Steve Goodmansen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 The fallacy of the question is that even if marriage is a civil right whether homosexuals would be entitled to it. People who live an immoral lifestyle are not entitled to civil rights. While the Bretheren have not opposed extending some rights to homosexual couples, that is a gratuitous privilege. Also, unlike ethnicity, which is just how you are born, homosexuality is at best a choice and at worse a temptation that can be cured.
Daniel2 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) People who live an immoral lifestyle are not entitled to civil rights. Ummm... are you sure you want to stand behind this statement...? In all seriousness, can I ask if you're a citizen of the United States............?Are we on Candid Camera right now?! Daniel2 Edited November 28, 2011 by Daniel2
elguanteloko Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 People who live an immoral lifestyle are not entitled to civil rights.altersteve: exhibit A.lol
Daniel2 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) double post Edited November 28, 2011 by Daniel2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 altersteve: exhibit A.lolWell, you have "Steve" then you have "alter steve".Weird huh?
altersteve Posted November 28, 2011 Author Posted November 28, 2011 altersteve: exhibit A.lolI'm not saying other Latter-day Saints agree with me. I don't expect that. I actually emphatically disagree with Mr. Goodmansen here. To hear anyone say that a gay person's rights are only "privileges" is pretty irritating to me. That's a form of discrimination and a holier-than-thou attitude to me. Rights are rights, and they apply to every American (and, really, to every human being), regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, height, weight, skin color, ancestry, religion, etc. That's what I love about this nation.To hear Mr. Goodmansen imply that homosexuality is a disease "that can be cured" is also something I strongly disagree with. Like, very strongly.But we won't get into that here. 1
Steve Goodmansen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Yes I stand by my statement. People who commit crimes forfeit their civil rights. Virtually all of our laws are based on a common understanding of morality. The reason not to accept homosexual marriage is that it is immoral. Period full stop. We shouldn't be ashamed of taking a stand on the moral virtue of traditional marriage. The Bretheren were not ashamed to take a stand on Prop 8 in defense of traditional morality in marriage and neither should we. We should stop pretending that the argument about homosexual marriage is about rights. It is not about "rights." It is about right and wrong.
elguanteloko Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) I'm not saying other Latter-day Saints agree with me. I don't expect that. I actually emphatically disagree with Mr. Goodmansen here. To hear anyone say that a gay person's rights are only "privileges" is pretty irritating to me. That's a form of discrimination and a holier-than-thou attitude to me. Rights are rights, and they apply to every American (and, really, to every human being), regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, height, weight, skin color, ancestry, religion, etc. That's what I love about this nation.To hear Mr. Goodmansen imply that homosexuality is a disease "that can be cured" is also something I strongly disagree with. Like, very strongly.But we won't get into that here.Hey, you have me on your side there. I propose we ignore Steve and move on to more interesting things like, why do you think SSM should not be legal as, simply, marriage? Edited November 28, 2011 by elguanteloko
Daniel2 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Yes I stand by my statement. People who commit crimes forfeit their civil rights. Homosexual relationships are not criminal offenses in America.Daniel2
Steve Goodmansen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 I'm not saying other Latter-day Saints agree with me. I don't expect that. I actually emphatically disagree with Mr. Goodmansen here. To hear anyone say that a gay person's rights are only "privileges" is pretty irritating to me. That's a form of discrimination and a holier-than-thou attitude to me. Rights are rights, and they apply to every American (and, really, to every human being), regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, height, weight, skin color, ancestry, religion, etc. That's what I love about this nation.To hear Mr. Goodmansen imply that homosexuality is a disease "that can be cured" is also something I strongly disagree with. Like, very strongly.But we won't get into that here.There are plenty of people who in turn very strongly disagree with this view.
