LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mestemia.


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.

I like how you make it seem like the laws of California, created by majority vote of democratically-elected representatives isn't also the majority will of Californians.

I like Augustine’s “Love the sinner but hate the sin” if you love them you want then saved to the kingdom of God and you hate the sin that spiritually kill them and separated them from God.

I prefer Paul's "accept him whose faith is weak without passing judgement on disputable matters" or "and now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

And how natural do you think this practices are? I was told that the satisfaction that homosexuals get from sex is a sort of prostate massage. How much pleasure do these guy (anal intercourse) think that the female get out of it?

Many women don't enjoy this (or just don't like the idea of it), so they don't do it. Who are you to say whether the women who like anal sex enough to engage in it actually enjoy it? I think it's safe to say that they're a better judge of their own feelings on the matter than you are.

Personally, I cannot fathom the state of mind that would derive pleasure from attending a Celine Dion concert... but this doesn't mean I'm going to get Vegas to pass a City ordnance against her show.

None yet, but you can bet your house that those that practice it are working toward that end, everything is up there to be challenged, we have become so tolerant that why not amend the law and make it legal to use women for an unnatural act whether they wanted or not, it could be made part of marital rights, it harms no one, right?

Actually, through progress in individual human rights, of which legalization of same-sex marriage is a part, we've now reached the point where it is illegal in most countries for a man to rape his wife, whereas in the past, the law often assumed that any sex between spouses was consensual or part of "wifely duties". The "slippery slope" seems to be sliding the opposite way to how you're portraying it.

 

[Magic Man]

Personally, I cannot fathom the state of mind that would derive pleasure from attending a Celine Dion concert... but this doesn't mean I'm going to get Vegas to pass a City ordnance against her show.

Bad example. I think you'd be perfectly justified in trying to ban Celine Dion shows.

 

[fantome profane]

Fantome Profane I hope that you are in one piece and not blown away, cause there is more shocks for you

This post is not particularly shocking, on the contrary your response is very typical of people who hold irrational viewpoints. You failed to show where Christ ever said or even hinted that love or commitment could be considered a vice. You also completely failed to provide a reference for the statistics that you mentioned.

This kind of attitude is one of the primary examples of how religion can lead people to behave in incredibly immoral ways. I am not that all religious people behave immorally or that religion always leads people to behave immorally. But there are many cases where it does and this is one very clear example. Because of your religious views you would support discrimination and inequality. And you would do so fully believing that you are acting out of love and following the example of Christ. That is twisted.

It reminds me of the famous quote of Blaise Pascal:

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

A vice is a repeated wrong action. I will accept that definition and I will observe that many people out of a sense of religious conviction repeated pass judgement and enforce discrimination and inequality. With that in mind I would ask you to re-read the passage you quoted me.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, Repent! For the kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Are you so sure that Christ is only calling for “others” to repent?

 

[Orontes]

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.

Ahh, another layer of the site revealed. I learned a new thing.

 

[idea]

Not just looking at the LDS Church, but also at other religious groups that have opposed secular legalization of same-sex marriage on the grounds of their own religious beliefs,

It is my religious belief that it is wrong to murder too... not to steal, etc... so is that enforcing my morals on others? No one is telling others not to live together, or what to do behind closed doors. Do what you want if it is not hurting anyone.

sure it is natural - murder is natural too, wild anmals kill and eat eachother all the time, does that mean it is ok?

I have a few relatives who are homosexual, I know it is a physical condition etc...(a handicap) It is a hard topic. I can see how it would be easier to love someone of the same sex - I mean they are the same, you know and understand what is the same. The real test is if you can love everyone - love, not someone like yourself, but someone unlike yourself in every way, that is where you really learn how to love. There are advantages to opposites too, best to marry someone who has strengths where you have weaknesses and visa versa, stronger more stable family that way... lots of studies showing kids do better with a mother and a father, and if they don't have kids - I still think it is better for the person too, learning how to love someone different and all that...celebrate diversity by getting to know the opposite sex (racist / bigotry / sexist if you can only handle your own kind...)

 

[Magic Man]

It is my religious belief that it is wrong to murder too... not to steal, etc... so is that enforcing my morals on others? No one is telling others not to live together, or what to do behind closed doors. Do what you want if it is not hurting anyone.

sure it is natural - murder is natural too, wild anmals kill and eat eachother all the time, does that mean it is ok?

Do you really not understand the difference between something that harms someone and something that doesn't? Murder harms someone. It's not about it being a belief. It's about the fact that that act hurts another person, the act of consensual sex hurts no one.

