Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal In Washington State

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

The vast majority of Holleywood is just ordinary people who work hard, pay their bills, and have one spouse. Have you ever watched the credits at the end of a movie? Stars are few and far between. I don't believe we should even use the Stars as an example of marital fidelity decline. IE; Paul Newman was married to the same woman til his death. Tom Selleck is still married to the same woman AFAIK, and the list goes on and on.

Divorce statistics are right around 50% nation wide, and tend follow the economy only in reverse. Relatively good times more divorce, bad times fewer. It is a good question as to whether life is imitating art or if art is imitating life.

[LeSellers]

Divorce statistics are right around 50% nation wide, and tend follow the economy only in reverse. Relatively good times more divorce, bad times fewer. It is a good question as to whether life is imitating art or if art is imitating life.

"Art" (if you choose to call it that) is leading "life". That's why I asked the question in "The National Book" (which I will not search for).

The 50% number may be right (I have little reason to believe it as sold), but misleading: maybe half of all marriages end in divorce, but not half of all married people have divorces. That's because a smaller number of people marry than divorce, marry again, and divorce again, marry once more, then divorce ... .

Unfortunately, many people now actually believe that their marriage will almost inevitably end in divorce, so they plan on it. This is not a good thing: a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The stats are getting worse, I know. And divorce lawyers are the only ones happy about that, although, as you said, during tough times, people stick it out because getting divorced is expensive. Being divorced is also expensive. Not just alimony and child support, but the full plate of goods bads that go along with it—everything from a second home, the transportation of children between them, and so on.

I'm very tempted to call one of the divorce lawyers who advertises here in the Denver market (although he's in Kansas City, I believe), to ask if what he says means what it sounds like. If I am understanding it correctly, most divorces are initiated by the women, not hte men, especially in more mature couples: something of a nest egg, children approaching "raised", etc. What was once a protection for women has become, due to the influences of Satan, a trap for them.

Lehi

[california boy]

I'm very tempted to call one of the divorce lawyers who advertises here in the Denver market (although he's in Kansas City, I believe), to ask if what he says means what it sounds like. If I am understanding it correctly, most divorces are initiated by the women, not hte men, especially in more mature couples: something of a nest egg, children approaching "raised", etc. What was once a protection for women has become, due to the influences of Satan, a trap for them.

Lehi

This whole concept of blaming divorce on the devil seems a bit absurd. You pushed that idea in your earlier post, blaming everything that you don't like on some grand scheme of Satan. Are you really trying to promote that people get divorce because the devil made them do it?? Perhaps you can explain exactly what part Satan has in this whole world view you have of things.

[Jeff K.]

People will remove morality from the equation if they can. Can one remove morality and still remain moral? The thing that makes marriage so important to society is its moral nature. The gay lifestyle is immoral by the choice of its advocates. They will leave their wives whom they chose to marry, or their husbands (they were not forced to marry) to whom they may have made commitments and covenants. They chose to forget those commitments because sex was more important than their commitments. Men who commit adultry in any form are under the same level of morality. If they choose to leave their families because of sex, regardless of whether or not it is with a man or a woman, they have committed a grevious sin. Some will call this over the top, because if they do not, then they have no defense against it. It is immoral, it is wrong, and those advocating the same are promoting immorality.

So, is it good to leave one's family due to sexual desire?

Is it good to destroy one's promises or covenants because one sees a person (man or woman) they would rather be with?

Of course not.

Is advocating immorality and an immoral lifestyle against God? This is after all a religious forum where we have an understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

And while the words seem nice, the rather late condemnation of bullying and other tactics belie such concern, we know that they are really just words. Advocacy groups and advocates here have spent a great deal of time justifying bullying tactics, casually overlooking attacks on people and jobs. In effect stating that all such actions are justified. The claim that they are condmened ring hollow, I am sure there were Egyptians who tsked tsked slavery as their compatriots took away the straw from the bricks.

In the end, we know it to be immoral, and some will advocate for immorality. I will not.

[Jeff K.]

Lehi:

The vast majority of Holleywood is just ordinary people who work hard, pay their bills, and have one spouse. Have you ever watched the credits at the end of a movie? Stars are few and far between. I don't believe we should even use the Stars as an example of marital fidelity decline. IE; Paul Newman was married to the same woman til his death. Tom Selleck is still married to the same woman AFAIK, and the list goes on and on.

