LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[DeepShadow]

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.

What in blazes are you talking about?

 

[emiliano]

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.

I see, and the state cannot recognise them because the majority, says they are not marriages, the idea that the supreme court can rule over the common will of the people, is confusing as well as completely foreign to me and I have to agreed with Mathew Staver "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)” that restores proposition 22 by means of popular consultation can not. “The California Supreme Court released a decision overturning Proposition 22, which had defined marriage as between one man and one woman” a proposition that had the definition of marriage, which was overwhelmingly adopted by 61 percent of the state's voters in a 2000 referendum. This I cannot understand, who governs that state? You’re right though I am confused, the judges based their decision on the fact the constitution does not say one way or the other, here in Australia we didn’t have the problems that you have in the US because our constitution is different, we dealt with those issues long time ago and there is no interest in the issue anymore.

 

[emiliano]

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?

Not at the moment, they are not! They are heading into a depression similar to the one that the US is heading to, they are equally bankrupt. As far as I know they are very unhappy lot.

 

[emiliano]

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.

Darken, if every minority view is enshrined into law you have so many right and laws as there are people and you have anarchy, every one is a law onto himself.
A chaotic and out of control situation

 

[Sententia]

Darken, if every minority view is enshrined into law you have so many right and laws as there are people and you have anarchy, every one is a law onto himself.
A chaotic and out of control situation

My point is there is nothing more to add to the law... All men and women are to be treated as equals.

Thats it mate.

You are making a distinction that discriminates against another person and actively trying to make them a second class citizen with less rights then you. Why would you do such a thing?

 

[Autodidact]

Not at the moment, they are not! They are heading into a depression similar to the one that the US is heading to, they are equally bankrupt. As far as I know they are very unhappy lot.

So, just to make sure what you're saying here, is it your belief that God is punishing Europe for being so Godless by harming their economies? That the economic disaster we are looking at is God's punishment for not honoring Him?

 

[emiliano]

So, just to make sure what you're saying here, is it your belief that God is punishing Europe for being so Godless by harming their economies? That the economic disaster we are looking at is God's punishment for not honoring Him?

I am stating here what I stated in the thread that I started elsewhere, moral bankruptcy lead the destruction, the empires are crumbling in the same way that the Roman Empire did. You can see the similarities, don’t you?

 

[darkendless]

I am stating here what I stated in the thread that I started elsewhere, moral bankruptcy lead the destruction, the empires are crumbling in the same way that the Roman Empire did. You can see the similarities, don’t you?

Whats amusing is Christianity was the dominant religion when the Roman Empire fell. Should we remove Christianity so current empires can prosper?

 

[emiliano]

Whats amusing is Christianity was the dominant religion when the Roman Empire fell. Should we remove Christianity so current empires can prosper?

These are some parallels, the Romans the greatest of warrior, set themselves to enjoy their gains, they had no time to do anything else but be entertained, they import warriors to protect their empire, workers to their work, they no longer sought knowledge, they imported them, the US created the greatest of the capitalist economies and set themselves to be entertained themselves and they had to import workers and entrepreneur to run their economy, they did not have time to do what they did so well, just been entertained, they got into all kind of immoralities, they legalised all kinds of immoralities that produced a profit, alcohol, tobacco, addictive substances, their obsession with pleasures of the flesh knows no limits, their youth inject, smokes or snorts all kinds of substances in pursuit of pleasure. And all through out the process Christianity was a major force, do you think that a turn to atheism could resolve their problems? Did the experimentation with communism worked? Is the godless state the solution?

 

[Sententia]

These are some parallels, the Romans the greatest of warrior, set themselves to enjoy their gains, they had no time to do anything else but be entertained, they import warriors to protect their empire, workers to their work, they no longer sought knowledge, they imported them, the US created the greatest of the capitalist economies and set themselves to be entertained themselves and they had to import workers and entrepreneur to run their economy, they did not have time to do what they did so well, just been entertained, they got into all kind of immoralities, they legalised all kinds of immoralities that produced a profit, alcohol, tobacco, addictive substances, their obsession with pleasures of the flesh knows no limits, their youth inject, smokes or snorts all kinds of substances in pursuit of pleasure. And all through out the process Christianity was a major force, do you think that a turn to atheism could resolve their problems? Did the experimentation with communism worked? Is the godless state the solution?

Honestly you see only what your bias will let you see... Take off the god glasses for a while and look around. You have a very narrow field of view right now imho.

 

[emiliano]

Honestly you see only what your bias will let you see... Take off the god glasses for a while and look around. You have a very narrow field of view right now imho.

And should I put your glasses? You can even see the difference between male and female, you can infer function from design, your glasses are useless

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And should I put your glasses? You can even see the difference between male and female, you can infer function from design, your glasses are useless

What should we infer from a "design" that puts a time limit on a woman's fertility?

What should we infer from the "design" of an eye that is prone to cataracts and loses flexibility over time? Does cataract surgery go against God's will? Do reading glasses?

