LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Magic Man]

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?

I didn't make up a definition. I put the definition in my own words. You did ask for my definition, didn't you?

Bigotry especially includes hate by your dictionary's definition. I don't go by that definition, and neither does any other dictionary I've looked it up in.

You can continue to call me a bigot. It's not going to change the fact that I'm not. I have my view of LDS because of the church's official actions and the fact that voting Yes on Prop 8 means that you are only interested in one trait, not an entire person, and that you are intolerant of that particular trait only because it disagrees with your opinion. I am intolerant of intolerance, but that doesn't make me a bigot. It makes me someone who likes equality and freedom. I don't want to stop anyone from living their life the way they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. Even if there was a measure to ban the practice of Mormonism, I'd vote against it. That's the difference. I understand the other view and disagree with them, but don't want to ban them. That's what makes those who vote Yes on Prop 8 bigots.

 

[LuisDantas]

Come on Lucho, these are abominations and we cannot spearhead such soul destruction.

Dude, we are talking about people wanting the right to commit to each other, not some sort of dark ritual out of a cheap horror movie. Be serious, these are real people.

As for this issue coming back for discussion here and the US, of course it will I even learnt the that this is a mutation in the human genus so just wait a couple billion year and all human will be gays, after all some evolutionist are predicting that frogs will turn into princes eventually, aren’t they, so why not! It is possible.

You're demanding an insult. Keep the bait.

 

[Magic Man]

Well people have to make a living some how, don‘t they? It’s just that you should give it break as there are more important thing to worry about.

As I asked before: What is more important than human rights? Would you be of the same opinion, if you imprisoned because you are Christian (or whatever religion you are)?

I think you tried to respond to this question before, but, if that was supposed to be a response to it, it didn't actually answer the question. You're welcome to try again.

 

[LuisDantas]

Look mate it is easy to understand really: As a Christian I believe that this is an abomination to God and that it has consequences, I stated that and quoted the scriptures that supports our beliefs, how can we spearhead a movement to destroy their souls? Would this be loving? You see we do believe that the Apostle wrote inspired. 1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
T It is a Christian thing, you cannot understand, we dealt with this issue the same way and I do believe that the gay community has plans for another go, but as you n know we are dealing with more important issues at the moment, it has nothing to do with been Australian, we gave them a fair go and so did the Americans.

Now, this is worth being called an abomination: the use of Bible quotes to justify discrimination. Do me a favor, read some of Luke's Gospel. It has a far better message than that.

 

[Magic Man]

You want me to draw it for you?

No, he wants you to show a difference between them that should disallow you to marry one gender while allowing you to marry the other (and we're not speaking religiously here, only legally).

 

[Muffled]

No, he wants you to show a difference between them that should disallow you to marry one gender while allowing you to marry the other (and we're not speaking religiously here, only legally).

Laws are created by voters. When the voting public becomes wicked and evil, wicked and evil laws will be enacted.

It is never a question of whether a law is right or wrong, but simply whether a majority voted for it.

Having said this, the law in NH is that gays can marry. I think it is wrong but it doesn't matter what I think because it is the law. Do I have to recognize said marriages? Absolutely not. Although the marriage has a legal standing it has no standing in a personal relationship. Would I allow such people to be members of my church? Never! The day my church decides to make homosexuals members is the day I leave that church. Should my church marry homosexual couples? Never!

When I married my wife there was a question as to whether the marriage would take place because it was not a sure thing that I would get a license. I was willing to go through the marriage without a license by the government because I believe that a marriage vow made before God is binding whether the government thinks so or not. To me a marriage made without a vow before God is not really a marriage that I would recognize. A marriage by two people of the same gender would not be approved by God even if the parties made a vow before Him and therefore I would not approve either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Laws are created by voters. When the voting public becomes wicked and evil, wicked and evil laws will be enacted.

Case in point, Proposition 8 and the recent amendments in other states.

