Prop H8 mostly upheld

[Sententia]

Religious beliefs should not be relevant on this issue since it concerns a civil matter, not a religious one.

Exactly. The argument is some people deserve civil rights because they are special in the eyes of the lord...

Some have hid behind... No no... Its because they can have kids... which is senseless in that many people won't or can't have kids so those couples are ok but others cant...

Its pure intolerance... They want to refuse rights based on what they deem proper thus violating equality.

Personally I think this issue keeps coming up... Slavery, Women, Rights to vote, Gay Marriage etc etc.... Freedom of religion INCLUDES freedom from religion and no religion or collection of religions should be endowed with the power to grant civil rights. The United States of America is a secular nation and should be governed as such.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Your church also does not spend the money to pass laws preventing them either, but spent how much again on Prop 8?

All over this alleged 'sanctity' of marriage?
Why is divorce allowed to crap all over this alleged 'sanctity'?
Why are children being born out of wedlock allowed to crap all over this alleged 'sanctity'?
Your church makes a much bigger to do over two informed consenting adults entering into a legal contract than they do over abortion.

So what does that tell us about which they think is worse?

Our church considers divorce to be a legitimate thing (perhaps I should remind you we don't only rely on biblical justification) though it works with struggling couples by providing counseling for free to try and save any marriages it can. We would see no doctrinal justification for even banning members from divorcing, never mind working to prevent divorces outside of church.

I don't really see how being born out of wedlock defies the sanctity of marriage, that is more an issue of chastity and in a way falling short of living within the doctrines surrounding marriage. My parents had my two older sisters outside of marriage, but that in no way reflects on how important the doctrine of marriage is to them.

I don't know what activity the church has done surrounding the abortion issue, so I can't really comment on relativity. However, for a member to even incite someone to get an abortion is grounds for excommunication. I daresay the topic is not considered lightly at all.

 

[McBell]

I daresay the topic is not considered lightly at all.

I flat out say that all the topics I mentioned are considered lightly when compared to their "consideration" of two informed consenting adults getting married.

then to claim some puffed up nonsense about some alleged sanctity of marriage.....


The hypocrisy is staggering.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

And the instant they did that, they lost the right to deny those rights to same sex couples.

I do not see how allowing the state to recognise and afford rights to a religious ceremony causes that ceremony to belong to the state.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I flat out say that all the topics I mentioned are considered lightly when compared to their "consideration" of two informed consenting adults getting married.

then to claim some puffed up nonsense about some alleged sanctity of marriage.....


The hypocrisy is staggering.

You flat out say, eh? Well then, feel free to ignore what I say.

 

[McBell]

I do not see how allowing the state to recognise and afford rights to a religious ceremony causes that ceremony to belong to the state.

the ceremony does not belong to the state.
The LEGAL CONTRACT does.

 

[Storm]

I do not see how allowing the state to recognise and afford rights to a religious ceremony causes that ceremony to belong to the state.

It ceased being a religious ceremony and became a legal contract.

 

[McBell]

You flat out say, eh?

Yes I do.
Aren't you paying any attention?

 

[Green Gaia]

I do not see how allowing the state to recognise and afford rights to a religious ceremony causes that ceremony to belong to the state.

The religious ceremony is not the issue or even important here, the civil, legal contract of marriage is the issue.

 

[McBell]

It ceased being a religious ceremony and became a legal contract.

I actually disagree.
The religious ceremony is now nothing more than fluff and glamour and window dressing used to dress up the legal contract.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Yes I do.
Aren't you paying any attention?

Yep.

You say my church is hypocritical. I tell you why it is not. Then you assert the church is hypocritical.

End of argument.

Fun times, on reflection.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

The religious ceremony is not the issue or even important here, the civil, legal contract of marriage is the issue.

I'm for gay marriage to clarify, or maybe universal civil unions (at the moment - I am known to flip-flop). I'm just here to antagonise the notion that my church is behaving hypocritically.

 

[Green Gaia]

Yep.

You say my church is hypocritical. I tell you why it is not. Then you assert the church is hypocritical.

End of argument.

Fun times, on reflection.

Can you explain why your church wants to force its idea of marriage on everyone and why your church thinks it has a right to do so in a civil matter?

 

[Storm]

I'm for gay marriage to clarify, or maybe universal civil unions (at the moment - I am known to flip-flop). I'm just here to antagonise the notion that my church is behaving hypocritically.

You claim to follow the teachings of Christ, yes? He clearly prohibited divorce, and said nothing about homosexuality. Yet you oppose same sex marriage, but not divorce. Hypocrisy.

 

[McBell]

Yep.

You say my church is hypocritical. I tell you why it is not. Then you assert the church is hypocritical.

End of argument.

Fun times, on reflection.

what argument?
I flat out state what is going on, you flat out ignored it.

Again, what argument?

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm for gay marriage to clarify, or maybe universal civil unions (at the moment - I am known to flip-flop). I'm just here to antagonise the notion that my church is behaving hypocritically.

OK, well I'm glad you're for gay marriage. I wouldn't say that your church is behaving hypocritically as long as it admits that it is against freedom and equality for all people.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Can you explain why your church wants to force its idea of marriage on everyone and why your church thinks it has a right to do so in a civil matter?

The church wants to cover its *** in the potential event that the universal use of marriage means it could be forced to choose between tax exempt status and marrying a gay couple. It's not sure which one it would rather do, so it would rather nip the problem in the bud. A little preemptive, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

No wait - To prevent the creation of a society that considers same sex couples an acceptable norm, which will send us all over the brink to chaos.

I don't really like what it is doing. However, I would call it ill conceived as opposed to hypocritical.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

You claim to follow the teachings of Christ, yes? He clearly prohibited divorce, and said nothing about homosexuality. Yet you oppose same sex marriage, but not divorce. Hypocrisy.

I'll repeat. LDS do not get all their moral guidance from the Bible. The doctrines on this matter have been clearly defined by modern day prophets. Hence my assertion there is no hypocrisy.

 

[Storm]

I'll repeat. LDS do not get all their moral guidance from the Bible. The doctrines on this matter have been clearly defined by modern day prophets. Hence my assertion there is no hypocrisy.

So, you ignore Christ when His teachings are inconvenient?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

So, you ignore Christ when His teachings are inconvenient?

We do not consider the Bible an infallible source for the teachings of Christ.