LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't think it would. Interestingly, another reason we can't really compare civil rights to religious rights is that people are free to choose their religions; they can't choose their race or gender. If, for instance, a Mormon woman or a Catholic woman was upset that she couldn't hold the priesthood, she could simply find a church where she could be ordained. Problem solved.

Agreed.

 

[darkendless]

They enjoy the same rights and privileges already. I was able to marry the woman of my dreams, just like every other male over 18 in the country who is mentally able to make choices for themselves. the same goes for my wife and every other female in this country.

You've used that exact point before, i didn't think you were silly enough to do it twice. Of course they can but some people aren't hardwired to want to marry a member of the opposite sex i know, God's people aren't all the same... wow lets be Christians and enforce our religious beliefs on them through law

Therefore you must advocate that gay men and women should marry people (the opposite sex) that they do not love creating a hollow, unloving relationship in order to recieve the same benefits that you do.

Why can't men marry men and why cant women marry women? Is it icky? Does your holy book trump everything including obvious common sense? Do you have an arguement against homosexual marriage without resorting to religious cancer?
I can't believe people like you exist. You honestly have no compassion for your fellow man.

 

[Katzpur]

No, Ill vote for it. What I meant was that I think there should be something in it that gives churches the freedom to marry whomever they want.

I think I see where you're coming from, but I don't believe that it would really pose a problem -- at least not for the LDS Church; (I assume that's your concern). Right now, bishops are not required to perform wedding ceremonies they do not personally wish to perform. That would remain the same, and the Church could certainly restrict who was able to have a temple sealing.

 

[madhatter85]

I'm not comparing gays and blacks per se, but rather I am comparing the lies and paranoia, which were used to justify opposing civil rights for gays and blacks. The Civil Rights movement wasn't about equality for blacks, it was really about blacks trying to intermarry with whites! And today, gay marriage isn't about equality for LGBT people, it's about trying to force churches to perform same-sex marriages!

Our grandchildren will be embarrassed by these nonsensical, prejudiced statements, just as we are embarrassed today by the prejudiced statements of those who once dreaded black equality and feared racial intermarriage.

you did it again, you compared gay people to blacks. :clap

 

[Katzpur]

And today, gay marriage isn't about equality for LGBT people, it's about trying to force churches to perform same-sex marriages!

Is it? I thought it was about same-sex marriages being recognized as legally binding. I don't believe that passing a law permitting same-sex marriages could impact churches in that way, for the reasons I just explained to dallas in my post #2223.

 

[madhatter85]

The fact that this is post 2226 and the OP Was 2.5 years ago suggest to me that this thread is pointless

 

[darkendless]

The fact that this is post 2226 and the OP Was 2.5 years ago suggest to me that this thread is pointless

It's point is to highlight just how much certain types will dump on other human beings to uphold their holy books. Rather useful IMO, to see ones true colours.

 

[Autodidact]

Its not gonna happen instantly. After it becomes legal in all 50 states I would be surprised if no lawsuits happened against churches over this.

Why would they need to wait, if that was the goal?

In any case, I repeat, the constitution does not permit it.

Meanwhile, churches that do perform same-sex marriages cannot get them recognized by the state. But of course, that's only other people's religious freedom, which isn't quite as important for some reason.

 

[Autodidact]

How exactly?

It's doctrine, it can never change, the leadership teaches that its fundamental and can never change...until political circumstances make it clear it's not good for the LDS church any more, at which point, retroactively, it was never doctrinal, it was just a temporary condition that is no longer applicable now. After enough political pressure, the leadership receives the revelation that it's no longer God's plan. Kind of like polygamy.

Also, it's unjustifiable, despicable discrimination against an entire class of Mormons, with the only rationale being that God told the prophets that's how it has to be.

Stuff like that.

 

[Autodidact]

Agreed, but am I coming off as extreme?

Not at all; for a Mormon, you're wonderfully reasonable.

Most speeches given are not official doctrines of the church and rather the personal convictions of those who gave it.


Yes, I am critical of my churches stance on this issue. I dont think that the majority of people will start lawsuits but to say none is just as crazy as saying the majority will.


Yes, but are you denying the probability that a minority will start lawsuits over it?

I'd be shocked, since it would be a senseless waste of time and money doomed to failure, and all they have to do is go to one of the many churches that will perform the marriage.

 

[Autodidact]

Im not comparing, im pointing out that the GLBT group will have 1 or 2 crazies willing to sue churches just like the christians have those crazies willing to picket funerals.

Well, there are crazy people of all kinds, but we don't generally base our political positions on them. I guess a crazy person could do anything, but since such a case would be dismissed, who cares? Meanwhile, actual religious freedom is being limited right now, which does not seem to concern you nearly as much. I wonder why.

 

[Yakov]

Just wondering, Why do you never see religious groups flipping out over atheists getting married?
If marriage between homosexuals is supposed to destroy the sanctity of marriage, then if atheists get married, why is it not such a big deal?

 

[dallas1125]

Why would they need to wait, if that was the goal?

If they didnt wait they would have a lot more trouble than they do now to legalize gay marriages with churches.

In any case, I repeat, the constitution does not permit it.

Acknowledged, but is it too much to ask for a line to make sure people get it?

Meanwhile, churches that do perform same-sex marriages cannot get them recognized by the state. But of course, that's only other people's religious freedom, which isn't quite as important for some reason.

I think that we all agree that we should not trespass on others religous freedoms.

 

[dallas1125]

Just wondering, Why do you never see religious groups flipping out over atheists getting married?
If marriage between homosexuals is supposed to destroy the sanctity of marriage, then if atheists get married, why is it not such a big deal?

That doesnt make sense to me at all...

How are atheists and homosexuals related?

 

[Autodidact]

Im not comparing, im pointing out that the GLBT group will have 1 or 2 crazies willing to sue churches just like the christians have those crazies willing to picket funerals.

Why Prop. 8 ruling signals decline of religious freedom | Modern Commentaries
It is filled with examples of the gay community's desires trumping religious freedom in lawsuits.
:clap

From your cite: the Ocean Grove case. Not a church. A public facility, open to the public, usable for atheists to get married in, but not two women. And not a single case of a church being sued for refusing to marry a same-sex couple. All these litigious gay people, and not a single case to support your fear-mongering. I guess we can conclude it's not going to happen, then. Nor anything barring you from expressing your religion, just cases where the government is giving the organization money, or the person is offering a public service or accommodation.

 

[Yakov]

That doesnt make sense to me at all...

How are atheists and homosexuals related?

Well, if marriage between homosexuals is against God's law, why does nobody ever try and stop atheists from getting married?

 

[Autodidact]

Civil Rights are different from religious rights, though, and I think we can all agree on that. Many churches, including the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church, refuse to ordain women. That's a religious issue, and it's not one governments typically involve themselves with. Civil rights, on the other hand, should be guaranteed to all people, regardless of race, gender, etc.

And never a lawsuit, and certainly not a successful one. Good comparison, katz.

 

[dallas1125]

From your cite: the Ocean Grove case. Not a church. A public facility, open to the public, usable for atheists to get married in, but not two women.

Real fast to LDS members, does the church let non-members get married in the meeting houses?

 

[dallas1125]

Well, if marriage between homosexuals is against God's law, why does nobody ever try and stop atheists from getting married?

I still dont get it...:help:

 

[Yakov]

I still dont get it...:help:

If it's so sacreligious for gays to marry, then why don't you try to stop atheists from marrying? Isn't that just as sinful?