Having said this, the law in NH is that gays can marry. I think it is wrong but it doesn't matter what I think because it is the law. Do I have to recognize said marriages? Absolutely not. Although the marriage has a legal standing it has no standing in a personal relationship. Would I allow such people to be members of my church? Never! The day my church decides to make homosexuals members is the day I leave that church. Should my church marry homosexual couples? Never!

While I strongly disagree with the anti-same-sex marriage and anti-homosexuality position of some Christian denominations, I can somewhat see where it comes from... however, part of what you said goes against the very core of Christian teaching as I understand it: if you truly believe that the Church is a tool used by Christ to effect salvation in sinners, why would you try to deny it to people you see as sinning?

Don't you think that Christ taught Christians to come together in communal worship? Does that mean so little to you that you would throw it away if the "wrong" people were present? Did you learn absolutely nothing from Jesus' repeated rebukes of the Pharisees?

It boggles my mind that a Christian could purport to read and understand the Gospels, yet still hold the notion that he is too good to associate with sinners.

 

[Autodidact]

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.
quote]

That is not what we Christians believe, to us God does not change, the tenet that He revealed to us are immutable, He is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow, He is perfect (lacking in nothing, needing no improvement), He is omniscient knows and see past, present and future all at once. If He were to change he would not be the same that He was before the improvement. From as far as the very beginning God knew of this behaviour called Homosexuality and He forbade it to His people, He declared g from the beginning the sanctity and the purpose of marriage, so where did get the Idea that Christian’s tenet are not immutable from?

Well your religion changes all over the place. You are familiar with the history of your religion, right? And you know that it barely resembles its various previous forms? And that there are currently greatly diverse forms of religion being practices around the world? btw, where exactly does God speak out against gay marriage?

 

[Autodidact]

The right to take it to the peoples gave justice to both sides, changing the definition of marriage established by prop. 22 was an injustice, prop.8 corrected it, justice was done to the majority. They have no right to impose the teachings of this as nothing else but an unnatural behaviour, not on par with marriage and family. They have to find a name for it first ( they don’t like what we call it)
I have not had many contact with homosexuals because they are a tiny section of the community, and I am not that way incline, but I am getting a bit tired of the fact that I can’t watch tele without having to watch a guy person in it, it seem as there are an unwritten laws that every movie or show has to have one or to of them in it, but I am OK with it, I don’t watch a great deal of TV anyway.

I am sorry to tell you that you encounter homosexuals every day, you just don't know it. I don't know where you live, but if it's in the West, you owe a debt to Alan Turing, a homosexual, who played a huge part in defeating the Nazis. If you enjoy literature, films, television, art or television, you have benefited by the work of homosexuals, I promise you.

 

[Autodidact]

Well people have to make a living some how, don‘t they? It’s just that you should give it break as there are more important thing to worry about.

Oddly enough, I agree. That's why I don't devote any activism to the subject; I'm too busy saving the country from near-destruction by the last Republican administration, and I ask those on the other side to do the same. Once we get the economy on the right track, resuscitate our constitution, and end this stupid war, we can go back to arguing about gay marriage.

 

[Autodidact]

Look mate it is easy to understand really: As a Christian I believe that this is an abomination to God and that it has consequences, I stated that and quoted the scriptures that supports our beliefs, how can we spearhead a movement to destroy their souls? Would this be loving? You see we do believe that the Apostle wrote inspired. 1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
T It is a Christian thing, you cannot understand, we dealt with this issue the same way and I do believe that the gay community has plans for another go, but as you n know we are dealing with more important issues at the moment, it has nothing to do with been Australian, we gave them a fair go and so did the Americans.

Actually, scholars believe that in the original Greek, that passage prohibits pederasty, not homosexuality. There is no new testament prohibition on homosexuality, most Christians do not believe that the old testament prohibitions apply under the new dispensation, and there is no prohibition on lesbianism anywhere in the Bible. Just the facts, mate.

 

[Magic Man]

Laws are created by voters. When the voting public becomes wicked and evil, wicked and evil laws will be enacted.

