LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[madhatter85]

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.


Your wording of this particular part rather revealing in itself.


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.

Honestly as i posted in a separate thread i have no expectations of banning same-sex marriage because i think this country is already sliding down a slippery slope form which there is no end or return. But when it happens i can say that i tried to warn but nobody listened.

 

[McBell]

Honestly as i posted in a separate thread i have no expectations of banning same-sex marriage because i think this country is already sliding down a slippery slope form which there is no end or return. But when it happens i can say that i tried to warn but nobody listened.

As I have already said:

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.
​

 

[madhatter85]

As I have already said:

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.
​

But i do have a pretense of Love and tolerance. I do not call them evil. It's called "Hate the Sin but love the sinner" which you clearly can't comprehend how someone cannot like what people do but still like the person.

this is a textbook example of rejecting the love and compassion with virulence.

 

[McBell]

But i do have a pretense of Love and tolerance. I do not call them evil. It's called "Hate the Sin but love the sinner" which you clearly can't comprehend how someone cannot like what people do but still like the person.

this is a textbook example of rejecting the love and compassion with virulence.

NIce ad hominem.

So my disagreement is merely because I do not understand?
Who says i do not understand?
Oh yeah...You do.
Why?
because I disagree with you.
So you think that because I disagree, I cannot possibly understand?

Nice circular reasoning.

 

[madhatter85]

NIce ad hominem.

So my disagreement is merely because I do not understand?
Who says i do not understand?
Oh yeah...You do.
Why?
because I disagree with you.
So you think that because I disagree, I cannot possibly understand?

Nice circular reasoning.

you are the one making it circular. I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as anyone else is. I'm not trying to convice anyone of anything. unlike you and all of those who are left wing fanatics I have never said your beliefs are irrational, We just disagree and that clearly will not change, so get over it.

 

[McBell]

you are the one making it circular. I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as anyone else is. I'm not trying to convice anyone of anything. unlike you and all of those who are left wing fanatics I have never said your beliefs are irrational, We just disagree and that clearly will not change, so get over it.

You backpeddle rather well.

 

[Sententia]

you are the one making it circular. I'm entitled to my beliefs as much as anyone else is. I'm not trying to convice anyone of anything. unlike you and all of those who are left wing fanatics I have never said your beliefs are irrational, We just disagree and that clearly will not change, so get over it.

You can disagree but the justification you gave for disagreeing is indeed circular. He is not doing anything but pointing out logic and reason.

 

[emiliano]

This is good, Marriage “is a lrelatively recent phenomenon in human society“. Correct and it was defined as been between a male and a female, more recently we saw the appearance of gays a new term was brought forward, gay as far as I know means happy, are they? Watching then in their protest and rallies tell me that the aren’t. But a word was found. Why can we find a word for their union?

 

[emiliano]

We are tinkering around the edges here the OP as I see is to debate the LDS president’s call to it member to support proposition 8, which call for a return to proposition 22, people here bring the right to this and that, does the LDS president and his members have rights? The right to organise his member to bring proposition 22 back?

 

[Father Heathen]

We are tinkering around the edges here the OP as I see is to debate the LDS president’s call to it member to support proposition 8, which call for a return to proposition 22, people here bring the right to this and that, does the LDS president and his members have rights? The right to organise his member to bring proposition 22 back?

Of course they have rights, but not the right to deny other people theirs. They have the right to not partake in homosexual activity or same sex marriage if they believe it's immoral. It's not their place to worry about what other people are doing if they're not hurting anyone.

 

[McBell]

This is good, Marriage “is a lrelatively recent phenomenon in human society“. Correct and it was defined as been between a male and a female, more recently we saw the appearance of gays a new term was brought forward, gay as far as I know means happy, are they? Watching then in their protest and rallies tell me that the aren’t. But a word was found. Why can we find a word for their union?

When was it defined as one man to one woman?
The Bible did not define that way what with all the one man multiple wives marriages in it.

So why is your fairly new definition of one man to one woman the definition that should be used?
I mean other than because it suits yours needs?

 

[Orontes]

I could talk all day long about principles I see as fundamental and how I think they should be applied in law, but I think the actual law is what's relevant to this discussion.


I'm not familiar with any challenge of a law prohibiting a man from entering a women's restroom in California. My guess is that there would be a good chance that such a law would be struck down.

And age limits for voting are a different animal: for one thing, the voting age is set by the US Constitution, which takes precedence over a state constitution. For another, age is generally (and maybe improperly, but that's a separate issue) used as a determinant for the mental capacity and experience needed to properly make decisions for themselves. Just as a person who is mentally challenged may be deemed not to meet the functional prerequisites for voting, the government has so deemed children. Whether that's fair or not, and whether they're correct to do so, that's the justification. Rightly or wrongly, voting age is included in the larger idea that all citizens are entitled to vote if qualified to do so.

This clause of the state constitution prevents the government from doling out privileges unequally: you wouldn't be able to have a "Gentiles Only" public park (which used to be the case in some places in Canada, unfortunately), waive the driver's licence road test for men, or bar unmarried people from filing suit in small claims court.

Just as this law prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of gender in other regards, it prohibits it in the case of same-sex marriage as well.