Divorce statistics are right around 50% nation wide, and tend follow the economy only in reverse. Relatively good times more divorce, bad times fewer. It is a good question as to whether life is imitating art or if art is imitating life.

However the part of Hollywood that has the most power, ie most influence in US standards, and the power that presents the movies, are the groups that seem to advocate the worst in society. The majority are just hardworking invdividuals trying to make a living, a member of our ward for example worked the red carpet during the Oscars week (and it was a job all week), but the majority do not constitute an influence on the whole. Hollywood is an oligarchial industry where a few decide for the many.

[california boy]

In the end, we know it to be immoral, and some will advocate for immorality. I will not.

No you will not. But you don't have any problem lying about a persons character and then when asked for a CFR or apology you refuse both. One has no morality when one is not willing to be a man and correct a wrong. I guess it is easier to judge the morality in others rather than be moral. It has been over a month. I am still waiting for my apology or CFR.

[Daniel2]

People will remove morality from the equation if they can. Can one remove morality and still remain moral? The thing that makes marriage so important to society is its moral nature. The gay lifestyle is immoral by the choice of its advocates. They will leave their wives whom they chose to marry, or their husbands (they were not forced to marry) to whom they may have made commitments and covenants. They chose to forget those commitments because sex was more important than their commitments. Men who commit adultry in any form are under the same level of morality. If they choose to leave their families because of sex, regardless of whether or not it is with a man or a woman, they have committed a grevious sin. Some will call this over the top, because if they do not, then they have no defense against it. It is immoral, it is wrong, and those advocating the same are promoting immorality.

So, is it good to leave one's family due to sexual desire?

Is it good to destroy one's promises or covenants because one sees a person (man or woman) they would rather be with?

Of course not.

I’m glad to see that it sounds as if we’re in agreement on at least a couple of things, Jeff! I fully agree with each of your following points:

· Many people will remove morality from the equation if they can.

· One cannot remove morality and still remain moral.

· The thing that makes marriage so important to society is its moral nature.

· Sex should not be more important than commitments.

· Leaving one’s family because of sex, regardless of whether or not it is with a man or a woman, is a grevious sin.

· Those that advocate leaving one’s family or spouse are advocating something that is wrong and are promoting immorality.

· It isn’t good to destroy one’s promises or covenants because one sees a person (man or woman) that they would rather be with.

I suppose we can be greatful for the baby steps we can agree on. J

Is advocating immorality and an immoral lifestyle against God? This is after all a religious forum where we have an understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

Whether or not same-sex relationships are inherently “against God” is ultimately a question each of us must reconcile, in our minds. On an LDS-oriented religious forum such as this, it’s unsurprising that the prevailing view currently will be that such relationships are immoral and against God.

And while the words seem nice, the rather late condemnation of bullying and other tactics belie such concern, we know that they are really just words.

I’m not sure who’s running late in condemning bullying and other tactics. If you see someone who is, feel free to point him/her out to me, and I’ll join my voice with yours in asking them to be more ready in their condemnation of such inappropriate tactics.

Advocacy groups and advocates here have spent a great deal of time justifying bullying tactics, casually overlooking attacks on people and jobs. In effect stating that all such actions are justified. The claim that they are condmened ring hollow, I am sure there were Egyptians who tsked tsked slavery as their compatriots took away the straw from the bricks.

Indeed, it is sad when people overlook bullying tactics and attacks on people and jobs—another point I’m glad we agree on.

In the end, we know it to be immoral, and some will advocate for immorality. I will not.

In the end, I feel the same way: we know what is immoral, and that some will advocate for immorality. I won’t be one who does, either.

Marriage is a conservative principle worth promoting. It stabilizes families and encourages committment.

Divorce is emotionally, spiritually, and finanically devastating for families--especially for children and dependant spouses. Families that lose an unmarried partner and parent may be similarly crippled when not afforded the benefits and protections of marriage.

I fully support measures to strengthen spouses' committments to each other--especially those that are parents--as well as measures to encourage them to stay together, overcome challenges they have, and support and care for one another.

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Whether or not same-sex relationships are inherently “against God” is ultimately a question each of us must reconcile, in our minds. On an LDS-oriented religious forum such as this, it’s unsurprising that the prevailing view currently will be that such relationships are immoral and against God.

