LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Watchmen]

Ahh... all mormons believe that? I didnt realize... wow... So like we dont have free will we are just puppets who occasionally leak out god inspiration every now and then...

How does that story go btw? We're their secret prophets? Secret golden scrolls now trapped in the city of gold and map to the scrolls is printed on the back on the Constitution in magic ink?

Perhaps I am overreacting to inspired of god... we are all gods children so everything we do is inspired of his will.... Or are we thetans and everything we do it to become a clear? No thats scientology... hmmm....

Which god inspired this famous document? One I have heard of?

To distill the argument... the same right you have to believe mormonism and love chicks is also given to Manson and Slim Shady. A follower of Bhaal who summons forth Orcus to guide his everyday life who loves another of the same sex gets the same rights as you too...

Equal rights. If bob loves paul instead of jane he doesnt lose his rights... Bob keeps his rights.

I don't appreciate your sarcastic tone. If you have a beef with Madhatter then fine - most people do. But when you act degradingly we're going to take it personal.

 

[Watchmen]

Yeah, well, you also believe a lot of other whacko things.

Is that really necessary? You believe a lot of whacko things too. EVERYONE believes a lot of whacko things. Things are whacko only because one is viewing from outside the culture.

 

[Green Gaia]

Actually no, We believe that the Constitution was Inspired of God

Whose God?

 

[Sententia]

I don't appreciate your sarcastic tone. If you have a beef with Madhatter then fine - most people do. But when you act degradingly we're going to take it personal.

Its not meant as degrading just as a picture that our country was founded on a secular level with a distinct and defined seperation between church and state. Everyone in the country is defined as being of equal rights. Crazy scientoligists, entertainers like manson, atheists, gays, lesbians, catholics, mormons, women, men etc etc

While many people don't like manson or agree with what an atheist believes or accept that a gay wants to get married on a religious and personal belief level they still should strive to respect them and treat them as equals in terms of civil rights and as citizens.

Any church can refuse to marry anyone but anyone can go to the town hall and get legally married.

I dont see why people want to deny basic rights to others because their personal religious beliefs don't agree with what that person is doing or what they think that person is doing. Especially considering that what their doing is not a crime and done between consulting adults and is not the question at hand. Legally they should have the same rights.

 

[darkendless]

Its not meant as degrading just as a picture that our country was founded on a secular level with a distinct and defined seperation between church and state. Everyone in the country is defined as being of equal rights. Crazy scientoligists, entertainers like manson, atheists, gays, lesbians, catholics, mormons, women, men etc etc

While many people don't like manson or agree with what an atheist believes or accept that a gay wants to get married on a religious and personal belief level they still should strive to respect them and treat them as equals in terms of civil rights and as citizens.

Any church can refuse to marry anyone but anyone can go to the town hall and get legally married.

I dont see why people want to deny basic rights to others because their personal religious beliefs don't agree with what that person is doing or what they think that person is doing. Especially considering that what their doing is not a crime and done between consulting adults and is not the question at hand. Legally they should have the same rights.

Religious people (mainly Christian) from my experience are afraid of the impact homosexuals will have on them and their children. After 3 pages of arguing with Emiliano, thats what it boils down to. Theyre afraid of change. They're afraid of America (Australia too) becomming something new. Although they might refute it, religion guides their political and social compass. For them God decides what's right and wrong. Because God is against homosexuality, they automatically are. They think their country deserves the morals set down by God and will do what they can to defend it. This will not be the case with every member of these religions, its just my expereince with them.

I dont agree with it, i think good judgement and reasoning should guide someone, but thats just me.

 

[Sententia]

Religious people (mainly Christian) from my experience are afraid of the impact homosexuals will have on them and their children. After 3 pages of arguing with Emiliano, thats what it boils down to. Theyre afraid of change. They're afraid of America (Australia too) becomming something new. Although they might refute it, religion guides their political and social compass. For them God decides what's right and wrong. Because God is against homosexuality, they automatically are. They think their country deserves the morals set down by God and will do what they can to defend it. This will not be the case with every member of these religions, its just my expereince with them.

I dont agree with it, i think good judgement and reasoning should guide someone, but thats just me.

Interesting. I am more of the notion that religion takes a minor role in a persons life. Its their personal belief or what they do on sunday. Its a theme they follow when they decorate their house or the first words that jump out of their mouth when its time for small talk. Its what they email to me when their bored stating what I should or should not support and if I will come watch them in choir or attend their church on sunday.

For most people I know who are religious.

But is same sex marriage a religious matter? Yep. If a a religion doesnt agree they can refuse to marry them. Is it a matter of the state? Yep. Anyone can marry another person so long as their both consenting adults. (Sex, race and religion of course dont matter)

 

[darkendless]

Interesting. I am more of the notion that religion takes a minor role in a persons life. Its their personal belief or what they do on sunday. Its a theme they follow when they decorate their house or the first words that jump out of their mouth when its time for small talk. Its what they email to me when their bored stating what I should or should not support and if I will come watch them in choir or attend their church on sunday.

