60 replies to this topic

[cdowis]

DH, on 28 May 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

The only official Church position I can think of that the Democratic Party does not agree with is same-sex marriage. I think the positions of both the Church and the Democratic Party on this matter have been clear for some time, so I don't see how Reid could be "increasingly finding his party on the opposite side," seeing as how it's old news.

OK, so SS marriage has been discussed over the past week, and Obama has made his position official, so I guess anything over one day is "old news".  Reid has made some modifications on his position, which was also recently reported.  But that is old news.

Quote

Earlier this week, the Senate’s majority leader said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. But Reid now says he would “follow my grandchildren and my children,” and vote to repeal Nevada’s constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages.

His family convinced him to modify his position and he decided to follow their lead.  BUT his lips proclaim his allegiance to the official position of the church.

Again, it is clear that he is finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile those conflicting views, and someday he will have to make a decision.

Edited by cdowis, 29 May 2012 - 08:36 AM.

[ERayR]

cdowis, on 29 May 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

Again, it is clear that he is finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile those conflicting views, and someday he will have to make a decision.

Old saying:  He who straddles fence gets sore crotch.

[Libs]

I just don't see a conflict in having a personal, religious view and yet supporting something else for the general public.  The reasoning being that not everyone holds my particular religious views, and in a free society, I don't expect them to.  That is not straddling a fence or being untrue to your own faith.  It is being true to yourself, while allowing others to be true to whatever it is they believe is right.  That is what democracy and a free society are all about, IMO.

Edited by Libs, 29 May 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[ERayR]

Libs, on 29 May 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I just don't see a conflict in having a personal, religious view and yet supporting something else for the general public.  The reasoning being that not everyone holds my particular religious views, and in a free society, I don't expect them to.  That is not straddling a fence or being untrue to your own faith.  It is being true to yourself, while allowing others to be true to whatever it is they believe is right.  That is what democracy and a free society are all about, IMO.

I think I understand what you are saying.  For me I am solid on what I see as basic doctrine.  The plan of salvation including the fall and atonement.  The saving ordinances and a life of service.  Where I differ is on the details of the how.  I am the same way with scientific premises also.  I think we are often too quick to pronounce dogma at the expense of overlooking and ignoring data that we do not understand or can not see where it fits.  There are some interesting possibilities left unexplored because it may conflict with what is popularly accepted.

Edited by ERayR, 29 May 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[DH]

cdowis, on 29 May 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

OK, so SS marriage has been discussed over the past week, and Obama has made his position official, so I guess anything over one day is "old news".  Reid has made some modifications on his position, which was also recently reported.  But that is old news.

Do you honestly expect me to believe you didn't know Democrats in general (not necessarily every individual Democrat, but Dems in general) have supported SSM for years? That Democrats support SSM is old news. That Harry Reid supports it is new news, but that isn't what the post was saying.

Edited by DH, 29 May 2012 - 11:45 AM.

[DH]

Libs, on 29 May 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I just don't see a conflict in having a personal, religious view and yet supporting something else for the general public.  The reasoning being that not everyone holds my particular religious views, and in a free society, I don't expect them to.  That is not straddling a fence or being untrue to your own faith.  It is being true to yourself, while allowing others to be true to whatever it is they believe is right.  That is what democracy and a free society are all about, IMO.

+1

One example is coffee. As an active Mormon, I don't drink coffee. But neither do I believe in outlawing it.

[cdowis]

Libs, on 29 May 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I just don't see a conflict in having a personal, religious view and yet supporting something else for the general public.  

I just cannot find adequate words to respond to your post.  Has the world really come to this?

You might start with Mosiah chapter 29.  There are several verses you might find of interest.

Quote

One example is coffee. As an active Mormon, I don't drink coffee. But neither do I believe in outlawing it.

OK, so voting on SS marriage is like voting on the consumption of coffee.   You got me convinced.

Edited by cdowis, 29 May 2012 - 03:21 PM.

[calmoriah]

I would not participate in adultery myself and view it as a sin, yet I do not believe it should be made illegal.

What is your view on this?

[Libs]

cdowis, on 29 May 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

I just cannot find adequate words to respond to your post.  Has the world really come to this?

You might start with Mosiah chapter 29.  There are several verses you might find of interest.



OK, so voting on SS marriage is like voting on the consumption of coffee.   You got me convinced.

Actually, it is exactly the same principle, in DH's example of coffee drinking.  Why do you believe it's different?  Do you believe that the United States should make it's laws based on LDS doctrine?

[cdowis]

calmoriah, on 29 May 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

I would not participate in adultery myself and view it as a sin, yet I do not believe it should be made illegal.

What is your view on this?

Adultery has been illegal in many states and I agree with this law.  But the problem would now be enforcement.  Sodomy was illegal until it was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Now a question for you ==  prostitution, should it be illegal?  Give it careful thought before answering.  You don't want to contradict yourself.

Edited by cdowis, 29 May 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[cdowis]

Libs, on 29 May 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Actually, it is exactly the same principle, in DH's example of coffee drinking.  Why do you believe it's different?  Do you believe that the United States should make it's laws based on LDS doctrine?

If you think SS marriage is in the same category ("exactly the same principle") as drinking coffee, we have no common ground for discussion.  We live on very different planets, and communication is garbled if not impossible.

But I will make an attempt but I have no interest in discussing this with you ==>  

I believe that certain laws controlling morality have a profound effect on the overall public good, that they are necessary.  For example, prostitution.