Steve Goodmansen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Homosexual relationships are not criminal offenses in America.Daniel2That was an example of how immorality is not entitled to be called a civil right.
altersteve Posted November 28, 2011 Author Posted November 28, 2011 Yes I stand by my statement. People who commit crimes forfeit their civil rights. Virtually all of our laws are based on a common understanding of morality. The reason not to accept homosexual marriage is that it is immoral. Period full stop. We shouldn't be ashamed of taking a stand on the moral virtue of traditional marriage. The Bretheren were not ashamed to take a stand on Prop 8 in defense of traditional morality in marriage and neither should we. We should stop pretending that the argument about homosexual marriage is about rights. It is not about "rights." It is about right and wrong.Who said we should be "ashamed" of taking a stand against same-sex marriage? You seem to be confusing "homosexuality" with "gay marriage" here. They're not the same thing. Homosexuality is not a choice (although it can be), and it's not something that can simply be "cured." People are born with it. Why did God give same-sex attraction to some of His children for them to deal with in this life? I don't know, and I don't pretend to know. But homosexuality is real; it's not simply something you can choose and then be "cured" of.Also, please read the thread. Nobody is saying gay marriage is a civil right. Rather, people are saying that it is a civil right for all people to marry, even homosexuals. And there is a big difference between those two statements.
altersteve Posted November 28, 2011 Author Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) double Edited November 28, 2011 by altersteve
Steve Goodmansen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Who said we should be "ashamed" of taking a stand against same-sex marriage? You seem to be confusing "homosexuality" with "gay marriage" here. They're not the same thing. Homosexuality is not a choice (although it can be), and it's not something that can simply be "cured." People are born with it. Why did God give same-sex attraction to some of His children for them to deal with in this life? I don't know, and I don't pretend to know. But homosexuality is real; it's not simply something you can choose and then be "cured" of.Also, please read the thread. Nobody is saying gay marriage is a civil right. Rather, people are saying that it is a civil right for all people to marry, even homosexuals. And there is a big difference between those two statements.I am not confusing the two. Approving some right to homosexual marriage is the same as approving the homosexual lifestyle. A poster (I think it was Pahoran but I have to reread) correctly pointed out that there is no law prohibiting homosexual people from getting married at all. It is simply illegal for homosexuals to marry each other.I think you need to be careful about buying into this philosophy that people are born gay or blaming Heavenly Father for "making" some people be gay. If that is the case then it is hard to explain why two people who are homosexual and "love" each other should not be able to get married like everyone else. But if we stop supposing that Heavenly Father would make people have an inclination to a lifestyle He has condemned then it makes more sense to define marriage in terms of traditional morality.
altersteve Posted November 28, 2011 Author Posted November 28, 2011 That was an example of how immorality is not entitled to be called a civil right.It's also considered immoral to swear, dress immodestly, watch inappropriate movies, have sex before marriage, listen to music that glorifies sex, masturbate, and have lustful thoughts. Does that mean we don't have a civil, Constitutional right to do those things? Why or why not? Please explain how the rights and freedoms as outlined in the Constitution do not apply to our brothers and sisters who participate in such activities, and what gives you the right to make such a judgment.
Steve Goodmansen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 It's also considered immoral to swear, dress immodestly, watch inappropriate movies, have sex before marriage, listen to music that glorifies sex, masturbate, and have lustful thoughts. Does that mean we don't have a civil, Constitutional right to do those things? Why or why not? Please explain how the rights and freedoms as outlined in the Constitution do not apply to our brothers and sisters who participate in such activities, and what gives you the right to make such a judgment.I have to make a judgment between right and wrong, as does everyone else. It is the purpose of life. "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." Abraham 3:25You are acting as if I am just making things up about morality instead of relying on the inspired counsel of prophets and apostles about purity and morality.There is a difference between having a right to do something and government sponsorship of immoral things. The government does not give legal celebration to wearing immodest clothes, vulgar language, rated R movies and etc. even though it does allow those things to happen. We are not talking about people having the right to unnatural sexual deviancy but the right to having the government sponsor and approve of it. You have the right to look at pornography. That's not the same as the government saying that pornography is good and has the same standing as uplifting movies. Being able to indulge in homosexual acts is not the same as the government recognizing homosexual marriage as equal to and just as good as moral, traditional families.