For most people I know who are religious.

But is same sex marriage a religious matter? Yep. If a a religion doesnt agree they can refuse to marry them. Is it a matter of the state? Yep. Anyone can marry another person so long as their both consenting adults. (Sex, race and religion of course dont matter)

Really. I was just at work with a friend who refuses to get an abortion even though her child will ruin her career. Its a religious stance. I mean its her stance and i admire her for sticking to her guns, but this is an example of why i believe for some people at least there is no decision made without the wisdom of God.

I don't think homosexual marriage should be in a church. But i strongly believe (read the last 3 pages of this thread) that the playing field should be even. If you're American or Australian it doesn't matter. We're first world countries but we still have second class citizens. I thinkour tendancy to cling to traditional values is hurting our chance to prosper as free nations. Emiliano argued that lack of morals and in particular religious morals has hurt past empires. History suggests otherwise. The introduction of Christianity to the Roman Empire did nothing but change the nature of violence and immorality.

 

[emiliano]

The US nation's prosperity is not linked to the phrase under god... The pledge is still said today as one nation under god. In god we trust is a relatively recent addition.

They may very well be recent concepts, but their adoption concedes with the US prosperity, that was the point that I am making.

 

[emiliano]

Interesting. I am more of the notion that religion takes a minor role in a persons life. Its their personal belief or what they do on sunday. Its a theme they follow when they decorate their house or the first words that jump out of their mouth when its time for small talk. Its what they email to me when their bored stating what I should or should not support and if I will come watch them in choir or attend their church on sunday.

For most people I know who are religious.

But is same sex marriage a religious matter? Yep. If a a religion doesnt agree they can refuse to marry them. Is it a matter of the state? Yep. Anyone can marry another person so long as their both consenting adults. (Sex, race and religion of course dont matter)

That’s how the debate started, the stated cannot force religion to marry seme sex couples, they are not obliged to do so, the state has to do as the majority will says. Religion is exclusive, the state isn’t. All citizen are part of the state, only those that believe are part of a religion. Constitutional changes are difficult to achieve, the US’s constitution is specially hard, is still focus on trying to find out what was the intention of the founding fathers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually no, We believe that the Constitution was Inspired of God

Does that mean that Constitutional amendments are a form of blasphemy?

What about the Articles of Confederation? Were they inspired of God too? Did America turn its back on God when it got rid of them?

They may very well be recent concepts, but their adoption concedes with the US prosperity, that was the point that I am making.

Okay, who ordered the post hoc ergo propter hoc? I sure didn't.

Actually, it's not even that. Both events happened well into the United States' boom:

- "Under God" was officially added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.
- "In God We Trust" was made the official motto of the United States in 1956.

I think this is a new fallacy: ante hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[emiliano]

Religious people (mainly Christian) from my experience are afraid of the impact homosexuals will have on them and their children. After 3 pages of arguing with Emiliano, thats what it boils down to. Theyre afraid of change. They're afraid of America (Australia too) becomming something new. Although they might refute it, religion guides their political and social compass. For them God decides what's right and wrong. Because God is against homosexuality, they automatically are. They think their country deserves the morals set down by God and will do what they can to defend it. This will not be the case with every member of these religions, its just my expereince with them.

I dont agree with it, i think good judgement and reasoning should guide someone, but thats just me.

In Australia is a matter of not following the lead of the US and the EU, immorality really leads to destruction. It is scary to think that we could go the way they are going, drugs of addiction been sold in vending machines is really scary, coercing people to get indebted beyond their means is immoral, thus destructive. An Australia modeled on such a model is scary.

 

[emiliano]

This make sense to me: Calling the suits "patently frivolous," Liberty Counsel founder Mathew Staver said in a statement Monday that "it makes no sense that four judges can rewrite the historic definition of marriage and more than 5 million people (who voted for Prop. 8) cannot restore it to its common understanding."
This issue in moving on a different direction and we see a result soon, the Idea that the supreme curt can dictate policy is so foreign to me, I pity those that will have to rule on this and the question is who governs in this state?

 

[darkendless]

In Australia is a matter of not following the lead of the US and the EU, immorality really leads to destruction. It is scary to think that we could go the way they are going, drugs of addiction been sold in vending machines is really scary, coercing people to get indebted beyond their means is immoral, thus destructive. An Australia modeled on such a model is scary.

But Emiliano is it immoral? Immoral in the eyes of the lord does not automatically mean it is absolutely immoral. How do we know it will lead to destruction? I believe the current system is destructive as we have 2nd class citizens with less rights. I think its damaging to society to base morals of a whole country on religion. Church and state must be separate, otherwise we get what we have now, where we have God's people on one side and those for change on the other. I just think we need to give it a shot, it wont hurt anyone.

 

[Autodidact]

Is that really necessary? You believe a lot of whacko things too. EVERYONE believes a lot of whacko things. Things are whacko only because one is viewing from outside the culture.