It is this kind of false moral relativism that justifies any action and behavior. Anything goes based on your "reconcile in your own minds". Heck even pedophiles claim they love the children they harm (no I am not accusing you of such). They use the exact same argument, and it is reconciled in their own mind. Your position is one that opens the door to all kinds of things harmful to society.

glad to see that it sounds as if we’re in agreement on at least a couple of things, Jeff! I fully agree with each of your following points:

· Many people will remove morality from the equation if they can.

· One cannot remove morality and still remain moral.

· The thing that makes marriage so important to society is its moral nature.

· Sex should not be more important than commitments.

· Leaving one’s family because of sex, regardless of whether or not it is with a man or a woman, is a grevious sin.

· Those that advocate leaving one’s family or spouse are advocating something that is wrong and are promoting immorality.

· It isn’t good to destroy one’s promises or covenants because one sees a person (man or woman) that they would rather be with.

Actually you don't agree on them. For instance, your lifestyle is immoral. Which pretty much puts you in opposition to all of those positions you listed. You want us to ignore that immorality so you can call yourself moral. Like changing the definition of marriage, you would make almost anything moral if it suits your own personal wants. So the position you have put forward is a false one, and so I disagree with your attempt to redefine morality.

I’m not sure who’s running late in condemning bullying and other tactics. If you see someone who is, feel free to point him/her out to me, and I’ll join my voice with yours in asking them to be more ready in their condemnation of such inappropriate tactics.

If you are not sure, then you are either being disengenuous or haven't read the posts of your "fellow advocates".

In the end, I feel the same way: we know what is immoral, and that some will advocate for immorality. I won’t be one who does, either.

Marriage is a conservative principle worth promoting. It stabilizes families and encourages committment.

Divorce is emotionally, spiritually, and finanically devastating for families--especially for children and dependant spouses. Families that lose an unmarried partner and parent may be similarly crippled when not afforded the benefits and protections of marriage.

I fully support measures to strengthen spouses' committments to each other--especially those that are parents--as well as measures to encourage them to stay together, overcome challenges they have, and support and care for one another.

Marriage is a conservative view that promotes society. Gay marriage however is not conservative, whether it be the "breaks" partners take when they have "guests" over or the white party circuit so celebrated. Gay marriage undermines and destroys society it undermines real marriage and commitment for a pseudo marriage where commitment is merely a word whose meaning is also changed. So unless you believe that marriage stands as a commitment by heterosexuales for the benefit of society then you are really simply attempting to place sheeps clothing on and pulling the wool over our eyes.

I do not believe one should leave their family over sex, or sexual attraction. The gay community advocates that exactly. One wonders how many families they have undermined and ruined, one can only guess.

[Stargazer]

Because words actually mean things.

Yes, well I wasn't expressing my feelings, just the feelings of the liberal democrats running the state. I guess they are the ones who think the dictionary, like the Constitution, is a "living document."

Considering that the word "bad" can now be found to be defined as both "good" and "bad", then I guess it IS a living document, but I digress...

[thesometimesaint]

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

[Jeff K.]

Ever since Marbury v Madison (more or less)

[LeSellers]

The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

The Supreme Court has been wrong enough times that this lie is revealed for what it is: an excuse to justify the blatant disregard of what the Document really meant to those who wrote it and those who live it.

It's a contract, and with a contract, one party does not have the right to decree that it means the opposite of what it meant when both parties agreed to it.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

Dredd Scott decision anyone?

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

The are plenty of examples of the Courts, Legislatures, and/or Executives being wrong. All of them have a say in the running of our government. We have 3 branches of government. They each have "Veto" power over the others. That is what is known as checks and balances. Would you neuter one just to placate the others?

[Jeff K.]

Jefferson never liked the idea of Judiciary Review and preferred the Congress to framing what is meant by laws, he saw SCOTUS as the arbiter between states and between states and the national government, not the highest judgement on laws. Congress was meant to respond to the will of the people (not dictate to the people), but power is power, and the ability to tax is indeed short of the ability to kill, one of the greatest of power. Man cannot help but use the tool if it is given to him.

[Daniel2]

It is this kind of false moral relativism that justifies any action and behavior. Anything goes based on your "reconcile in your own minds"...Your position is one that opens the door to all kinds of things harmful to society... Actually you don't agree on them. For instance, your lifestyle is immoral. Which pretty much puts you in opposition to all of those positions you listed. You want us to ignore that immorality so you can call yourself moral. Like changing the definition of marriage, you would make almost anything moral if it suits your own personal wants. So the position you have put forward is a false one, and so I disagree with your attempt to redefine morality.

