-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage
- Thread starter gsa
- Start date
- Status
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
No I have not. I said "Secondly, marriage is a sacred union of a man and a woman, enabling them to procreate and replenish the earth, within their own beliefs, therefore, god has not provided for the union of same sex partners, making it none compliant with the Plan of Salvation, that they, and I, believe in." I qualified it by saying "within their own beliefs" plus, I have not made any statement to say that marriage did not exist anywhere outside of the Christian belief, you did. All I have asked for is some evidence to substantiate your claim.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I obviously haven't claimed that there is no marriage outside of Christianity.
Lets test the waters then. How do you deal with Native American's having marriages prior to the Europeans arriving? The last time they were in contact with anyone from Asia or the rest of the world was roughly 13k years ago.
Shad
Veteran Member
No that was your own government which include Christians, deists and atheists. It is still your government that is ruling against those that violate the law by pushing their religion into government. The key difference here is that these people were rational and had experience of the religious wars between nations over which doctrine was true, which state was truly Christian, etc. They put a stop before it even begin by no endorsing any religion in government and by law. It was to prevent fanatics from imposing their minority view on the majority just as the Mormons are attempting. It also assumes a religious belief as a fact, Adam and Eve, then attempt to force this non-fact down people's throats.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Oh great... you.
The question of whether or not these gods really exist is another thread entirely and not the point I was making - which I'll explain further down to avoid repeating myself.
The statement made was "Evidence? I mean we have very specific evidence that marriage existed prior to when the bible stated the Earth was made..... I don't think you can destroy the argument of biblical marriage any further than that." As far as I can tell you've not provided anything beyond repeating unevidenced religious claims. And in the circles of law a lack of evidence can be damning.
And that's fine. If they want to believe that as part of their theology then they're quite welcome to. Nobody disputes this.
My point is that if the Mormons want their definition of marriage to apply objectively to everyone through the vehicle of the law then claims they make regarding that definition must be scrutinised to the same standards. I.e. they must objectively link the concept of marriage started with their god, then they must objectively prove it pertains specifically to their chosen creation myth - which in this case is merely a co-opted Jewish creation myth. The mere fact that civilisations which couldn't possibly have had links of any kind with Jewish society had a concept of marriage to associate their gods with at all shows this claim to be false.
And if you want to claim this definition is objective so that it applies to other people through law then you have to prove it objectively. Various disciplines of science show us that the human race beginning with only 2 genetically identical (because Eve was created from Adam's tissue, remember?) people is impossible.
Not all Christians or Christian sects believe the Garden of Eden story is literally true.
I expect them to put their money where their mouth is and either objectively prove the following:
1) Their god's existence,
2) the Garden of Eden story really happened
3) that the concept of marriage came solely from their god
beyond a shadow of a doubt or admit their attempts to force their religious definition of marriage on non-Christians is a violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. As far as I'm concerned they're lying for Jesus - just as their cohorts the Catholic Church has done countless times. The Mormon Church should be ashamed that they're openly collaborating with such an oppressive organisation.
Okay, two things:
1) The tuquoque fallacy is childish and doesn't make what the Mormons are doing acceptable.
2) Do you have any evidence that "Atheist try and influence governments to abolish christianity from everything outside of the home all of the time." as opposed to secularists (of faiths and none) saying people shouldn't use their religious beliefs as justification for bigotry and segregation; particularly in the spheres of governance or running a business?
You're kidding, right? Do tell us, what is the cost to the country of anal sex specifically (whether it be financial, psychological or physical) and why is it so much more damaging than any other kind of sexual activity? Further, why are you so interested in what consenting adults get up to in their private lives?
Not all religions are cruel enough to condemn people for the way they are created.
I already dealt with that first bit so I'll go to part the second.
Uh, no. The Mormon who supports this amicus brief are not "standing by his beliefs". The Supreme Court ruling is not a matter of 'either straight marriage or gay marriage being legal - and it has to be one of the two!'; it's a ruling that will extend the legal rights and protections associated with marriage to same-sex couples who, after all, pay the same taxes as straight citizens yet currently enjoy fewer protections under law. By attempting to use their religious beliefs to determine the definition of a legal concept (because the Supreme Court is determining the definition of marriage as it is accepted by law, not gods) they are forcing their beliefs on non-Mormons which is wrong. What's also hypocritical is that one of their arguments (however flawed it may be) is that the Government has no right to interfere in the running of religious institutes - but the amicus brief filers (as religious organisations) are more than happy to meddle in the Governance of the country. Separation of church & state goes two ways, I'm afraid.
How would you like it if there was a law stating that every citizen had to make sacrifices to Juno & Jupiter during a wedding ceremony regardless of whether they believed in them or not? That would be unfair to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, atheists etc. Currently, the Mormon Church is doing its best to ensure gay taxpayers have access to fewer legal rights than straight taxpayers but, presumably, they'll be happy for gay taxpayers to keep funding police protection around Mormon buildings in Salt Lake City like the temple. That's a touch hypocritical, is it not? Even more so in light of the fact that the LDS Church is an organisation that doesn't. Pay. Taxes!!
That's something else that gets me about this; organisations that don't pay taxes expect to have a say on how taxpayers live their lives. That is morally and ethically wrong.