It is never a question of whether a law is right or wrong, but simply whether a majority voted for it.

Well, that is clearly true as evidenced by Prop 8. However, the point of having the Constitution is to avoid "evil and wicked" laws. Voters can vote on things, but ultimately, the laws still have to abide by the Constitution and the basic premise of equal rights for all. So, it is indeed a question of whether a law is right or wrong, and that's what Supreme Courts are there for.

Having said this, the law in NH is that gays can marry. I think it is wrong but it doesn't matter what I think because it is the law. Do I have to recognize said marriages? Absolutely not. Although the marriage has a legal standing it has no standing in a personal relationship. Would I allow such people to be members of my church? Never! The day my church decides to make homosexuals members is the day I leave that church. Should my church marry homosexual couples? Never!

When I married my wife there was a question as to whether the marriage would take place because it was not a sure thing that I would get a license. I was willing to go through the marriage without a license by the government because I believe that a marriage vow made before God is binding whether the government thinks so or not. To me a marriage made without a vow before God is not really a marriage that I would recognize. A marriage by two people of the same gender would not be approved by God even if the parties made a vow before Him and therefore I would not approve either.

That's fine. You don't have to recognize it, if you don't want to. In your second paragraph you're talking about two different kinds of marriage, the religious ceremony and the state contract. The debate about same-sex marriage is only concerned with the state contract (well, unfortunately it's not, but, despite the objections of some, that's what it's about).

You don't have to marry same-sex couples in your church or recognize them as married in the religious sense. If you were working in a hospital, though for instance, you'd have to recognize their rights as a legally-married couple as far as visitation and decision-making. There are other ways you'd have to recognize the marriage as a legal contract, but you'd never have to do it as the religious one.

 

[Autodidact]

Laws are created by voters. When the voting public becomes wicked and evil, wicked and evil laws will be enacted.

It is never a question of whether a law is right or wrong, but simply whether a majority voted for it.

What if the law is unconstitutional?

Also, if it's wrong, might you not want to vote against it?

Having said this, the law in NH is that gays can marry. I think it is wrong but it doesn't matter what I think because it is the law. Do I have to recognize said marriages? Absolutely not.

Well, what if you encountered such couples in a public capacity? Let's think of an example. Let's say someone inherits property as the decedent's spouse. You would have to recognize that it's their property, no?

Although the marriage has a legal standing it has no standing in a personal relationship.

How did you get to be in charge of other people's personal relationships?

Would I allow such people to be members of my church? Never! The day my church decides to make homosexuals members is the day I leave that church. Should my church marry homosexual couples? Never!

Well that's entirely up to you and the members of your church. No one is debating your right to be wrong in this particular way. Your church can be as bigoted as it pleases.

When I married my wife there was a question as to whether the marriage would take place because it was not a sure thing that I would get a license. I was willing to go through the marriage without a license by the government because I believe that a marriage vow made before God is binding whether the government thinks so or not. To me a marriage made without a vow before God is not really a marriage that I would recognize. A marriage by two people of the same gender would not be approved by God even if the parties made a vow before Him and therefore I would not approve either.

Really? How do you know?

 

[Orontes]

Do you feel the same about incestuous, pederastial, polygamous and inter-species marriage?

I don't agree with it, people can do what they want. The world needs to stop making the rest of the worlds business their own when it doesn't affect them. Especially in the name of religion. I agree when both parties have a choice, and can say no if they want to, some species may not be able to stop it.

(My, this thread has moved forward)

I'm not sure I'm following, so you do agree all the above should be sanctioned and endorsed by the state?

 

[Orontes]

[/size][/font]

Well, if you really want to play it that way, then, yes, your example was a lie, too.

If you believe that a lie is "False information is a lie, whether it's intentional or not" then you do not understand the meaning to the concept. A lie is inextricably tied to deception. One must know the true and then intentionally attempt to conceal it.