Jeff,

Everyone’s morality may be viewed as “relative,” depending on one’s perspective towards whatever foundation each individual bases it upon.

While you may adamantly reject the notion that your morality could accurately labeled as “relative,” I submit that such is only because you and I do not share the same foundation upon which we base our different approaches to that which should accurately be called “morality.”

If you’re still reading and listening, at this point, I’ll try to explain:

The foundation for that which devout Latter-day Saints label as “moral” really is simply “whatever God requires/commands/allows/expects”—even behaviors that would otherwise be immoral, in other circumstances.

Here’s how Joseph Smith taught this principle:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.”

“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”…

“This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances.”

- Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136, See also “The Letter of the Prophet, Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon,” Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives.

In other words: even though most Latter-day Saints believe that killing men, women, babies, and livestock is almost always immortal, in certain circumstances, when “God” commands it, the annihilation of the inhabiting adults, children, and animals of a desirable geographic location has actually been considered to be moral/justified/right, when authorized/commanded by God.

Another example: even though most Latter-day Saints believe that discriminating against individuals based on the color of their skin is immortal, in certain circumstances, when “God” commands it, certain restrictions against races of people has actually been considered to be moral, when authorized/commanded by God.

A third example: even though most Latter-day Saints today believe that sexual relations with more than one man or woman is immortal, in certain circumstances (both in the past, as well as in the eternities), when “God” commands it, plural relationships have actually been considered to be moral, when authorized/commanded by God.

These three examples are not “fringe” or “radical” ideas among Latter-day Saints—the acceptance of their morality are foundational to the idea that modern prophets speak the will of the Lord and may command, forbid, authorize, or condemn behaviors which, in other circumstances, would be the exact opposite on the “morality” scale. As your prophet, Joseph Smith said, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another… Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is...”

Now… you will likely maintain that your morality is not “relative,” because your baseline foundation is likely to be something along the lines of “whatever God requires always is right, so my morality is not relative—the only thing that’s relative is others’ incorrect understanding of it.”

However, for those of us that don’t share your view of God, a justification along those lines is really ultimately irrelevant and rather hollow:

· It is understandable that the rationale that “God says we, as a church, have to discriminate against you, so our morality is intact” wouldn’t resonate with black couples who choose not to join the church because they can’t understand why they’re being denied the full blessings of temple marriage, prior to the 1978 revelation.

· It is understandable that the rationale that “God says we, as a church, have been commanded by God to utterly destroy you, your wives, your babies, and your livestock, so our morality is intact” wouldn’t resonate with a group of people who are victims of a holy genocide.

· It is understandable that the rationale that “God says that I, as a holy man, have been commanded to marry your wife and take her for my own, so my morality is intact” may not resonate with a man who loves his wife and can’t understand or agree with the morality that God is taking his wife from him and assigning her to someone else, no matter how “holy” he claims to be.

So… Jeff… while I understand that you’ll likely reject the notion that your morality isn’t “relative,” I hope you can at least appreciate how others, who don’t share your foundation, could view it as such.

At the end of the day, I will fight for your liberty to live and advocate for the life you believe is most moral. Though I do not agree with you, I choose not to view myself as your enemy, regardless of whether or not you choose to view me as yours.

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 February 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

It is this kind of false moral relativism that justifies any action and behavior. Anything goes based on your "reconcile in your own minds"...Your position is one that opens the door to all kinds of things harmful to society... Actually you don't agree on them. For instance, your lifestyle is immoral. Which pretty much puts you in opposition to all of those positions you listed. You want us to ignore that immorality so you can call yourself moral. Like changing the definition of marriage, you would make almost anything moral if it suits your own personal wants. So the position you have put forward is a false one, and so I disagree with your attempt to redefine morality.

Jeff,

Everyone’s morality may be viewed as “relative,” depending on one’s perspective towards whatever foundation each individual bases it upon.

While you may adamantly reject the notion that your morality could accurately labeled as “relative,” I submit that such is only because you and I do not share the same foundation upon which we base our different approaches to that which should accurately be called “morality.”

If you’re still reading and listening, at this point, I’ll try to explain:

The foundation for that which devout Latter-day Saints label as “moral” really is simply “whatever God requires/commands/allows/expects”—even behaviors that would otherwise be immoral, in other circumstances.