Over to you for a response.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I am very sorry, but do you realise what you are actually admitting to here, the fallacy of "Quote Mining" You have made a statement, which one assumes you are knowledgeable on, and then when you are called on it you admit that you will have to search the internet to find a quote that fits your statement. Within the debating circuit that is frowned upon as you are making a statement in the hope that there exists evidence, on the Internet, no less, to prove it, or at least to "best fit" it. It suggests that you are saying it to win an argument in the hope that nobody asked you to substantiate your claim. It is dishonest. Coupled with this you use a straw man argument of marriage outside of the Christian belief. You are desperately trying to make a connection, but where is it. What would be the point of debate?
I made a statement within the context of Christianity stating that within that context Adam and Eve were the first to enter into marriage. You then made a statement that it existed prior to that. The statement was unnecessary and unrelated to the marriage of God fearing folk. You were using a straw man argument.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
It doesn't bode well for you if you don't actually know what quote mining is.
Let me educate you on it. Its where people (generally creationists) go through and scour large amounts of texts on a given subject so they can find something they can take out of context that sounds like it supports their idea or is evidence against a claim. What I have done is be hesitant on how much effort I want to go through to prove that marriage specifically existed. That will take a lot of digging. I don't have that at the tips of my fingers.
I provided you with a good example already of the fact that marriage existed in Native American tribes that have been separate from the rest of the world with no contact for twice as long as YEC believe the world to be. They have marriage.
If you want to talk only in the context of Christianity you must first provide evidence that Christianity is factual in its accounts rather than just symbolic or metaphorical.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
And what have you done that differs from this. You have made a baseless statement. When I called you on it you said, words to the effect of "well, before I go and look for an answer on the Internet, let's see how serious you are about getting an answer". If I did not call you on it you would have just let your unfounded statement go and people reading may have taken a misquote as an actuality, that is dishonest. I never say anything that I am not able to support with evidence that I have previously read. Even if I have to research it before answering. Anything else is unethical.
If that is true then please provide evidence that corroborates your claim. I would be more then happy to read it.
Well, no, I do not. I am in the general religious section of the forum. The title of the thread is Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage. The Mormon Church is a Christian religious organisation who is using its own beliefs to judge the secular world with. The problem with gay marriage does not exist outside of Christianity. So, all in all, this thread revolves around the Christian values pertaining to marriage. You seem to be the only one claiming that marriage existed prior to Adam and Eve. It is a mote point. It means nothing to the debate. It is marriage, according to the Christian Mormon Church that is being debated.
You seem to be eager to have a go at the beliefs of YECs, probably because they are easy prey, however, I believe that the earth is getting on for 4 billion years old so no points to be had there, i'm afraid. I believe that there was an undetermined length of time between the creation and introduction of our particular species, created by God.
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
If I changed the standard of marriage, I predict precisely nothing would happen.
*Raises hand sheepishly*
Yeah, hi. As someone who comes from a religion which does not consider the Bible as the only true word of God (though does hold it in high reverence) can I get a say in "religious marriage" and how it applies to me and my family? Or do I need to ask your definition of God for that permission?
Are my parents not married now because neither follows the Bible? Does not my Temple get to decide on the holiness of certain marriages it performs according to it's traditions and beliefs about God or does it need to ask your definition of God for that permission?
Such claims may bode well for your specific congregation, provided it's united in it's beliefs on the subject, but perhaps is a tad arrogant to presume to speak for members of other religions, believers or atheists.
Last edited:
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
I might very well say the same thing to you, but I would like to think that I am better then that.
The question as to whether these gods exist, or not, is now imperitive here. You have used them as a point of contradictory to my post, therefore, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate it, the alternative is to retract your statement on them.
Sadly, that is not entirely true. There are many, who failed the refiners fire, who, sadly, have become churlishly petulant and embittered by their failure in living the higher moral lifestyle. I believe that it might have been Oliver Cowdrey who said that whenever a member of the church cannot live their lives, within gospel principles, rarely will they walk away quietly. They usually leave the faith kicking and screaming, shouting liar, liar. That is true of most faiths, and those who could not make the grade are the most denigrating and venomous to Christianity.
That might be true if they wanted their definition of marriage to apply objectively, however, the leaders of that church are not fools. Most are highly educated and successful people, in their own rights. That would suggest that something, that is clearly subjective in nature, cannot be portrayed as objective in reality. They are inexcusably bias to their belief, making their righteous desires, for all human being, subjective. Scrutiny of the metaphysical is almost impossible.
Why must they?
Why must they?
That is your opinion or belief. I do not share it with you.
Well, as far as I can assertian, the Mormons are not objective over their religious beliefs, and never have been. Maybe if I define subjective and objective for you then you will be able to see why they are not objective.
Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.
The Mormon faith, and all of christianity for that matter, is far from being unbiased. There is nothing factual about their beliefs either, however, their belief is coloured by their faith. No, christianity is not objective in its beliefs.
I do not, and I see nobody suggesting that their claim is objective, other then yourself, therefore, no proof is required, or necessary.