Now, let's just give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute. Let's assume the proponents of the Yes on 8 campaign gave out false information without knowing that it was false. In that case, they were callous in their pursuit of their goal. Either they gave out false info knowing it was false, which I believe that even you would agree is wrong, or they gave it out not knowing it was false, which is still wrong but this time because they should research more before spreading false info like that. Either way, they're wrong, even if I grant you they weren't lies.

The Campaign didn't give out false information.

I'll have to just go with this one for now:

It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.
For one, you're forced to be tolerant of "gay lifestyles" now. That would not change. For another, allowing same-sex marriage would not necessarily mean that children are taught anything about it in schools. That has to do with a whole other issue, as Penguin already pointed out. And yet another, "face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs"? As in what? they have to perform or attend gay marriages? Compliance with what? No one has to comply with anything other than not going over the line in direspecting others, just as it is now.
I'm sure there are many other examples, and I've seen several on here, actually, from the Mormon church. I'll dig up more when I can, although I think it's pointless as I'm sure you've already seen all of it and just refuse to see that it's false.

I'm not sure how to respond to the above. What you should do is provide quotes of material the official Campaign put out and then we can discuss. What you mention above is rather general. I can respond to the generalities, but that doesn't address your charge which was to the Campaign itself.

That may be true. I'm glad you finally realize it and can admit it. Unfortunately, I get the feeling you think this statement supports your argument rather than mine. Willful ignorance is one of the saddest things I can imagine, and you should try to move away from it.

If you agree "Creating a right by fiat and imposing it on a populace by force is not an example of diversity and love of freedom. It is something quite different." then you must reject the court's invention of rights. Rights for a free people are the creation of a free people, as the people themselves must set the bounds of their society. This occurs through the free exchange of ideas and majoritarianism in a democratic system.

This part was not even in response to that particular comment of yours. Twisting the debate around isn't going to work. If there is a right to heterosexual marriage, then there is a right to gay marriage. If there is no right to heterosexual marriage but it is performed and recognized anyway, then gay marriages can be performed and recognized, too. It's pretty simple. Since you refuse to see any of my other arguments, there's one in plain English directly in response to your request.

You need to reread the posts. I stated quite clearly: "There is no basic human right to gaydom.". You responded with typical invective. I gave you the chance to make an argument to demonstrate this right. You have not done so. The choice is yours. Regardless, I didn't give any argument on that point. I simply asserted it.

As to marriage. I don't believe there is any right to marriage. Even so, marriage and gay marriage are not the same. Marriage is cross gender. That is its meaning. Gay marriage is an attempt to change/expand that meaning. This is why the adjective "gay" or similar fare, is necessary to even advance a discussion.

It saddens me that there are lawyers like you out there who don't even understand the basics of law. I should just stop now. If the years of school didn't teach you that our legal system isn't just based on a majority vote, I guess I have no hope of getting that through to you. :sad:

This doesn't respond to my statement. It is simple hostility. It is boorish.

Again, this shows a fundamental ignorance of law that should be beneath a lawyer. Sometimes, I find it extremely difficult to believe that you actually are one. The bounds of law on marriage are more than welcome to be determined by the people, as long as the people abide by the Constitution and don't contradict other laws already in place. That's why the Supreme Court began allowing gay marriage. Really, I expect this kind of thing from someone who has no in-depth knowledge of the legal system and is biased, but even a bigotted lawyer like you should be able to understand the basic workings of our legal systems.

More invective I see.

The Constitution is a product of a majoritarian process. It is/was not the creation of judges to be imposed. The California constitution created in 1850 did not include any reference to homosexual marriage. To assert such is in the California constitution is simply wrong, just as it would be for someone to claim polygamy or incestuous marriage were in the Constitution. Now, if pro-gay marriage advocates wish to create space in the law for such, then they should have law passed to that effect through the legislative process.

For one, the same cannot be said of same-sex marriages. You can provide me with what you think qualify as good reasons, and I will show you why they fail. That is, if you're up to it.

