Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Ssm Ruling: What To Expect Near Term


Recommended Posts

No the Church did not use religious reasons for establishing a definition of marriage.  And yes, it does matter why we want to legislate something.  If we are legislating something for the sole purpose of establishing or preserving a religious principle, then we are in fact establishing religion.  Both sides tried to avoid mentioning religion in their briefs, as the cases were argued for the most part upon equal protection grounds.  How long a tradition has existed is for the most part irrelevant to this debate, slavery and racism are as old as humanity -- but no one would, well actually some might, argue that this is grounds to preserve them.

 

No, but you want the church to shut up anyway.  It doesn't freeking matter why I oppose gay marriage, and I say that because those who want it want it only because they want it.  Fairness!  Dignity!  Love!  Specious arguments for overturning marriage, which, unlike your attempt to switch context to slavery and racism, is a universal good for all of humanity, and only exists because there is a desperate societal need for a safe place to raise children, without which the entire human race suffers.  And the next thing you will bring up will be the exceptions.  As if exceptions destroy the rule -- which they don't, because as you perfectly know or should know, exceptions prove the rule.  Simply because there are exceptions means the rule is valid in a general sense.

 

When a man can beget a child on another man, then I suppose SSM would have a purpose beyond making its proponents and participants feel good.  Until that day then it is a glilttering generality with no inherent purpose nor meaning.

You seem to have absolutely no clue why 60% of Americans now support gay marriage. Do you really think this is all just about redefining the current definition of marriage? Seriously? That is all you have gotten out of a decade of talking about this issue? Do you really think that support for equality in marriage went from 30% in favor to what it is today because everyone is out to destroy the traditional definition of marriage?

You are. blinded and deaf by your oun tunnel vision. Why dont you ponder why the public has shifted so radically on this subject. If you can come up with an honest answer you will understand why marriage is now legal for all Americans.

Link to comment

 

 

No, but you want the church to shut up anyway.  It doesn't freeking matter why I oppose gay marriage, and I say that because those who want it want it only because they want it.  Fairness!  Dignity!  Love!  Specious arguments for overturning marriage, which, unlike your attempt to switch context to slavery and racism, is a universal good for all of humanity, and only exists because there is a desperate societal need for a safe place to raise children, without which the entire human race suffers.  And the next thing you will bring up will be the exceptions.  As if exceptions destroy the rule -- which they don't, because as you perfectly know or should know, exceptions prove the rule.  Simply because there are exceptions means the rule is valid in a general sense.

 

When a man can beget a child on another man, then I suppose SSM would have a purpose beyond making its proponents and participants feel good.  Until that day then it is a glilttering generality with no inherent purpose nor meaning.

You seem to have absolutely no clue why 60% of Americans now support gay marriage. Do you really think this is all just about redefining the current definition of marriage? Seriously? That is all you have gotten out of a decade of talking about this issue? Do you really think that support for equality in marriage went from 30% in favor to what it is today because everyone is out to destroy the traditional definition of marriage?

You are. blinded and deaf by your oun tunnel vision. Why dont you ponder why the public has shifted so radically on this subject. If you can come up with an honest answer you will understand why marriage is now legal for all Americans.

 

 

A carefully orchestrated attack on Christian values, home and families.

Link to comment

I said it earlier, but perhaps it bears repeating.  (If not, feel free to ignore it, which is what most will do anyway ... ;)) There's a certain amount of merit in the libertarian, live-and-let-live, we'll-do-our-thing-and-let-others-do-their-thing argument.  "If he's harming anyone, he's only harming himself," or "If they're harming anyone, they're only harming themselves," so the argument goes.  But such "harmful-only-to-himself" or "harmful-only-to-themselves" arguments posit a vacuum which, for the theory to hold, would need to be only big enough for the person or persons involved.  But such actions rarely (if ever) occur in such a small vacuum; they rarely (if ever) harm only the actor(s).  