Here’s how Joseph Smith taught this principle:

Your postion remains false. Joseph Smith would never have contenanced gay unions as relative, or benign, or even good. He would have condemned them. Everyone's morality is not relative. Here in this forum we know what adultry is, and we know it is wrong. You want us to accept is as both good and responsible, it is neither. Satan would want us to accept it as good and responsible, it remains neither, finally,,, I again turn to the issue of pedophilia or pederastry, Adherents to both would use your exact same arguments. And you would be forced by your own logic to accept them. Especially for pederasts. I cannot vote to support it, I cannot support it at all since it undermines society, it destroys families, and it makes a mockery of true relationships.

The foundation for that which devout Latter-day Saints label as “moral” really is simply “whatever God requires/commands/allows/expects”—even behaviors that would otherwise be immoral, in other circumstances.

That is a false assertion. In prison, rape is almost normal, do we therefore accept it given the circumstances? Was it acceptable is sodom or Gomorrah? No.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.”

“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”…

“This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances.”

- Official History of the Church, Vol. 5, p.134-136, See also “The Letter of the Prophet, Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon,” Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives.

When God tells us as a people that gay adultry is acceptable, we will visit that conversation, at present it does not apply to you, or to what your advocates do. What you do is immoral and wrong.

Now you can put yourself in the place of God, as you are want to do. You can claim that all of the horrible occurrance due to your lifestyle are really good, you can even claim that it is healthy for men to leave their families, break their covenants to feed their sexual needs. You can claim all these things.

But you will still be wrong, regardless of your claims. We both know that.

[Stargazer]

But you will still be wrong, regardless of your claims. We both know that.

While I don't disagree with what you are saying, claiming that Darin knows that he is wrong is pushing it a tad . I am relatively certain that he believes he is not wrong, regardless of what the facts of the matter are. Telling him what he knows in this regard doesn't strike me as "good form". Some people try to tell me what I believe in other contexts and you would not defend their points of view there, so I don't believe you should be telling him what he knows/believes here.

Unless, by "we" you mean you and the mouse in your pocket. Or, perhaps, the Royal "We". Your Highness,

[Jeff K.]

Good point. I think Darin knows it is wrong in the sense that he must argue moral relativism instead of morality.

[thesometimesaint]

JeffK.:

While I do admire many of the accomplishments and ideas of Jefferson he had some crackpot ones too. But history tends to balance it all out, and I'm glad I live in the 21st Century America with all its problems and not the 18th.

[Jeff K.]

Ditto, if nothing else the invention of toilet paper makes be glad to be in this time era

[Daniel2]

Your postion remains false. Joseph Smith would never have contenanced gay unions as relative, or benign, or even good. He would have condemned them. Everyone's morality is not relative. Here in this forum we know what adultry is, and we know it is wrong. You want us to accept is as both good and responsible, it is neither. Satan would want us to accept it as good and responsible, it remains neither, finally,,, I again turn to the issue of pedophilia or pederastry, Adherents to both would use your exact same arguments. And you would be forced by your own logic to accept them. Especially for pederasts. I cannot vote to support it, I cannot support it at all since it undermines society, it destroys families, and it makes a mockery of true relationships.

That is a false assertion. In prison, rape is almost normal, do we therefore accept it given the circumstances? Was it acceptable is sodom or Gomorrah? No.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.”

When God tells us as a people that gay adultry is acceptable, we will visit that conversation, at present it does not apply to you, or to what your advocates do. What you do is immoral and wrong.

Now you can put yourself in the place of God, as you are want to do. You can claim that all of the horrible occurrance due to your lifestyle are really good, you can even claim that it is healthy for men to leave their families, break their covenants to feed their sexual needs. You can claim all these things.

But you will still be wrong, regardless of your claims. We both know that.

Jeff, it strikes me that you may be misunderstanding my purpose in posting. I’m not attempting to convince you to accept same-sex relationships as moral. I’m not arguing that Joseph Smith would have ever accepted or promoted same-sex relationships as moral. I don’t intend to convince you or other Latter-day Saints to redefine adultery so that gay relationships no longer classify as such.