Daniel2 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) I have to make a judgment between right and wrong, as does everyone else. It is the purpose of life. "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." Abraham 3:25You are acting as if I am just making things up about morality instead of relying on the inspired counsel of prophets and apostles about purity and morality.There is a difference between having a right to do something and government sponsorship of immoral things. The government does not give legal celebration to wearing immodest clothes, vulgar language, rated R movies and etc. even though it does allow those things to happen. We are not talking about people having the right to unnatural sexual deviancy but the right to having the government sponsor and approve of it. You have the right to look at pornography. That's not the same as the government saying that pornography is good and has the same standing as uplifting movies. Being able to indulge in homosexual acts is not the same as the government recognizing homosexual marriage as equal to and just as good as moral, traditional families.You're free to make personal judgement calls about morality, as we all are.Your logic in applying that to government regulation, however, isn't consistent. Without comment on the morality or lack thereof, the government permits, regulates, and taxes a vast majority of what you call "immoral" behaviors or things; the sale of immodest clothes, R-rated movies (which contain vulgar language, gratuitous violence, and pre-and-extra-marital sex by both straight and gay couples, among other things), the sale of pornography (even in Marriott Hotels, until recently!), alcohol, coffee, tea, tobacco, work on the Sabbath, gambling, and even recognizes "common law" civil marriage (of so-called "immoral" couples who never actually marry). Why should same-sex marriage be excluded, merely because you consider it "immoral"?In fact, by your standards, almost everyone else in America would be considered to be "living an immoral lifestyle." According to your statement, they have all forfeited their "civil rights," as well. Ironically, the exact opposite is true--for example, in the case of "common law" marriage, the government forces the civil rights, responsibilities, and title of civil marriage on unmarried couples (who would be "immoral" by your standards).Daniel2 Edited November 28, 2011 by Daniel2
altersteve Posted November 28, 2011 Author Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) I have to make a judgment between right and wrong, as does everyone else. It is the purpose of life. "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." Abraham 3:25I agree completely. But that's not what I said.You are acting as if I am just making things up about morality instead of relying on the inspired counsel of prophets and apostles about purity and morality.And you're acting as if I'm not relying on the inspired counsel of prophets and apostles. I never said or even implied that I support gay marriage. You seem to believe that I do.There is a difference between having a right to do something and government sponsorship of immoral things.Yes, I know. I never said otherwise.The government does not give legal celebration to wearing immodest clothes, vulgar language, rated R movies and etc. even though it does allow those things to happen.Yes, I know. I never said otherwise. I was merely pointing out an inconsistency in your reasoning that nobody has the right to do anything immoral. Because if that's the case, then nobody has the right to wear immodest clothing, use vulgar language, watch R-rated movies, etc. But we do have the right to wear immodest clothing, use vulgar language, watch R-rated movies, etc. So your logic here is flawed.We are not talking about people having the right to unnatural sexual deviancy but the right to having the government sponsor and approve of it.No, we're not talking about "the right to having the government sponsor and approve of it." We're talking about whether or not it's a civil, Constitutional right, which gay marriage is not.You have the right to look at pornography.Okay? And?That's not the same as the government saying that pornography is good and has the same standing as uplifting movies.Okay. But that's not relevant.Being able to indulge in homosexual acts is not the same as the government recognizing homosexual marriage as equal to and just as good as moral, traditional families.Yes, I know. I never said otherwise.I think you need to be careful about buying into this philosophy that people are born gay or blaming Heavenly Father for "making" some people be gay. If that is the case then it is hard to explain why two people who are homosexual and "love" each other should not be able to get married like everyone else. But if we stop supposing that Heavenly Father would make people have an inclination to a lifestyle He has condemned then it makes more sense to define marriage in terms of traditional morality.And I think you need to stop judging and open your mind to what I'm saying a little. Try to have an actual intelligent discussion here by taking instead of everything I say out of context and acting all holier-than-thou to and insulting our gay brothers and sisters. That's not what this thread is for.What I'm mostly disagreeing with you about, though, is the idea that you can choose who you're attracted to. That's completely and utterly absurd. Edited November 28, 2011 by altersteve 1
Steve Goodmansen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 You're free to make personal judgement calls about morality, as we all are.Your logic in applying that to government regulation, however, isn't consistent. Without comment on the morality or lack thereof, the government permits, regulates, and taxes a vast majority of what you call "immoral" behaviors or things; the sale of immodest clothes, R-rated movies (which contain vulgar language, gratuitous violence, and pre-and-extra-marital sex by both straight and gay couples, among other things), the sale of pornography (even in Marriott Hotels, until recently!), alcohol, coffee, tea, tobacco, work on the Sabbath, gambling, and even recognizes "common law" civil marriage (of so-called "immoral" couples who never actually marry). Why should same-sex marriage be any different?In fact, by your standards, almost everyone else in America would be considered to be "living an immoral lifestyle." According to your statement, they have all forfeited their "civil rights," as well. Ironically, the exact opposite is true--for example, in the case of "common law" marriage, the government forces the civil demands of marriage on unmarried couples ("immoral" by your standards).Daniel2The government permits homosexuals to live their lifestyle. The government regulates homosexuals with laws that are the same for everyone. And homosexuals have to pay taxes just like everyone else. You are not explaining what the difference is. Homosexuals have the same right to marry a person of the opposite gender as everyone else does. According to the standards of the restored gospel, almost everyone in America is living an immoral lifestyle. That doesn't mean they have no civil rights at all. It means they don't have a civil right to the government making their immoral decisions normal and socially acceptable. The Lord permits sin. That doesn't mean He approves of sin. It just means he approves of free agency. The government giving people the right to do immoral things does not mean the government does or should approve of it.