Edited by cdowis, 29 May 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[Darren10]

Mitt Romney's clinched the nomination with his victory in Texas today. So, may the free tacos commence. ; > )

[Darren10]

Libs, on 29 May 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Actually, it is exactly the same principle, in DH's example of coffee drinking.  Why do you believe it's different?  Do you believe that the United States should make it's laws based on LDS doctrine?

If I can jump in on this question for a bit. I think that the United States should base its laws on good, solid morality. Making laws, by its nature, means that certain moralities are considered and enforced upon the public. There is no better morality taught than that in the Judeo-Christian theology. We are very blessed as a nation to have had a Judeo-Christian foundation. Without which you and I would not have nearly as much freedom as we do right now and as we traditionally have had. The first colonies to have been successful which became part of the United States were not colonies established to gain the world's riches. All these colonies utterly failed in what is today the United States. The first American (United States) colonies established which succeeded were religious colonies. Namely, colonies set up with the idea of being free to worship. What a deeply blessed foundation to have. Not only is religious freedom perhaps the most pivotal freedom Americans enjoy today but more than any other group in world's history, Christians have shown the most perfect knowledge as to where freedom comes from. And that is God. It is god's will that man be free to choose how to best serve Him and all other freedoms hinge on that one blessing of religious liberty.

LDS morality stands side by side with the traditional Christian positions of morality. LDS standards are very high as it should since God's standards are very high. But, like freedom of religion, man should be free to choose the laws which govern its society. Banning coffee on a national level will perhaps never happen. Prohibition came and went after the people chose against it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a done deal. Would society be better off not drinking? Absolutely. Same goes for smoking. But, like alcohol, the people have chosen to keep tobacco legal and so it is with its legal regulations. As far as I'm concerned, you can take any LDS dcotrine and make it law so laong as it has the support of the people. And if they don't, then so be it. The people have spoken.

[Libs]

cdowis, on 29 May 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

If you think SS marriage is in the same category ("exactly the same principle") as drinking coffee, we have no common ground for discussion.  We live on very different planets, and communication is garbled if not impossible.

I don't believe it is in the same category, no, but it does involve the same basic principle...which is, at it's very base...man's agency.

Quote

But I will make an attempt but I have no interest in discussing this with you ==>

I'm sorry to hear that.  I mean no offense...but, I do have some very strong opinions on this subject (as you seem to have, as well).   I respect your right to your opinion, even though I may disagree with it.

Quote

I believe that certain laws controlling morality have a profound effect on the overall public good, that they are necessary.  For example, prostitution.

Yes, I understand.  A lot of people feel that way about moral issues...although, I think, in the last thirty-forty years, we have moved away from that to a large extent.  Since many morality issues vary and are, in large part, a matter of opinion, I think it is better that we leave those decisions to individuals and their own conscience.

Edited by Libs, 29 May 2012 - 10:40 PM.

[Libs]

Quote

As far as I'm concerned, you can take any LDS dcotrine and make it law so laong as it has the support of the people. And if they don't, then so be it. The people have spoken.

To some degree, this is true, unless it becomes a matter of constitutional rights, then the courts would step in (and they have done this numerous times).  But, it's a good thing, in that our rights and liberty are protected, even if we are in the minority.

Our laws should be based on the constitution, IMO, giving people as much freedom to choose, as we (practically) can.

Edited by Libs, 29 May 2012 - 10:57 PM.

[calmoriah]

cdowis, on 29 May 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

Now a question for you ==  prostitution, should it be illegal?  Give it careful thought before answering.  You don't want to contradict yourself.

You don't think there is something significantly different in receiving and paying money for sex and just participating in it because one desires it?

[Bob Crockett]

DH, on 29 May 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

Do you honestly expect me to believe you didn't know Democrats in general (not necessarily every individual Democrat, but Dems in general) have supported SSM for years? That Democrats support SSM is old news. That Harry Reid supports it is new news, but that isn't what the post was saying.

This is quite untrue.  Nowhere did it appear in the party's plank in the past.

Hillary went on record in her quest for the primary against it.

Obama went on record in his first campaign against it.  

Bill signed the DOMA.  I don't have the vote counts but Wiki said it passed both houses with large majorities.

Before about three years ago, there may have been a few scattered Dems but very few.

Having said that, there are plenty of Republicans who have seem to support SSM, at least those who claim to be libertarians.

From today's perspective, the issue divides the parties.  I'm sure that if you asked this question in the mid 90s when DOMA was passed, more Dems would have opposed DOMA than Republicans.  But to actually claim the issue is a recent innovation.

[Avatar4321]

Seeing some of the arguments on agency and endorsing LDS morality for public policy, I am reminded of a talk by Elder Oaks:

http://speeches.byu....der.php?id=6647

I encourage everyone to read it and apply the principles

[The Nehor]

ERayR, on 29 May 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Old saying:  He who straddles fence gets sore crotch.

Unless you take up planking.

[cdowis]

calmoriah, on 31 May 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

You don't think there is something significantly different in receiving and paying money for sex and just participating in it because one desires it?

Of course.....   and.....?

Why should payment make it illegal anymore than purchasing a pack of gum or a car wash.  We can require that they have a business license , if payment for services is the issue.

The issue is the protection of the institution of marriage and public morality.  But, as I said, we have no common ground for discussion.  We reside on different planets.

Edited by cdowis, 01 June 2012 - 02:15 PM.