I was not there when Adam and Eve were introduced to the earth. I do believe though that when they were created they had bodies of perfection, enabling them to walk and talk with God. Quite how a perfected body is created and just what elements are used is beyond my comprehension, however, you seem to possess that knowledge when you claim that they were genetically identical. Maybe you could divulge one of God's mysteries to all of us? I have no scientific knowledge as to what the Master Scientist did to introduce human life to this planet. I do think that you are being a tad presumptuous by suggesting that they were genetically identical when we have no genetic profile of either of them after the fall.
As a individualist, the beliefs of organised religions do not concern me. I think that all established religions are based on mans interpretations of Gods words, and are not sanctioned by God, so I have no interest in mans interpretation of scriptures. I see the depiction of the garden of Eden as a parable that simplifies the actual events, that are beyond our comprehension, right now.
It is not possible to tangibly prove the existence of a metaphysical God, however, they claim to go a little further then proof of his existence. They make a firm promise to all those who are interested in finding out for themselves.
James 1:5-6
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
Moroni 10:3-5
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.[/QUOTE]
How do you realistically suggest that they do that.
4,300 denominations, worldwide, think that it was their God as well, yet it is a general consensus that christian marriage, for those who call themselves Christian's, originated from the Christian God. It is not rocket science.
If I won the lottery the first thing that I would want to do is share it with my family. The same principle applies with the Mormon Church. They believe they have something special and want to share. You make a caring and loving act appeared sullied and contaminated with the evils of Satan. You also bare false witness by suggesting that it is forced upon the unsuspecting public. It most certainly is not, however, thankfully, your claim can readily be dismissed by a simple research into what the missionary training centres teach the missionaries. I think that you are showing your embittered resentment of the church that could not keep you.
Maybe you could show us where they are officially collaborating with a oppressive organisation. Or is this another indicator of failure to comply with their strict moral code? Sorry, but that paragraph is saturated with anger and hatred.
The tuquoque fallacy is an informal fallacy. It is also your opinion, that is, the opinion of an embittered failed Mormon. I expect no different.
Well, Hell Yes, otherwise i wouldn't say it. It can be found on every religious forum you visit, high profile anti theist scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins, openly call for the removal of religion from public life, government MPs, who are predominantly atheist, have taken religion out of our schools, former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, has condemned discrimination suffered by Christians at work and said that British society is becoming increasingly "illiterate" about religious faith. But I have no need to prove this. Anyone who is a christians would testify to it. The internet is full of evidences that prove this. That you even ask the question at all surprises me.
If you think i am kidding then you are not thinking it through. Sadly, to answer that would take the thread completely off topic, however, it should only take the astute of mind a modicum of deductive reasoning to work it out. Food for thought, billions are spent on care in our hospitals as a direct result of anal sex.
You would first have to objectively prove that homosexuals are solely created, as opposed to partially nurtured, before making such an obtuse and fallacious statement
It is so disconcerting to see someone speaking as though their opponent is intellectually challenged and then proceed to talk utter drivel themselves. It is rude and unnecessary, however, it is indicative of the forum that you have come from.
I disagree
Again, you are showing your disdain for the Mormon Church. What else do you expect them to use other then their religious beliefs. They are a religious organisation. Come on.
But your definition is way off kilter. If the secular world want to interfere in my beliefs, then I have no problems with that, and niether do the Mormons. It is when the secular world interferes in the administration of the religious organisation that the line must be drawn. Mormons are not interfering with the workings of the government, they are acting within their constitutional right to influence any decisions made, they are not asking to make the decision. Your dislike of Mormons is all to apparent when you write nonsense like this.
Religions do not pay taxes. If they were legally bound to pay taxes then they would. You are punishing the slave rather then the slave driver. If you disagree with the Mormons being exempt from paying taxes then petition the appropriate government representative. It is the law of your country. It is also a mote point to make. But hey, you fail to mention the millions that they do provide for world disasters and famine, amongst hundreds of charity organisations that they own and support. You point out the insignificant negatives, yet fail to show the many, many positives. That is what I would call unethical.
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
My original response was a lot longer than this but RF was preventing me from posting (I presume due to the length of the post).
Nope. As I've already said the gods in question don't need to objectively exist for my point to be salient. The mere fact that non-Judaic societies conceived of anything (let alone gods) associated with the concept of marriage shows that marriage did not originate from the Jews or the Abrahamic god.
It's extremely ironic that you bring up Oliver Cowdery of all people considering he left the LDS Church in 1838 because Smith was enacting policies that Cowdery and his allies felt violated the separation of church and state - the very same thing they're trying to do here.
Because that's how the legal system works; and because the Mormon leadership are trying to insist that their definition of marriage must apply objectively to all based on claims they make regarding the nature of deity and existence. People who don't follow their theology need to convinced via hard evidence before they'll accept it. Just like if you're presenting a case in a trial; you make a statement and you present evidence to back it up. If you have no evidence then the statement is disregarded.
Genesis is at least the Christian equivalent of part of the Pentateuch e.g. the first five books of the Tanakh - the main body of Jewish scriptures as any Jew here will undoubtedly confirm.
They're trying to demand their beliefs be considered objective about them via this amicus brief.
So you agree with me that the LDS' (and others') attempts to monopolise the legal definition of marriage are wrong?
How do I realistically suggest the LDS Church prove the Garden of Eden really existed? I don't. The onus of proof in this regard rests entirely with them and their allies. It's their problem and I don't have to lift a finger to tell them how to solve it.