O.K., but then I don't assert my odd personal beliefs as if they're the basis for something that other people should pay attention to. Further, I am willing, and make an effort, to check my beliefs against the evidence, and change them as the evidence seems to indicate.

And I submit that madhatter and I share the same culture, and his beliefs are whacko because they don't match the evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

That’s how the debate started, the stated cannot force religion to marry seme sex couples, they are not obliged to do so, the state has to do as the majority will says. Religion is exclusive, the state isn’t. All citizen are part of the state, only those that believe are part of a religion. Constitutional changes are difficult to achieve, the US’s constitution is specially hard, is still focus on trying to find out what was the intention of the founding fathers.

You're completely confused about the issue itself. There is no question of making any religion do anything--that's not on the table, and could not be permitted here. Indeed, there are many churches and synagogues where gay people can get married now. The question is only whether the state will recognize these marriages.

 

[Autodidact]

In Australia is a matter of not following the lead of the US and the EU, immorality really leads to destruction. It is scary to think that we could go the way they are going, drugs of addiction been sold in vending machines is really scary, coercing people to get indebted beyond their means is immoral, thus destructive. An Australia modeled on such a model is scary.

Because life in Western Europe is so horrible? Did you know these are among the most prosperous and happiest countries on earth? With the lowest rates of crime, abortion, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, etc., and the longest life expectancy? Ooh, that's scary! Prosperity, stability, peace, safety--scary stuff.

btw, what is the position of your neighbor, New Zealand, and how is that working out for them?

 

[Watchmen]

O.K., but then I don't assert my odd personal beliefs as if they're the basis for something that other people should pay attention to. Further, I am willing, and make an effort, to check my beliefs against the evidence, and change them as the evidence seems to indicate.

And I submit that madhatter and I share the same culture, and his beliefs are whacko because they don't match the evidence.

I don't believe you two share the same culture...perhaps another debate for another time.

 

[emiliano]

But Emiliano is it immoral? Immoral in the eyes of the lord does not automatically mean it is absolutely immoral. How do we know it will lead to destruction? I believe the current system is destructive as we have 2nd class citizens with less rights. I think its damaging to society to base morals of a whole country on religion. Church and state must be separate, otherwise we get what we have now, where we have God's people on one side and those for change on the other. I just think we need to give it a shot, it wont hurt anyone.

I am sure that you know that the separation of state and religion is already in place in Australia and the US, what you are ignorant of is that you cannot separate a man from his/her religion, and I like to direct you to the fact that a society where everybody creates and live by its own principles is know as anarchism and is unworkable as a form of governance.
As I told you a have a thread on this subject and this is what I think immorality “For the sake of this exercise let us define Immorality as defying moral principles contrary to accepted moral principles. we would argue issues that in my view will may cause of the destruction of the that empire and compared to the fall of the Roman Empire. The gay thing is only one of them, there are several and this thread limit the discussion.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...does-moral-bankruptcy-lead-destruction-2.html

 

[darkendless]

I am sure that you know that the separation of state and religion is already in place in Australia and the US, what you are ignorant of is that you cannot separate a man from his/her religion, and I like to direct you to the fact that a society where everybody creates and live by its own principles is know as anarchism and is unworkable as a form of governance.
As I told you a have a thread on this subject and this is what I think immorality “For the sake of this exercise let us define Immorality as defying moral principles contrary to accepted moral principles. we would argue issues that in my view will may cause of the destruction of the that empire and compared to the fall of the Roman Empire. The gay thing is only one of them, there are several and this thread limit the discussion.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...does-moral-bankruptcy-lead-destruction-2.html

Anarchism is a lot different to placing laws that give all people the same rights. I think your comparison there is a little unfounded. Of course you cannot separate people from their religion, but the state is doing so by forcing religious morals upon the unreligious. There is no reasonable arguement against homosexual marriage unless you take a religious view.

You seem to be ignorant of the homosexual situation. Nothing is going to change at all. The only thing homosexuals will get is a piece of paper saying they're married. That way they can be just like every other couple. I think resistance to this is madness when it doesn't affect anyone, and the social situation will not change one bit. Only that gays get treated as people not inferiors.

 

[Luminous]

It seems odd to me that any person would be naive enough to have any religion at all. There's no need to have fake accomplishments when clear real ones are before you.

Lyman Beecher once said that Catholicism was incompatible with republicanism(not the party). He argued that "the ministers of no Protestant sect could or would dare to attempt to regulate the votes of their people as the Catholic". he continued on that Catholics, under the influence of their priesthood, would be induced to act as one, but that such a thing would never happen with protestants who loved 'liberty of conscience and free inquiry'. Have protestants come full circle? Not yet; but it is true that the Popes of the mid 1800s condemned republicanism and freedom of conscience as false political ideologies. To them, there was no foundation for virtue but in RELIGION. and their sort was not to be taken care of by the people but to take care of the people. because people were fallible, they had to be taken care of by other people(priesthoods). this, to me, is paradoxical at best.


All is for the best, in this best of all possible worlds.