I do think that even those who believe that same-sex relationships are immoral due to religious belief could likely admit to the fact that there certainly are some ways to live within a same-sex relationship that would be more socially/secularly responsible (i.e. living in a committed relationship any sense of the term “committed”) than other ways (i.e. living a completely, hedonistically promiscuous life, among others). However, it’s certainly within your right to be unwilling to admit to even that, irrational as that may seem, to me.

It’s simply untrue that the same grounds by which I advocate for equal treatment of same-sex relationships could be equally used to justify pedophilia or pederasty. Equation of the two underlying philosophies displays a lack of understanding the basis for which I advocate equality between consensual same-sex couples and consensual opposite-sex couples under the law—a key component being the ability to legally consent (a vital component that excludes under-age, non-human, or inanimate relationships).

Once again: I do not suggest that it is healthy for men to leave their families or break their covenants to feed their sexual needs.

I understand that both you and I are likely convinced of the veracity of our respective positions and are comfortable and confident in the values that we each espouse. Though I am comfortable that my values are correct, I would not presume to suggest, contrary to your vocal opposition, that inwardly “you know that you are wrong.”

Best,

Daniel2

EDIT: Jeff and Stargazer: though an occassional "slip-up" is understandable, due to external circumstances in RL, could I respectfully request that you refer to me by my chosen screen name when speaking of/to me publically on the board? Thanks.

[Daniel2]

he must argue moral relativism instead of morality.

I don't view "moral relativism" and "morality" as mutually exclusive.

Do you recall the LDS missionary film, “What is Real?” In one scene, an LDS missionary tells a couple investigating the LDS Faith that he is a musician. He explains that prior to finding the gospel, living his life was like playing the piano using a single piano octave. After finding it, however, it was like discovering the whole keyboard—the music he could make was much more profound and moving.

That is the way I feel—only in reverse. Prior to discovering Unitarian Universalism and the principles that you refer to as “moral relativism,” Jeff, the music I made in an LDS octave was simply beautiful, in many ways. However, my beliefs now offer a depth and richness that I previously hadn’t felt.

It would be simplistic for me to try to condemn those who play with the LDS octave as “wrong,” or even to claim that they know that their music “isn’t really true.” I accept that the music that reverberates in their soul is different and moves them in ways that doesn’t move me. But I would not condemn their music as “false.” “Truth/falsehood” is, to me, no longer an adequate concept to describe my approach to morality. Of far more importance to me, today, is the concept of “value.” I anticipate, understand, and appreciate that your approach is different.

I find little value in anyone abandoning their family simply to gratify their sexual desires--especially in light of considering the needs of one's children--and such a course does not jive with my worldview of morality. I also accept that each couples' relatioships will offer nuances that will require their own individual approaches to determining what is most valuable for their unique family circumstances.

I'm not sure whether my words validate your perspective of my beliefs, or not--after sharing more, I'm fine however you choose to personally label it.

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

As Daniel2 quite clearly show "what is morality" is dependant upon the speaker. It is an uncomfortable truth that religious history is replete with "well such and such is not immoral at the moment because God said".

Geneocide was committed by the people of Israel in the OT and not many religious folk have an issue with this geneocide. Why no issue, because the claim is God commanded the geneocide.

A religious person can not present morality without said morality being relative to what that religious person claims God said.

[Jeff K.]

Let us be "real". Moral relativism and morality are very different. In one we seek to do good, in the other we can justify any act as being good. It is the chasm that spans our two views. You would seek to justify any act as "good", whereas I would state that acts of goodness cannot be relegated to justification.

Moral relativism justifies a serial killer, a rapist, a thief, or any number of heinous people and acts.

Morality as perscribed by God seeks no justification. It is good and seeks to do good.

Whereas Daniel seeks moral relativism in order to justify the acts of himself and those who follow his lifestyle, morality would deny that to them. So of course they must seek some kind of justification, the stark reality of what they do would in effect make them miserable.

Frankenstein who is not a Mormon and has no real interest in morality will of course state that relativism is the way to go. To him God is no different than Satan, they are both merely perspectives. No member of the church here believes that, well, not the good members. Members who have lost the ideal of what is good will of course argue that they are the same (perhaps not in direct words, but the goal is the same), not sure if they will ever find their way back.

Moral relativism is simplistic, it does not recognize good, it does not recognize evil, since it makes both the same. It denigrates Christ and elevates Satan. And it is the argument that is put forth in order to justify what God condemns. I cannot accept those terms, even as you attempt to argue them.