If one admits any variant in access or privilege regardless of rationale (whether it be restroom use, locker room use, voting age etc.) then the categorical reading you opted for in: "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens" has been countered. As a matter of law such distinctions do exist. Law makes classifications as well as applied and facial distinctions all the time. As I explained, the view you appealed to only applies under the rubric of "similarly situated". Pigment would be an example of similarly situated. This is why any law dividing access/privilege by pigment would be illegitimate. As already noted, the law does make distinction between gender, both in state and federal law, as men and women are not seen as synonyms, but distinct.

But let's give your way a shot: In your view, what are the terms under which the privilege of marriage to a man is granted in California, and how exactly are they granted equally to all citizens?

I'm not sure I understand your question. You ask for my view and also ask for the terms marriage is granted. Are you asking me to explain the terms for getting a marriage license in California? As in how much one pays for the license, I.D. requirements etc? Do you want me to give an opinion on such? As to marriage "equally granted to all citizens": it isn't. One cannot marry one's sibling. One cannot marry if currently married to another. One cannot marry a seven year old without a special court order grant. One cannot marry outside the species etc. There are many restrictions. Now the gender line of thinking has been refuted since there are clear divides by gender under the law. If your question is why heterosexual marriage is not similarly situated with homosexual marriage, I can explain that is you wish.

 

[Sunstone]

It's not their place to worry about what other people are doing if they're not hurting anyone.

Careful, Father Heathen: Worrying what other people are doing is a whole lot more fun for many Christians than loving your neighbor. You don't want to be an old stick in the mud who takes all the fun out of religion for them, do you?

 

[Orontes]

Sunstone,

I like the color of your name (the red). How does one change from black to your color or another?

 

[emiliano]

Mestemia.

When was it defined as one man to one woman?

The Bible did not define that way what with all the one man multiple wives marriages in it.

As recent as the year 2000 in proposition 22 that is what the LDS president is calling their members to support the Protect Marriage Amendment that strengthens the process started when Proposition 22 passed with 61% of the vote in 2000, because, they believe, it is less susceptible to a legal challenge. This goal took on added weight when the California Supreme Court invalidated Prop 22 on May 15, 2008.
From what I have been able to assess the Supreme court would be ruling contrary to the majority will of Californians.
The Bible:Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?
This is the time when wives were women and stayed in that state, some 2000 years ago

So why is your fairly new definition of one man to one woman the definition that should be used?

Because it is the majority will, that's all.

I mean other than because it suits yours needs?

Not at all the country where I reside has took care of that issue four years ago in 2004, the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 passed by the senate by 38 votes to 6.

 

[emiliano]

Careful, Father Heathen: Worrying what other people are doing is a whole lot more fun for many Christians than loving your neighbor. You don't want to be an old stick in the mud who takes all the fun out of religion for them, do you?

Loving your neighbour means that you do what you can to prevent their physical and spiritual destruction, the fun that these people engages on is very risky, they seem to have little control over their sexual urges and that make the success of safe sex schemes unlikely.

 

[fantome profane]

Loving your neighbour means that you do what you can to prevent their physical and spiritual destruction, the fun that these people engages on is very risky, they seem to have little control over their sexual urges and that make the success of safe sex schemes unlikely.

Are you suggesting that homosexuals have less control over their sexual urges then heterosexuals do? I am not accusing you of saying this or trying to put words in your mouth, I am just asking for clarification on what it is you are saying.

Taking into account your love for your neighbour and your desire to prevent their physical and spiritual destruction, what methods would you employ to try to control their sexual urges?

In fact isn’t that exactly what marriage is? Isn’t it at least in a large part about two people making a commitment to each other that they will control their sexual urges by being exclusive to each other? It seems so ironic to me that so many religious people stand so strongly against people making a commitment to monogamy.

 

[McBell]

From what I have been able to assess the Supreme court would be ruling contrary to the majority will of Californians.

Oh, so it is nothing more than another "the majority did not want it" argument?
Come on, even you can do better than that.

The Bible:Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?
This is the time when wives were women and stayed in that state, some 2000 years ago

This verse does not "define" mariage as only one man to only one woman.

Because it is the majority will, that's all.

I was afraid you were going to try this fallacy.

Not at all the country where I reside has took care of that issue four years ago in 2004, the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 passed by the senate by 38 votes to 6.

Now you make laugh out loud.
How about you answer the question this time?

 

[emiliano]

Mestemia.
This verse does not "define" mariage as only one man to only one woman.

Proposition 8 does not call for one man to only one woman, imagine the president of the LDS calling his members to support an amendment for monogamy, the quote says “shall leave father and mother “ male and female their progenitor, right ?
When Prop 22 came before voters, section 300 defined marriage as:
a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.
That is a male and female of the species.
“The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children”

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone,

I like the color of your name (the red). How does one change from black to your color or another?

Usernames have different colors assigned for them depending on what roles you play or have played on the board. So, for instance, a purple username means you are a member of the Theists group. An orange username means you are a member of the non-theists group. A blue username means that you are currently a supermoderator. A bright red username means you are currently an Administrator. And a dark red username, such as mine, means you are an Administrator Emerius -- no longer on the staff, but still available for consultation if anyone on the staff is foolish enough to ask your opinion.