Yawn, argument from numbers fallacy.
Care to explain how segregation and denying people access to the same legal protections you have is a caring and loving act?
I don't think the public are unsuspecting; this is one of the biggest legal issues of the times. And no, I'm not bearing false witness at all; the amicus brief filers are attempting to force their definition of marriage on people who follow neither their particular denomination or Christianity in general. E.g. a same-sex couple who are atheists who want to get married in a civil ceremony can't because Christians have insisted their definition of marriage alone is the lawful one. That is forcing your beliefs on someone.
That statement would only make sense if I wanted to remain Mormon. And since you are not a telepath I can just laugh at your attempts to presume what I'm thinking as such presumptions are arrogant. Arrogance (more commonly known as pride) is a sin, by the way.
Here you go: a website which lists both the Mormon Church and numerous Catholic organisations (which run under the aegis of the Catholic Church - an organisation with a history of suppressing dissenting voices and covering up disgusting crimes - hence an oppressive organisation) acting as amici for the respondents (e.g. those who claim same-sex marriage bans are constitutional).
Constitutional Law Prof Blog
First bit: Scientists are stating their opinions; not instigating legal opinions to force those opinions on others. So that doesn't count. Second bit is an example of the secularism I mentioned. Schools are for teaching our children facts; not inculcating them with religious dogma. That doesn't count. Third bit: oh look, a high-ranking Christian cleric bemoaning his church's loss of influence over a society that is now majority not-Christian. What a ****ing shocking. Discounted.
I'm not questioning whether these events actually happened; rather I was wondering whether they're examples of your hyperbolic claim of "Atheist try and influence governments to abolish christianity from everything outside of the home all of the time."
Yeah, see... I really need you to some numbers to that sentiment and provide me with sources? Because I'm rather sceptical that your claims are anything other than wilful hyperbole at this point. And if you try and wriggle out of it by telling me to go find the information I'll assume you're telling porkies because as the person making the claim, the onus is on you to back it up.
All the gay people who have ever emerged in completely homophobic environments. You're welcome.
I know but I forgive you. Just don't let it happen again, okay?
I expect them to use independently verifiable facts like everyone else.
My definition of what was way off kilter? I'm not asking out of intent to be argumentative; I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.
Nobody's beliefs are being interfered with here; it is the legal definition, not the religious definition of marriage which is being examined. And no, religious organisations are not being interfered with. As I've said previously this is not an ' either straight or gay marriage is legal' question. No straight marriages will be rendered illegal or null if gay people are allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. The loss of value of a straight person's marriage because gay people can get married occurs entirely in that straight person's mind. No religious groups will be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they state it is against their beliefs. As per your third sentence (underlined): their constitutional right to influence lawmaking ends the moment they start using their religious beliefs, tenets and theology as justification for that attempt at influence. Basing legal definitions of a concept on religious claims is unconstitutional; it is a violation of the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause. Regarding your last sentence: that's bull****. As I've already stated some of my closest family are Mormons and there are still people from the church I went to I'd consider friends. I dislike the religious organisation and for valid reasons; this amicus brief being the latest.
The fact that a religious organisation engages in positive acts does not excuse or diminish the negative nature of other acts it engages in. Anyone who says it is so is merely apologising for those negative acts. That is unethical. Do you think it's ethical to simply dismiss the Catholic Church's history and deliberate cover up of clerical child abuse 'because of all the charity work they do'?
Nope. As I've already said the gods in question don't need to objectively exist for my point to be salient. The mere fact that non-Judaic societies conceived of anything (let alone gods) associated with the concept of marriage shows that marriage did not originate from the Jews or the Abrahamic god.
It's extremely ironic that you bring up Oliver Cowdery of all people considering he left the LDS Church in 1838 because Smith was enacting policies that Cowdery and his allies felt violated the separation of church and state - the very same thing they're trying to do here.
Because that's how the legal system works; and because the Mormon leadership are trying to insist that their definition of marriage must apply objectively to all based on claims they make regarding the nature of deity and existence. People who don't follow their theology need to convinced via hard evidence before they'll accept it. Just like if you're presenting a case in a trial; you make a statement and you present evidence to back it up. If you have no evidence then the statement is disregarded.
Genesis is at least the Christian equivalent of part of the Pentateuch e.g. the first five books of the Tanakh - the main body of Jewish scriptures as any Jew here will undoubtedly confirm.
They're trying to demand their beliefs be considered objective about them via this amicus brief.
So you agree with me that the LDS' (and others') attempts to monopolise the legal definition of marriage are wrong?
How do I realistically suggest the LDS Church prove the Garden of Eden really existed? I don't. The onus of proof in this regard rests entirely with them and their allies. It's their problem and I don't have to lift a finger to tell them how to solve it.
Yawn, argument from numbers fallacy.
Care to explain how segregation and denying people access to the same legal protections you have is a caring and loving act?
I don't think the public are unsuspecting; this is one of the biggest legal issues of the times. And no, I'm not bearing false witness at all; the amicus brief filers are attempting to force their definition of marriage on people who follow neither their particular denomination or Christianity in general. E.g. a same-sex couple who are atheists who want to get married in a civil ceremony can't because Christians have insisted their definition of marriage alone is the lawful one. That is forcing your beliefs on someone.
