, you asked why, i told you why. It should be as simple as that, respectful of other's beliefs, But you cannot seem to muster up the decency to extend me that courtesy.

I have stated previously i do not campaign against homosexuals, i do not hate homosexuals, they are people like you and I and i respect that they desire to get married but i do not agree with it, so i will be voting against it. It is that simple.

No, it's not. It's sad that you can't grasp that. You don't have to agree with it any more than we have to agree with your religion to support your right to practice it.

New bumper sticker:

If you're against gay marriage, don't have one.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't care if you don't agree, they are perfectly logical and rational to me. that's all I care about. I am not required to justify myself to you or anyone else, you asked why, i told you why. It should be as simple as that, respectful of other's beliefs, But you cannot seem to muster up the decency to extend me that courtesy.

I have stated previously i do not campaign against homosexuals, i do not hate homosexuals, they are people like you and I and i respect that they desire to get married but i do not agree with it, so i will be voting against it. It is that simple.

Actually, I only brought that up in reference to your last comment about the change it would cause to some forms. I understand that they are logical to you, but that doesn't mean they're logical or rational. You are right. You're not required to justify yourself to me as far as your beliefs are concerned. You are, however, required to justify yourself as far as taking away others' rights and forcing your beliefs on them is concerned.

I'm respectful of your beliefs. I can't count the number of times I've said here and elsewhere that I don't care what you believe, as long as you don't try to impose it on everyone else. You can think homosexuality's wrong and sinful all you want. I won't argue with you one that. What I will argue, and what we have been arguing about, is your desire to impose that belief on everyone else. There are several members here who think homosexuality is wrong and against God's will. I haven't been arguing with them. You know why? Because they aren't promoting legislation to impose that belief on everyone else. They are happy to live their lives according to their own beliefs, and let others live their lives according to theirs. If you were willing to do that, I wouldn't really have a problem.

 

[MoonWater]

I don't care if you don't agree, they are perfectly logical and rational to me. that's all I care about. I am not required to justify myself to you or anyone else, you asked why, i told you why. It should be as simple as that, respectful of other's beliefs, But you cannot seem to muster up the decency to extend me that courtesy.

Madhatter, this is a debate forum which means everything you say here is open to question and scrutiny. It doesn't mean we don't respect your beliefs. But it seems you just want us to nod our heads and move on after you explain why. That's not how a debate forum works though. If you don't like it then I recommend you stick with the discussion forums.

I have stated previously i do not campaign against homosexuals, i do not hate homosexuals, they are people like you and I and i respect that they desire to get married but i do not agree with it, so i will be voting against it. It is that simple.

I'm against abortion. I'd sooner give my child up for adoption then have it aborted. But if it ever came to a vote I would vote pro-choice. Because I'm not about to force other people to act a certain way just because I would. I'm not going to shove my morality on other people. So even though I personally would never get an abortion I would never try to make it illegal or stop another person from doing it. Because I recognize the fact that I have no right to infringe on another person's personal choice.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm against Mormonism. I think it's immoral, dishonest and crooked. But I strongly defend madhatter's right not only to practice it, but teach it to his children. Sadly, he does not extend the same respect to other people's rights.

 

[Autodidact]

madhatter does not seem to notice that no one is trying to change his mind about the morality of homosexuality, wrong though his views are. We're only trying to get him to stop making other people conform with his incorrect views.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry i was not thinking of school forms, I was imagining the forms i filled out when my baby girl was born.

Ah. Since we were talking about what same-sex marriage's impact on what children are taught would be, I assumed you were relating things to that.

Actually, I only brought that up in reference to your last comment about the change it would cause to some forms. I understand that they are logical to you, but that doesn't mean they're logical or rational. You are right. You're not required to justify yourself to me as far as your beliefs are concerned. You are, however, required to justify yourself as far as taking away others' rights and forcing your beliefs on them is concerned.

I sympathize with his position. I'm still shattered from the failure of my campaign to change to a new calendar system so that I could still keep using my cheques with "19__" printed on them. Ever since the year 2000, every form I see with a fill-in space for the date has been like a dagger through my heart.

I'm respectful of your beliefs. I can't count the number of times I've said here and elsewhere that I don't care what you believe, as long as you don't try to impose it on everyone else. You can think homosexuality's wrong and sinful all you want. I won't argue with you one that. What I will argue, and what we have been arguing about, is your desire to impose that belief on everyone else. There are several members here who think homosexuality is wrong and against God's will. I haven't been arguing with them. You know why? Because they aren't promoting legislation to impose that belief on everyone else. They are happy to live their lives according to their own beliefs, and let others live their lives according to theirs. If you were willing to do that, I wouldn't really have a problem.

I can say that personally, there are a wide range of things that I find personally immoral (and in some cases literally abhorrent) that I would never, under any circumstances, try to make illegal.

Personal offense does not have to imply illegality.

 

[Watchmen]

...respectful of other's beliefs, But you cannot seem to muster up the decency to extend me that courtesy.

Wow. Just...wow.