If we can infer function from "design" and infer God's intent from that, then same-sex marriage is no more "unholy" than reading of newspapers by the elderly is.

 

[fantome profane]

And should I put your glasses? You can even see the difference between male and female, you can infer function from design, your glasses are useless

And what do you infer from the fact that many people seem to be designed to be gay? Or are you unable to see that?

 

[Autodidact]

I am stating here what I stated in the thread that I started elsewhere, moral bankruptcy lead the destruction, the empires are crumbling in the same way that the Roman Empire did. You can see the similarities, don’t you?

Not at all. As I said, the Western European democracies are the most prosperous, stable, and HAPPIEST nations on earth. As for Rome, it converted to Christianity in the 4th century, and collapsed in the 5th. While these countries have become more and more secular. So no, I don't see many similarities. What similarities do you see? btw, have you studied Ancient History much? But don't let a little reality disturb your worldview, emiliano.

 

[Sententia]

And should I put your glasses? You can even see the difference between male and female, you can infer function from design, your glasses are useless

We are getting more to the core... You believe we are designed and now people are pointing out how flawwed the design is.

That aside what proof do you have humans are a designed race?

You want to dictate that someone should not be happy and that same sex marriage goes against our design because of your belief in this proof that we were designed.

 

[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.

Are you sure? Like what?

 

[Autodidact]

So, Orontes, what conclusion should we draw from your refusal to answer my question?

Anyway, here's why I strongly disagree with Originalism.

The intent of our founding fathers was to create a document that would serve as the structure of a Republic for many years.To do that, its terms need to be subject to specific content that would change in future. So by trying to read the minds of the framers, and do what they would have done in a contemporary situation, you are actually violating their original intent, not fulfilling it. Had they wanted to specify, for example, what is cruel and unusual punishment, they could have done so. Instead the deliberately chose to use terms whose meaning is known, but whose specific content can change as society, including society's standards, changes.

The reason for this was to ensure that the Constitution would be a living document for a living nation, that it could respond to the telegraph and the internet and whatever comes next. Justice Scalia has said that the Constitution is not a living document. If adopted, this view ensures that we would no longer have a living nation, as only a dead nation can base its governance on a dead document.

This does not mean that it is the job of the Supreme Court to (excuse my language) just make **** up, as in e.g. Roe v Wade, which IMO is bad law. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. We might like one, but it's not there. Claiming that there is is creating stuff out of whole cloth, and that way lies despotism. If they can make up rights, they can unmake them.

There is, however, for example, a right to free speech, and it is the job of today's Supreme Court to decide what that means to today's society is the job of the Supreme Court to determine, not just to be historians and determine what it meant to the founding fathers.

Where does that leave marriage? There the question is what is entailed in equal protection. In determining what is equal protection, it makes sense to look at what rights in practice exist, what is government in the business of regulating, and make sure it is doing so without unjustified discrimination. Government is certainly in the business of regulating marriage, so it is appropriate for a court to ask whether any discrimination in offering that right is justified. You might reasonably argue that this discrimination is justified, but I don't think you can argue that it is not the business of the court to make that determination.

 

[emiliano]

What should we infer from a "design" that puts a time limit on a woman's fertility?

What should we infer from the "design" of an eye that is prone to cataracts and loses flexibility over time? Does cataract surgery go against God's will? Do reading glasses?

If we can infer function from "design" and infer God's intent from that, then same-sex marriage is no more "unholy" than reading of newspapers by the elderly is.

Have you ever have had a look at your body? to your genitalia?
Psychology tell us that as early as babies and toddles we have a strange curiosity for our sexual organs, as rational being that we grow to be , What do we infer from it, where does it fit? “And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply.
There are some people that got it all wrong, don’t you think? Marriage is the union of a male and a female to multiply the smallest unit into which a society can be divided into, the family, a husband, a wife and their offspring’s.

 

[emiliano]

We are getting more to the core... You believe we are designed and now people are pointing out how flawwed the design is.

That aside what proof do you have humans are a designed race?

You want to dictate that someone should not be happy and that same sex marriage goes against our design because of your belief in this proof that we were designed.

:yes: Yes it seems that way, now with the advances in technology, how is a man going to compete with vibrators? The bloody batteries go longer and longer, and humans think that their sexual organs are for entertainment, their jolywakers there is a whole industry based on this.

 

[Sententia]

:yes: Yes it seems that way, now with the advances in technology, how is a man going to compete with vibrators? The bloody batteries go longer and longer, and humans think that their sexual organs are for entertainment, their jolywakers there is a whole industry based on this.

See.... Wow.... This is simply a question of his biases and how he relates and perceives... He could not understand yet.

I don't mean this in a bad way. I am just pointing out that to get to a common ground where do you have to begin? We seem to be arguing from two different places and coming to a conclusion neither can understand. Is this about porn, same sex marriage or sex toys?