LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Magic Man]

Don't worry, Alizee. As MH is to LDS, FP is to this side of the issue.

Yes, that's right. FP is intolerant and unwilling to listen to others.

Just because he called you out on something doesn't mean he's that bad. You made a claim that is almost definitely false. You should not make such claims unless you at least have some reason for them. Otherwise it's just spreading false information. That's all. You really need to stop taking everything so personally.

 

[emiliano]

Yes, of course. Now, maybe you could enlighten us as to what is more important than basic human rights, and denying them to others.

Well, we have that the US is going to embark on some wealth sharing, aren’t they? What could be more important than calculate how much should they get and from who do they take the wealth from? What kind of house should they buy now that they won’t have to worry about how to repay their loans, Robin hood will take from the rich and give to the poor, surely these are important things to attend to?

 

[emiliano]

Thank you for that very ignorant comment.

Now, I never mentioned a right to "gaydom". My comment was about the right to marry whoever you want. Only heterosexuals have that right. There is a basic human right to equality, which is what is being denied to homosexuals.

I though of this campaign as a debate about the definition of marriage, that is the union of a man and a woman with the purpose of procreating and form families, and family is: Mother, Father and children (their offspring)

 

[emiliano]

What is it going take to declare this case closed? This was put to the people, millions of dollars where spent by both sides, you got a result, isn’t it time to let it go, here in Australia we dealt with that long time ago, our resource were re-directed to other areas and as a result the global economic crisis hit us when we were in a better financial footing than many other nations, the US will do well addressing this problem with urgency because in their case they were in the red when this happened.

 

[LuisDantas]

I though of this campaign as a debate about the definition of marriage, that is the union of a man and a woman with the purpose of procreating and form families, and family is: Mother, Father and children (their offspring)

The plain fact is that such a definition is way too restrictive. For one thing, there are people who marry with no purpose (and often enough no possibility) of procreating. Yet we see no attempt to disqualify said unions as marriages. I don't know for sure about LDS, but I am pretty sure that even Roman Catholic priests see no need to refuse to marry, say, a fifty-years old woman just because she can't conceive.

And guess what? They are right in not refusing to. Procreation is but one of many legitimate goals of marriage. An important one, for sure, but hardly the main or even a needed one.

 

[emiliano]

The plain fact is that such a definition is way too restrictive. For one thing, there are people who marry with no purpose (and often enough no possibility) of procreating. Yet we see no attempt to disqualify said unions as marriages. I don't know for sure about LDS, but I am pretty sure that even Roman Catholic priests see no need to refuse to marry, say, a fifty-years old woman just because she can't conceive.

And guess what? They are right in not refusing to. Procreation is but one of many legitimate goals of marriage. An important one, for sure, but hardly the main or even a needed one.

As I said this was taken to the people and the majority has decided that this is the way it ought be, the will of the majority is that this is what marriage must be defined as. My first religious instruction were on the RCC faith so I can tell you, marriage is a sanctified institution established to obey God’s command of “And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it” And Jesus taught Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female",
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?

 

[LuisDantas]

As I said this was taken to the people and the majority has decided that this is the way it ought be, the will of the majority is that this is what marriage must be defined as.

True enough, as is the association with procreation. But there is nothing to impede change as need be.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, that's right. FP is intolerant and unwilling to listen to others.

Just because he called you out on something doesn't mean he's that bad. You made a claim that is almost definitely false. You should not make such claims unless you at least have some reason for them. Otherwise it's just spreading false information. That's all. You really need to stop taking everything so personally.

Maybe I should lump you in the same camp too. I never made a claim. I basically said, "Hey, folks - I heard this today - I'll check it out and get back to you." That's not a claim or an accusation.

 

[Watchmen]

Nope. The difference is that I understand their view on it, and have a good reason to object to it. They base their opinion on false information and ignorance. They hold their view simply because homosexuals are different. If they understood anything about them, they would feel differently. They are blinded by the fear of that one trait. It's no different than people who discriminate against black people simply because they are black. They only look at that one trait, and ignore the rest. Calling someone a bigot because they fit the definition (any definition other than yours which includes hate) does not make me a bigot. It just means that I can see that quality in someone else. Frankly, I'm tired of the assertion that I or someone else is a bigot just because we call someone else one. It's ridiculous.

I think it's clear you don't understand their view and you jump to the conclusion that they have false info and are ignorant. In short, you are a bigot too. You have this view simple because the religious are different. If you understood anything about them, you would feel differently...You only look at the fact they are religious and ignore the rest, as demonstrated by your treatment of me. I voted NO yet you treat me the same as those who voted YES. Also, you can't just make up definitions anyway. Bigotry especially includes hate - remember?

 

[Storm]

Respectfully, DisneyMan, I think you're being oversensitive. Yes, the Church is facing a backlash over its politics, but that doesn't mean it comes from a place of bigotry.