I don't understand what you're asking here.

 

[Orontes]

Do you feel the same about incestuous, pederastial, polygamous and inter-species marriage?

The two first cases, no. There are very good reasons to discourage them. The latter two, I guess I do indeed approve. There is no point in attempting to forbid people from attaining what they really want just out of principle. Let's at least have a good reason for interfering with such personal matters.

Interesting, so you think a fellow should be able to marry their German Shepard for example and the state should endorse the same? Is that your view?

 

[Orontes]

Fascinating! You wish to argue infants have or attempt sex with others or that they express a desire to do so? Those would seem to be the baseline references for sexuality.

You're moving the goalposts. I never said they were sexually mature, that's a seperate issue. However, they do masturbate - a lot. You have not proven your assertion that there are no queer infants.

No. I am not. I stated infants are not sexual creatures. Your response is infants masturbate (a lot). This is a simple definition of masturbation:

Main Entry: mas·tur·ba·tion Pronunciation: \ˌmas-tər-ˈbā-shən\ Function: nounDate: 1603 : erotic stimulation especially of one's own genital organs commonly resulting in orgasm and achieved by manual or other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse, by instrumental manipulation, occasionally by sexual fantasies, or by various combinations of these agencies​

Is this really what you want argue infants do?

As to "proving there are no queer infants": one cannot prove a negative. It is logically impossible. For example, if one denies there is a Santa Clause, there is no "proof" for that claim. Rather, the way one counters such an assertion is to show there is a rotund fellow who lives in the North with flying reindeer giving out toys on Christmas Eve. Similarly, if you wish to counter my claim about there being no gay infants, you would need to bring some evidence to the table. Otherwise, to believe such, never moves beyond bald assertion.

I don't believe you.

I can't respond to what you choose to believe, but what happened in Massachusetts to Catholic Charities and Adoption Services is well documented. There was reason to fear something similar happening in California. I gave you the relevant California case.

No, I've seen quite eough of your ego masturbation.

Does this mean you then recognize the 15th and 19th Amendments do constitute examples of disenfranchised being empowered?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting, so you think a fellow should be able to marry their German Shepard for example and the state should endorse the same? Is that your view?

Personally, I think that once the normal requirements of marriage (informed consent given by all parties to the union, relevant fees paid, etc.) a person should be able to marry a German Shepherd.

 

[Orontes]

As noted in another post: Rights do not simply exist because a person would be hurt if they didn't. A person might assert they have a right to be a cat, but no such right exists. There are two basic modes by and through which rights exist: positive rights and natural law. Gay marriage doesn't fit under either.

I agree with Foucault (himself as gay as the day is long): gayness is a social construct.

This is a ridiculous assertion. Biological components of human identity are not social constructs.

Your rejection of Foucault's stance is noted, but it is a position that is considered relevant enough in gay discourse. I listened to two gay academics (pro and con) on the subject just a few weeks ago. Even so, per the biological components notion: the pursuit of the gay gene has ended in failure. Moreover, those physiological elements that can be linked to gays are well documented as being aspects of the brain that is informed by and through experience. Behavior is socially informed.

 

[Storm]

As to "proving there are no queer infants": one cannot prove a negative. It is logically impossible. For example, if one denies there is a Santa Clause, there is no "proof" for that claim. Rather, the way one counters such an assertion is to show there is a rotund fellow who lives in the North with flying reindeer giving out toys on Christmas Eve. Similarly, if you wish to counter my claim about there being no gay infants, you would need to bring some evidence to the table. Otherwise, to believe such, never moves beyond bald assertion.

No, that's not how burden of proof works. You made the claim, the burden is on you. If you can't prove your claim, as we both know you can't, intellectual honesty demands that you retract it. Not that I expect anything remotely resembling intellectual honesty from you.

Does this mean you then recognize the 15th and 19th Amendments do constitute examples of disenfranchised being empowered?

It means I'm on the verge of putting you on ignore.