That statement would only make sense if I wanted to remain Mormon. And since you are not a telepath I can just laugh at your attempts to presume what I'm thinking as such presumptions are arrogant. Arrogance (more commonly known as pride) is a sin, by the way.
Here you go: a website which lists both the Mormon Church and numerous Catholic organisations (which run under the aegis of the Catholic Church - an organisation with a history of suppressing dissenting voices and covering up disgusting crimes - hence an oppressive organisation) acting as amici for the respondents (e.g. those who claim same-sex marriage bans are constitutional).
Constitutional Law Prof Blog
First bit: Scientists are stating their opinions; not instigating legal opinions to force those opinions on others. So that doesn't count. Second bit is an example of the secularism I mentioned. Schools are for teaching our children facts; not inculcating them with religious dogma. That doesn't count. Third bit: oh look, a high-ranking Christian cleric bemoaning his church's loss of influence over a society that is now majority not-Christian. What a ****ing shocking. Discounted.
I'm not questioning whether these events actually happened; rather I was wondering whether they're examples of your hyperbolic claim of "Atheist try and influence governments to abolish christianity from everything outside of the home all of the time."
Yeah, see... I really need you to some numbers to that sentiment and provide me with sources? Because I'm rather sceptical that your claims are anything other than wilful hyperbole at this point. And if you try and wriggle out of it by telling me to go find the information I'll assume you're telling porkies because as the person making the claim, the onus is on you to back it up.
All the gay people who have ever emerged in completely homophobic environments. You're welcome.
I know but I forgive you. Just don't let it happen again, okay?
I expect them to use independently verifiable facts like everyone else.
My definition of what was way off kilter? I'm not asking out of intent to be argumentative; I genuinely don't know what you're referring to.
Nobody's beliefs are being interfered with here; it is the legal definition, not the religious definition of marriage which is being examined. And no, religious organisations are not being interfered with. As I've said previously this is not an ' either straight or gay marriage is legal' question. No straight marriages will be rendered illegal or null if gay people are allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. The loss of value of a straight person's marriage because gay people can get married occurs entirely in that straight person's mind. No religious groups will be forced to perform same-sex marriages if they state it is against their beliefs. As per your third sentence (underlined): their constitutional right to influence lawmaking ends the moment they start using their religious beliefs, tenets and theology as justification for that attempt at influence. Basing legal definitions of a concept on religious claims is unconstitutional; it is a violation of the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause. Regarding your last sentence: that's bull****. As I've already stated some of my closest family are Mormons and there are still people from the church I went to I'd consider friends. I dislike the religious organisation and for valid reasons; this amicus brief being the latest.
The fact that a religious organisation engages in positive acts does not excuse or diminish the negative nature of other acts it engages in. Anyone who says it is so is merely apologising for those negative acts. That is unethical. Do you think it's ethical to simply dismiss the Catholic Church's history and deliberate cover up of clerical child abuse 'because of all the charity work they do'?
JayJayDee
Avid JW Bible Student
Marriage is God's arrangement. Regardless of a person's religious persuasion, it is the uniting of a man and woman in a legally binding arrangement, usually recorded for legal reasons. When marriages break up, the law is often the agency used to determine property rights, custody of children, etc.
In all cultures marriage has for the most part been a religious ceremonial joining of two people in an arrangement that is conducive for raising a family.
God recognises legal marriage regardless of the religious nature of the ceremony involved or the status of the person who joined them.
What God does not recognise is same sex marriage. That isn't a Biblical view of marriage......it can be called anything else and people can form whatever partnerships they wish, but God will never compromise on his own standards in this.
It is not arrogant of God to demand that his worshippers stick to his clearly stated standards. Those who are not his worshippers can do whatever they wish.
So, you agree that from a legal perspective the land can define marriage however it wishes? Awesome.
Many cultures had ceremonies with same sex couples. The Navajo Indians, for example, recognized same sex unions for centuries and treated them as spiritually better than opposite sex unions. Some may still do.
Also in many cultures (Christendom included) marriage was more about owning property and ensuring an heir to keep wealth in the family than it was about the modern concept of marriage. Some cultures didn't even care what sexual activities a person engaged in after they had an heir.
So is that still pleasing to God? Treating marriage as some mechanical duty to perform and then not give a damn about it afterwards?
I mean hey, at least it wasn't two people of the same gender in a committed relationship, amirite?
Again, you're speaking from a strictly Biblical Standpoint because that is your central religious book. And that's perfectly fine. For YOU.
Your congregation can define marriage however you wish in your Holy House of God according to your own beliefs, your chosen Holy Book and interpretation of God. But don't presume to interpret marriage, God's standards for believers, religious ceremonies and their importance for other people. That's sheer arrogance.
And keep in mind that some polytheists and pluralists in other religions don't see any difference between "your" God and ours, except for the name people use.
Other religions have their own scriptures and standards when speaking of marriage. In Hinduism for example (generally speaking, of course, I can't speak for all or a majority of Hindus) marriage represents the combining of two halves of one whole, with the belief that marriage is a ceremony that represents the uniting of two deities into one complete being, with a high taboo placed on divorce and the belief that when married one has to fulfill their Karma and Dhama (er.....roughly "duty" or "responsibility") in accordance to the relationship and not only themselves. The traditionalists usually focus on male and female relationships only. However, some believe that the Atman (or "soul") doesn't have a gender or sex since it is above such worldly matters. And since the thought of homosexuality in the various scriptures is oftem more......ambiguous with regards to homosexuality an argument can be made that the uniting of two souls outrank the need for the people to be a male and a female.