Yes, people are telling others what to do behind closed doors. People don't want others engaging in homosexual behavior whether or not it's consensual. Consensual sex doesn't hurt anyone.

Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right, but the opposite is also true. The point is that the argument saying homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral is false.

 

[Father Heathen]

None yet, but you can bet your house that those that practice it are working toward that end, everything is up there to be challenged, we have become so tolerant that why not amend the law and make it legal to use women for an unnatural act whether they wanted or not, it could be made part of marital rights, it harms no one, right?

Rape clearly does do harm. Your analogies are pathetic. You fail to provide any rational and substantiated reason why the government should get involved in what goes in the privacy of the bedrooms of consenting adults (why are religious folk incapable of wrapping their little minds around that?). Your objections are based exclusively on worthless religious notions, and are hardly a valid justification for dissolving peoples rights and liberty, the two things that make the civilized western world so great. It's a damn shame that even in this day and age we still have to deal with cretins who want to drag us back to the bronze age.

 

[Starfish]

Yes, people are telling others what to do behind closed doors. People don't want others engaging in homosexual behavior whether or not it's consensual. Consensual sex doesn't hurt anyone.

Maybe some people are. But that's not the point of this thread. The letter said nothing about what people can do or should do in their private lives. It's about preserving the traditional definition of marriage as was voted for by the people of California.

 

[Storm]

Maybe some people are. But that's not the point of this thread. The letter said nothing about what people can do or should do in their private lives. It's about preserving the traditional definition of marriage as was voted for by the people of California.

You mean arranged marriage for socio-political gain? How is that being preserved?

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe some people are. But that's not the point of this thread. The letter said nothing about what people can do or should do in their private lives. It's about preserving the traditional definition of marriage as was voted for by the people of California.

Sure, because the point of all of this is to keep homosexuals from marrying...in an effort to stop them from being homosexual at all. It's saying that a married couple can't engage in homosexual sex in their private lives basically.

 

[Starfish]

You mean arranged marriage for socio-political gain? How is that being preserved?

You lost me. Maybe I walked in on a conversation that had gone a different direction. Sorry.

 

[Storm]

That's traditional marriage.

 

[Starfish]

Sure, because the point of all of this is to keep homosexuals from marrying...in an effort to stop them from being homosexual at all. It's saying that a married couple can't engage in homosexual sex in their private lives basically.

No one is doing that. Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time without the benefits of marriage.

The people of California voted in 2000 to define marriage in the traditional sense. Yet judges changed it. The letter is saying the the LDS Church is joining in with a coalition of churches in the effort to amend the constitution to support the will of the people.

No one is forbidding homosexuality to the public. That's not even realistic.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's traditional marriage.

Exactly. "Traditional marriage" from the good ol' bible times often entailed fathers selling their very young daughters into forced marriage.

It's about preserving the traditional definition of marriage

Which is utter nonsense. Homosexual marriage will in no way have any impact heterosexual marriages. There is nothing to preserve because there is nothing being threatened.

 

[Starfish]

That's traditional marriage.

"arranged marriage for socio-political gain"

How is traditional marriage "arranged"?
What is the "socio-political" gain?

 

[Father Heathen]

"arranged marriage for socio-political gain"

How is traditional marriage "arranged"?
What is the "socio-political" gain?

Brides were traded and sold between tribes. Good ol' biblical values.

 

[Storm]

"arranged marriage for socio-political gain"

How is traditional marriage "arranged"?

Arranged marriage? You know, where the families set up the kids, who don't get any say in who they marry?

What is the "socio-political" gain?

It could be social status, money, political alliance......

 

[Magic Man]

No one is doing that. Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time without the benefits of marriage.

The people of California voted in 2000 to define marriage in the traditional sense. Yet judges changed it. The letter is saying the the LDS Church is joining in with a coalition of churches in the effort to amend the constitution to support the will of the people.

No one is forbidding homosexuality to the public. That's not even realistic.

But, if you didn't mind them practicing homosexuality, then why would them getting married even be a problem?

 

[Starfish]

But, if you didn't mind them practicing homosexuality, then why would them getting married even be a problem?

Go back to one of the many other threads where this has been done and done and done.

 

[Father Heathen]

Go back to one of the many other threads where this has been done and done and done.

To be honest, I've seen a lot of threads debating the issue (all of which seem to end up being locked) and I've yet to see any rational and substantiated argument against it. Everything was thoroughly and repeatedly refuted as people kept regurgitating the same ol' tired fallacies over and over.