 

Sin adversely affects sinners, yes; but (as outmoded as this idea is in many quarters today) it can also adversely affect friends, family, associates, and, eventually, communities, states, and nations.  Don't disagree with me; disagree with The Fifteen: They put the idea forth in The Family: A Proclamation to the World, and it wasn't their idea: it pervades the scriptures.  (See, e.g., Mosiah 29:26-27: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/29.26-27?lang=eng)   The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once wrote that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  I wonder if sin anywhere might be a threat to righteousness everywhere.  Don't forget God's conversation with Abraham about Sodom: Whether it really occurred or not is irrelevant; it still illustrates the principles that one righteous person can save a whole city, and, as the Apostle Paul wrote, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

I don't think so.  Google around for videos of the Anti-Prop 8 demonstrations outside the Los Angeles Temple, then come back and tell me that "only ... a very few" will continue to agitate militantly against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrines on marriage and the Law of Chastity.  Whatever the number or proportion of gays that engage in such demonstrations, it wouldn't (shouldn't) take very many people willing to engage in such conduct for the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders to become concerned.

 

I would ask you for a CFR, but I don't think you're speaking from firsthand or close secondhand knowledge.  I think you've been fed a bill of propaganda goods by sexually active gays who have an axe to grind against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who refuse to conform to God's dictates on the issue and who, instead of abandoning sin to become comfortable with God, want to abandon God to become comfortable with sin (and who, consequently, want the Church to change the Law of Chastity and its view that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God).

 

There are celibate gays in the Church of Jesus Christ, just as there are celibate straights (yours truly among them).  That choice takes an enormous amount of courage when the gay lobby insists that any religion that holds that sexual intimacy should be confined to opposite sex marriage is, along with its members, bigoted.  I don't recall if Handbook 1 says anything specific about the types of callings open-if-celibate gays may receive, but I do think caution would be in order.  I would gladly defer to the discernment of any Bishop or Stake President involved in such a decision (since, unless I had specific knowledge that should raise concerns, it wouldn't be my place to second-guess such decisions anyway).  I think most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel the same way, and if some don't ... well, their Bishops and Stake Presidents can tell them, politely, to butt out. ;)

Edited by JAHS
Link to comment

"I am, too, but a large subset of those who identify as gays and lesbians will never be satisfied until the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abandons its doctrines regarding chastity and marriage."

 

 

Please define "large".

Also; compare this definition with the greater populous.

5,000 people is a very large group to be standing all together excluding others.

5,000 people among 320,000,000 is hardly a popcorn toot.

Link to comment

If the only reason for heterosexual marriage is the production of children. Then that is a sad commentary on marriage.

Yeah and that argument was repeatedly made and repeatedly refuted since we authorize heterosexuals who are beyond child bearing to get married. The problem the opponents had was the secular arguments did not stand up. In essence the Church's real reason for the opposition was religious, and I respect that...but I do not respect trying to impose our religious beliefs by legislation on others.

Link to comment

A carefully orchestrated attack on Christian values, home and families.

That's the reason 60% of Americans support gay marriage ???? Really?? 60% of Americans want to do away with families and Christianity and their values??? That is what you got out of 8 years debating this subject?

Link to comment

I think the biggest fear the church leaders have is not "the gays" demanding marriage in the church but rather the members themselves pushing for gay inclusion to the plan of salvation.

The letter read in sacrament meeting was the first volley to try and nip these changing attitudes towards gays that has already started. They weren't quite ready to threaten excommunication for having pro gay marriage in the church. But they did clearly state that members should seek counsel from first bishops then stake presidents who would be given access to general authorities if needed. While this may always be true it was a reminder that they do not want a shift of attitudes toward giving gays the blessings of temple marriage.

I personally could care less if the church allows temple marriage for all gods children. I think imost gays could care less what Mormons teach their members. But I am pretty confident that this fear the leaders have with members increasingly wanting gay couples to have the blessings of temple marriage will continue to increase not diminish.

 

You really have no idea, do you?

Link to comment

I'm unfamiliar with the process of how SSM became legal in the US. What is the biggest social contention that pervades thoughts? I get the theological argument and don't wish to get into that discussion as it seems that topic has in its own way hijacked the board.

 

This is a good overview: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/gay-marriage-supreme-court-politics-activism/397052/

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...