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
It maybe because you are relatively new here. I have posted some pretty long post, however, I have never been restricted, as of yet. But it is not quantity but quality that counts.
You have stated that marriage existed prior to Adam and Eve. You have site mystical gods as your source of reference. I am unconcerned as to whether marriage existed outside of the Christian faith, however, you are making the statement, I am just asking for ratification. Without that ratification your point holds no water, which is fine as the point is inconsequential anyway.
As far as I am concerned, the standard of Holy Matrimony was set by God when he instigated the union of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. What the Jews did or didn't do is picayune to my belief system. The Christian act of marriage, in my opinion, was inaugurate by the Abrahamic God.
I am aware of that, and if I thought that it would negatively influence what I was saying, then I wouldn't have said it. I quoted him as his words were pertinent to my point.
Let just make this clear for anybody reading this. The appeal to the Supreme Court was not just made by the Mormon Church. It was made along with the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the National Associate of Evangelicals, the Free Methodist Church – USA and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, all that the Mormon Church did was to file the amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to uphold traditional marriage. That is to continue heterosexual marriage as defined by the word marriage, which is currently define as the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman. Also, the Utah Attorney General’s Office last week submitted a similar brief to the Supreme Court, asking it to ban same-sex marriage.
Why do they want to ban same sex marriage? Because they consider that the traditional institution of marriage is indispensable to the welfare of the American family and society. They are also united in their belief that a decision requiring the States to license or recognize same-sex marriage would generate church-state conflicts that will imperil vital religious liberties. This brief is submitted out of their firm judgment that the Constitution does not require States to take that fateful step.” they are perfectly within their rights to make an amicus brief in the form that they have made it. The institution of marriage has, for centuries, been defined as the Holy union of man and woman, that is until anti-theists decided that it is time to get rid of moral accountability and introduce unbridled promiscuity. By including same sex union would require a change in the definition of the word "marriage". The religious ramifications are extensive causing religious organisation to object. I honestly do not blame them. Them simple way out of it is to call the union of same sex partners something other then "marriage", but that would be too easy for people who just want to rock the boat.
No, it is not the Mormons definition of marriage, it has been the world's definition of marriage, up until homosexuals began to abuse the human rights act.
The evidence is in our literature, throughout all languages, and can be found in our dictionaries and encyclopedia, pre the gay rights movement that has drastically reduced moral accountability.
Ok
The amicus brief is 100% correct in its context. According to the Mormon Church the definition of marriage is the Holy Matrimony of a man and a woman. That definition does not include same sex unions. That required another name to define it. Just common sense really.
Not at all. I believe that a new label should be made to fit the new garment.
It is not a problem for them, you either believe it or you don't.
There is no onus of proof, or i should say, they have no intentions of proving it to you, lump it or like it
No it is not as I am not using numbers to prove a point, which would then be argumentum ad populum. I did not even have to use numbers to make my point.
The need to include the word "Yawn" does you no favours
Care to explain what you mean.
Before proceeding, can I just give you a little advice. Picking up on spelling mistakes, or, in this case, the ommission of the letter 'e' in a typo, is considered as trollish here as most poster recognise that we all make spelling mistakes and grammatical errors so pointing them out is unnecessarily demeaning and provocative. It comes from the other forum that you frequent where it's effects are frequently demonstrated. This is a debating forum not an English lesson.
I do feel that the public are unsuspecting. It is not common knowledge in the UK, or, at least Wales.
No, Mormons believe that marriage is a lawful covenant, or contract, between a man and a woman, that makes them husband and wife. Secondly, they believe that God ordained marriage. Straight from their Web page. That definition is synonymous with all of christianity. It is general terminology that defines marriage, both in the secular world and in christian belief, it transcends both.The definition is not owned by the LDS Church, niether do they claim it, therefore, to force it on non-believers would be nonsensical. Which makes your statement completely untenable.
Au contraire mon ami, that is not true. I said, "I think that you are showing your embittered resentment of the church that could not keep you." The resentment is not dependant on your desire to stay, but your inability to stay.
Do you realise that this link leads to a Guide to the Amicus Briefs in Obergefell v. Hodges: The Same-Sex Marriage Cases. I would hardly call this a collaboration, or suggest that they are cohorts. I would hardly call the Catholic Church an oppressive organisation. Yes, it is true that their members have acted badly, however, that is their members and not their theology. By your logic, all of the 4,300 churches would be sworn enemies. They are not. Because they were yesterday does not mean that they are today. But you are tainting the whole organisation with the acts of but a few. Some pagon like to run around a fire naked and have orgy's, does that mean that all pagon's do the same thing.
Then you have not witnessed their aggressive attitudes against anything Holy on our television screens. They use their scientific knowledge to discredit theology. They do it forcefully and arrogantly, and because of who they are, people listen.
And religious education is based on fact. The entire history and diversity along with its beliefs and practices are an education. It also teaches moral accountability that promotes a wholesome society for us to live in. How can that not count when the lack thereof is causing civil unrest?