Personally, I'm furious with the Church, and I haven't been shy about that. However, I've also been careful to express my gratitude and admiration for those LDS who defied their leadership and supported equality. Matt may or may not have been so careful, but I don't think he's a bigot. Nor most of the people expressing their anger.

Are there a few bigots? Doubtless. But I don't think they're in the majority, or anywhere close.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No claims put forward by the Campaign were false.

That is incorrect.

Parker v Hurley demonstrates my point. Note the year. It is after the Judicial imperialism of the Court.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

This doesn't follow: each gender is equaling entitled to marry one of the opposite gender.

Exactly: the right to marry a man is only extended to women; the right to marry a woman is only extended to men. This is gender discrimination at the most basic level.

There is no right to marry.

You're wrong. This was demonstrated by several key rulings that noted that the right to marry exists, remember?

The challenges I know of are nuts and bolts type challenges, namely that Prop. 8 was an amendment, but should have been a revision. A revision is a more strict form of changing the Constitution.

And the argument that it should have been a revision is based on the claim that Proposition 8 substantially modified a significant right previously enumerated in the Constitution, namely gender equality.

 

[Luminous]

you can choose to take someone's state-sponcered rights away from them. in the end God does not blatently protect his so called "God given rights" maybe Deists are right. Maybe It does not care of how we choose to live our lifes and interact with others.

 

[emiliano]

True enough, as is the association with procreation. But there is nothing to impede change as need be.

Surely you mean changes to the secular Laws, but that should wait because the US have planty on their plate now, it is a waste of resoources, Christianity tenets are well established and we do not regard these unatural behabiours as something that our children should be lectured about.

 

[emiliano]

And the argument that it should have been a revision is based on the claim that Proposition 8 substantially modified a significant right previously enumerated in the Constitution, namely gender equality.

And what gender would that be? As far as I can tell in humans there two genders, male and female.

 

[fantome profane]

Surely you mean changes to the secular Laws, but that should wait because the US have planty on their plate now,

Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[LuisDantas]

Surely you mean changes to the secular Laws, but that should wait because the US have planty on their plate now, it is a waste of resources, Christianity tenets are well established and we do not regard these unatural behabiours as something that our children should be lectured about.

I don't follow you. Christian tenets are hardly immutable, nor should they be. More so in a matter of real social impact such as this.

Neither do I buy the claim that changing secular law is "a waste of resouces" (with is plainly false) and should wait (just why should it? There is always "plenty on the plate", but this is not that minor a subject matter).

 

[Luminous]

you can choose to take someone's state-sponcered rights away from them. in the end God does not blatently protect his so called "God given rights" maybe Deists are right. Maybe It does not care of how we choose to live our lifes and interact with others.


Taoism: s*** happens
Buddhism: if s*** happens, it isn't really s***
Islam: if s*** happens, it is the will of Allah
Catholicism: if s*** happens, you deserve it
Protestantism: if s*** happens, it’s for a good reason
Judaism: why does this s*** always happen to us?
Atheism: I don't believe this s***!
Agnosticism: no one know s*** for sure.
Scientology: s***, it’s aliens!
Confucianism: s*** belongs in the potty
Hinduism: s*** happens over and over and over…
Wicca: abracadabra alacas***!
Nativeism: s*** has a spirit
Pantheism: s*** is a part of God
Universalism: all s*** is connected
Deism: God doesn’t do s***!

 

[emiliano]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

But, justice has not been deny, this issue was put to the people and the result was the majority of people wants to keep the definition of marriage as is, both sides put lots of resources into it, they explained their position and there is no way that the majority will accept the idea that there is third gender in humans. So the way out of this, is find a name for it and define it, then we may be able to explained it to our children, but there is no way that I would call this behaviours natural or normal though.

 

[LuisDantas]

But, justice has not been deny, this issue was put to the people and the result was the majority of people wants to keep the definition of marriage as is,

The result of a voting is not necessarily what serves justice. That's why they may be further changed.

both sides put lots of resources into it, they explained their position and there is no way that the majority will accept the idea that there is third gender in humans.

That's being awfully definitive with no evidence to show for it, sorry.

So the way out of this, is find a name for it and define it, then we may be able to explained it to our children, but there is no way that I would call this behaviours natural or normal though.

I'm sorry to hear that. Among other reasons, because however you feel, you will doubtlessly have to deal with real, decent, homosexual people at some point, and it would be a shame if that turned sour for basically no reason.

 

[Autodidact]

What is it going take to declare this case closed? This was put to the people, millions of dollars where spent by both sides, you got a result, isn’t it time to let it go, here in Australia we dealt with that long time ago, our resource were re-directed to other areas and as a result the global economic crisis hit us when we were in a better financial footing than many other nations, the US will do well addressing this problem with urgency because in their case they were in the red when this happened.

No. It's just a temporary setback in the long civil rights struggle.