altersteve Posted November 28, 2011 Author Posted November 28, 2011 The government permits homosexuals to live their lifestyle. The government regulates homosexuals with laws that are the same for everyone. And homosexuals have to pay taxes just like everyone else. You are not explaining what the difference is. Homosexuals have the same right to marry a person of the opposite gender as everyone else does.According to the standards of the restored gospel, almost everyone in America is living an immoral lifestyle. That doesn't mean they have no civil rights at all. It means they don't have a civil right to the government making their immoral decisions normal and socially acceptable. The Lord permits sin. That doesn't mean He approves of sin. It just means he approves of free agency. The government giving people the right to do immoral things does not mean the government does or should approve of it.Okay, I guess we may agree with one another here. Our little argument may have stemmed from a misunderstanding, on both our parts.
Steve Goodmansen Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 And I think you need to stop judging and open your mind to what I'm saying a little. Try to have an actual intelligent discussion here by taking instead of everything I say out of context and acting all holier-than-thou to and insulting our gay brothers and sisters. That's not what this thread is for.What I'm mostly disagreeing with you about, though, is the idea that you can choose who you're attracted to. That's completely and utterly absurd.It's not about holier than thou. I am not judging a person. I am judging an act that prophets and apostles since ancient times have said is not acceptable to God. If that means I am "insulting" people who claim to be born gay, then speaking out against pornography is also insulting people who like it. Speaking out against adultery is insulting to adulterers. Speaking out against gambling is insulting to gamblers. I think what legal rights we let people have should be determined by what we know is right and good and moral and I don't think we should pretend otherwise.Of course you can choose who you are attracted to. Were you born already in love with your wife? Only if you believe that "Saturday's Warrior" is a true story. The reason why people who support the gay lifestyle want us to accept that homosexuality is something other than a choice is because if that is just part of who someone is then why shouldn't they get to marry the person they are supposedly in love with just like a normal man and wife couple. This is like an argument that we shouldn't insult people who are alcoholics or who are addicted to smoking or drugs because they do not "choose" to be addicted. Maybe not by the time they are addicted, but they chose to make the series of choices over time that led to them being addicted. Someone making unrighteous decisions about chastity and morality over time might lead them to become homosexual but that does not make them born gay any more than a person who is a chain smoker because they started smoking as a teenager was born a chain smoker. If he never would have started smoking he would not be addicted now.
altersteve Posted November 28, 2011 Author Posted November 28, 2011 Of course you can choose who you are attracted to.Okay, stop right there. Really? You can't choose to be attracted to someone. If you don't find someone attractive, you can't choose to suddenly be attracted to them. That's really all I meant. If a man is attracted to another man, he or she didn't choose to be.
Ares Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Keep the topic on civil rights and marriage. Do not turn this into another "homosexuality/choice or inborn?" thread.
altersteve Posted November 28, 2011 Author Posted November 28, 2011 Keep the topic on civil rights and marriage. Do not turn this into another "homosexuality/choice or inborn?" thread.I apologize.
Ares Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 I apologize.No problem... just steering the topic back on course. This is a delicate topic and often results in side debates.
Recommended Posts