That lack of influence has resulted in the biggest decline in moral values that our society has ever witnessed. Do you suggest we celebrate that? You are also appealing to argumentum ad populum by suggesting that a lack in numbers must mean a lack in truth.
My claim is sound. Maybe I should have said anti-theists rather then atheists as a genuine atheist would not be arguing the point, that is left to the angry and aggressive atheists who enjoys the fight rather then the desire to comprehend.
Another time, another thread.
What exactly am I welcome to, you haven't said anything. All I see is your opinion, that is bias.
For what?
For what?
They are synonymous
I am fully aware of this
They are using their constitutional and legal right to put forward their objection. If that were not the case then the Supreme Court would not be considering their brief in their ruling.
It is all to obvious that your brief spell as a Mormon has been a disaster that has tainted your opinion of that organisation. I left that organisation with thanks and a degree of relief. I am not embittered by my failure to fulfill their high standards of morality, but it certainly appears that you are when considering the degree to which you are allowing it to obscure your judgement. They are acting within the confines of the law, yet you are indicting them with wrong doings in order to bring disrepute upon them. Again, this is unethical.
You were painting them in a bad light, for not paying taxes that they are legally not required to do. You were intentionally vilifying them by using false ethics for not paying their taxes. I merely said that the reader should be aware that the religious organisation, that you so blatantly denigrate, massively contribute to charities for the world's most desperate communities and are usually first on the scene when world natural disasters occur. I said that to overt your pointed fingure berating them of dishonestly omitting to pay their taxes, thus showing their impeccable integrity that would suggest that to purposely refuse to pay their taxes is not something that they would do. Without them I wonder were we would be?
It is never right to forget our history. It is there for us to learn from the mistakes we made, however, we should never castigate the current generation for the acts of previous generations, which you are asking us to do. All that does is encourage resentment and antipathy. It is expected of us to forgive the transgressor of their sins, it is not expected of us to judge them. Maybe this is an area that caused you problems as a Mormon.
Last edited:
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Because it obviously wasn't quote mining. You're just lashing out and attempting to attach some kind of fallacy that you don't even understand to try and undermine me before we even begin debate.
Study: Native Americans came to the New World in three waves – USATODAY.com
Easy pull from the first page of google.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that you can simply talk from a religious point of view as if it was the factual point of view without supporting evidence just because we are in the religious debate forum. It doesn't matter what the title of the thread is. The only time that would matter is if the title entertained some sort of benefit of doubt to argue a specific point.
And there are other cultures who have problems with Homosexuality. Islam is a big one for example. So no it isn't purely a Christian problem.
The debate here is if our "marriage" in America has any real ties to Christian Marriage. Or is it secular?
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You made a baseless statement without telling the forum that it was unfounded by at least saying IMO. When I called you on it you admitted that you had to look for evidence to substantiate your claim. In other words, you went mining for quotes on the Internet. You went looking for best fit quotes to substantiate your claim. The reverse of quote mining, however, still mining for quotes.
This is what you easily pulled from the first page of google. "Native Americans streamed into the New World in at least three waves of migration starting more than 15,000 years ago, a gene study released Wednesday suggests. DNA cannot tell exactly when the migrations occurred. ("Genes don't come with time stamps," Reich says)." the most important part of your link is what it doesn't say rather then what it does say. It doesn't mention marriage anywhere within the article. As your statement states that there was marriage pre Adam and Eve then you have not provided anything to corroborate that. I would have at least expected a time in which you considered that Adam and Eve were introduced to the earth so that you could say that their was known life prior to that. You haven't. Even if their were three waves, with the first dating to 15,000 years ago, which is not an absolute yet, it may still not predate Adam and Eve. The article certainly does not substantiate you claim of marriage before Adam and Eve though.
I have never claimed that my religious beliefs are factual to anybody else but me. The existence of marriage in scripture is factual though. It is written there for everyone to either believe or disbelieve. When, and even if, it took place, nobody can say for a certainty, no more so then we can say that macroevolution is a fact. Both are theories that are equally as likely, in my opinion.
This debate is not about there being problems with Homosexuality, it is about defining the word "marriage", both secularly and within Christianity, and if it should be applied to same sex unions. Islam have no problems with Homosexuality as if you are a gay then you are not a Muslim, and the world says nothing. Christians do the same thing and there is all of this uproar. The ethics of same sex marriage is not on this agenda, although their is objections to be debated, just not here.
Exactly right, and we shall know the Supreme courts decision in June, I believe. But the right to file an amicus brief is niether unscrupulous or unethical, which many here are trying to portray, for one reason or another. It is the constitutional legal right of those who have filed it.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
No. I didn't make a baseless statement. I made a statement that is believed to be true but finding the exact evidences will take some time to dig up. A quote mine is if I quoted someone out of context or took a multitude of quotes out of context in order to give a misleading illusion that they supported my case. I haven't done that.
The evidence points that the most recent migration happened at latest 15,000 years ago. A litteralist interpretation of the bible states the earth is only about 6k years old. It seems pretty efficient to say that a litteralist interpretation of the bible is false already at this point.
If you believe Adam and Eve were real but existed prior to that then we can hash out why that is a bunch of nonsense. But the key evidence is that when the settlers came to North America the native Americans who branched off away from the rest of the known world at least 15,000 years ago had concepts of marriage. If marriage was invented only ever by god 6k years ago then how would they have known about it?
I can say with certanty that the bible is not scientifically accurate and I will move forward with my life as if the rest is also inaccurate. Macroevolution is scientific fact.
How could the courts rule that marriage as recognized by the state is a religious when they cannot, by our bill of rights, define which religion?
Serenity7855
Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
You made a statement, without readily having corroboratory evidence to prove it. You cannot escape that as it is a matter of public record, right here. "Evidence? I mean we have very specific evidence that marriage existed prior to when the bible stated the Earth was made..... I don't think you can destroy the argument of biblical marriage any further than that." When I asked you for evidence, because I genuinely wanted to know as I was pretty sure that the bible does not give any time line, you said, that if I am serious, you will search the internet for evidence. I could have done that myself. I assumed that as you made the statement, with an aire of authority, that you would immediately post back the evidence. You couldn't because your statement was no more then inaccurate speculation and I was correct in my belief that the bible does not tell us when Adam and Eve arrived here, however, you were intending to search the internet in the hope that you would find evidence to fit your claim. You were offering to go mining for a quote. As of yet you have still not provided evidence of marriage existing before Adam and Eve existed, which is demonstrable that it didn't, unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.
Well, no, that is the theory of the geneticists who are studying the history of native Americans. As they have stated, there is no time stamp on genes so they are theorising that it might be 15,000.
If you search the internet, by asking how old the earth is, the top of the first page says "Of course, the Bible doesn't say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn't; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn't expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake." I am not getting into how old the earth is, as it is my firm belief that it is around 3.7 billion years old, and the bible does not say otherwise. That effectively means that I am saying that the literalist interpretation is grossly inaccurate. The bible was never intended to be a history book, it is a book of commandments intended to bring the individual closer to God by following its precepts and principles. The New Testament is not even chronologically correct. What I can say, with conviction, is that the human life form, that is you and I, did not exist on this planet prior to Adam and Eve, or whoever, whatever, you want to call them. That means that Holy Matrimony did not exist until they began to exist. That gives every devout Christian the right to object over the changing of the word that defines marriage. Thus, the filing of the amicus brief by the Mormons. There is always two sides to a coin.
I do not know if Adam and Eve were literal beings, I do know that God created our species and set us upon the earth at a predetermined time in our history. Adam and Eve could just as likely be characters in a parable in order to make it more perspicuous to our understanding, as what really happened could not be concieveable to our primitive minds.
How have you determined that these early settlers had concepts of marriage. Nothing in the link that you have provided remotely suggests that. Even if that were true, which it could very well be, it does not mean that it was seperate and distinct to christian marriage. Maybe they got it from an the ancient American god-like image called Quetzalcoatl, or maybe it was handed down through Adam's lineage, either could be equally as true. Sadly, your belief that the earth is but 6,000 years old has lead you to mistakenly assume that these people existed before Adam instead of after Adam, as reality dictates.
I do not know what you mean by saying the bible is not scientifically accurate. I have never considered it to be scientific in any form. It is an instruction manual for a morally accountable lifestyle, that will help the reader gain entry into the Kingdom of God.
That you say that macroevolution is a fact only serves to demonstrate your ignorance to evolutionary science and the scientific method. Macroevolution can not be tested using the scientific method. The time required for transitions to occur is far to great to test and retest. For that reason it remains a theory. Regardless of how likely the theory may be, because it cannot be tested it remains a theory. Anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge should know that. That is why I used it as an example as both being likely but not an absolute fact.
The definition of religious marriage and secular marriage are the same, it just does not include same sex union, although the secularists are desperately trying to include it, they will have to find their own word to define, maybe "civil marriage" as it was in the UK. There is a difference so that difference should be reflected in the title.
Last edited:
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
It is in no way demonstrable that it didn't exist. That is a nonsensical statement. I argued that from the point of view of the bible that declares a specific Adam and Eve as their basis for marriage and a literal linage which can be tracked at roughly 6k years ago, is demonstrably false. And I have already demonstrated this.
You went on to attack my response by stating I was quote mining. which is funny because it doesn't seem that you even know what the hell you are talking about since I did nothing that even resembled quote mining. You could say you called me on evidence which I later provided to you but it still doesn't help your case.
If you don't believe in a literal Adam or Eve and that we evolved then at what time did god create marriage?
And the theory of the Native Americans are well substanciated and accepted as the current best timeline. If you have a problem with that then I suppose that is on you.
Then how do you know that god created marriage if not for the story of Adam and eve?
If you don't believe in a 6k year old earth then I would need to hear your evidence that marriage was created by god. You can't simply say "the bible" and then turn around to say the bible isn't literal.
I mean there are claims in the bible that are impossible scientifically. Unless everything is a metaphor.
I didn't state it was an absolute fact. I stated it was a scietnific fact. If you claim otherwise I have suspicions that you are the ignorant one here. So far you have provided me with plenty of supporting evidence of this hypothesis.
False. In the united states for example there is to be no respect of an establishment of religion. How could the national institute of marriage be based upon a religion then? There should be no differences. If someone wants to get married in their own religious right then they can do that. But there should be no legal differences between a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
- Status