Healthy Approaches To Support Glbt Lds Is A Topic On Mormon Matters Podcast

[USU78]

so comparing gay marriage to incest, fails at the outset.

Something accepted as a priori truth . . . a given . . . as recently as 5 years ago (that marriage is between a man and [usually only one] woman) is now in play.

Who's to say what the next "in play," previously a priori truth we'll be talking about in 5 more years. MBLA? Incest? Horse Marriage?

That is what these things share in common. Until about 1970, it was a priori truth that homosexuality was a disorder, a syndrome of shared behaviors with poorly understood causes that tends to take individuals out of the breeding pool. Then they held a vote, and what was previously a priori truth was suddenly . . . not.

An unelected "elite" bunch of frightened shrinks changed their minds over night.

Yet the syndrome of shared behaviors with poorly understood causes remains.

With all of the attendant uglies.

[treehugger]

Something accepted as a priori truth . . . a given . . . as recently as 5 years ago (that marriage is between a man and [usually only one] woman) is now in play.

Who's to say what the next "in play," previously a priori truth we'll be talking about in 5 more years. MBLA? Incest? Horse Marriage?

That is what these things share in common. Until about 1970, it was a priori truth that homosexuality was a disorder, a syndrome of shared behaviors with poorly understood causes that tends to take individuals out of the breeding pool. Then they held a vote, and what was previously a priori truth was suddenly . . . not.

An unelected "elite" bunch of frightened shrinks changed their minds over night.

Yet the syndrome of shared behaviors with poorly understood causes remains.

With all of the attendant uglies.

you should know better than others here, that there standards of proof and interest that must be demonstrated before the Courts can act.

Edited July 26, 2012 by treehugger

[Garden Girl]

I would like for you to define the Hebrew word to'ebah, first. Then I would like for you to define abomination as modern religious practitioners do. Then compare the 2. The differences are quite distinct.

Hello Valentinus...

Well, I did just that... went to my Strong's and looked up "abomination" which sent me to #8441 in the Hebrew... which was to'ebah. The definition: something disgusting; and as a noun... an abhorrence.

Then I was sent to #8581... which listed taw-ab, a primary root: to loathe, i.e. (mor.) detest -- (make to be) abhor,

(-red), (be, commit more, do) abominable (-y), utterly.

Seems pretty much the same in the Hebrew as what I read in the KJV...

GG

Edited July 26, 2012 by Garden Girl

[CASteinman]

so comparing gay marriage to incest, fails at the outset.

It does not fail if you are looking at the logic and rationale for approving gay marriage. The same rationale would apply to incestuous marriages. Indeed all the fundamental restrictions on various marriages go out the door with gay marriage being approved.

It is the destruction of marriage and the creation of some new mutant form of relationships.

Edited July 26, 2012 by CASteinman

[treehugger]

It does not fail if you are looking at the logic and rationale for approving gay marriage. The same rationale would apply to incestuous marriages. Indeed all the fundamental restrictions on various marriages go out the door with gay marriage being approved.

It is the destruction of marriage and the creation of some new mutant form of relationships.

what is the legal logic and rational for approving gay marriage? Can you demonstrate from Perry v. Schwarzneger, that incest is legally acceptable, or rather that the government has no legitimate interest in prohibiting incestuous marriages.

[CASteinman]

what is the legal logic and rational for approving gay marriage? Can you demonstrate from Perry v. Schwarzneger, that incest is legally acceptable, or rather that the government has no legitimate interest in prohibiting incestuous marriages.

I believe that such discussions are not permitted on this board.

[treehugger]

I believe that such discussions are not permitted on this board.

Then unsupported claims should be removed.

Just from a twisted point of view, the primary arguements used against gay marriages could be used in favor of incestuous marriages, I.e. opposite gender, one man one woman per ceremony, procreation; and thus we see that very arguments used against gay marriage work perfectly to support incest.

[selek1]

Then unsupported claims should be removed.

Just from a twisted point of view, the primary arguements used against gay marriages could be used in favor of incestuous marriages, I.e. opposite gender, one man one woman per ceremony, procreation; and thus we see that very arguments used against gay marriage work perfectly to support incest.

The problem with this rationale is that even the devil can quote scripture to his own ends.

Every rationale used to justify redefining "marriage" to include homosexual fornication can be used to justify every other sort of sexual corruption.

It is a Pandora's box that once open cannot be closed.

The burden of proof is not on those who wish to retain the time-tested definition of marriage, but upon those who insist that changing it is a good idea.

Edited July 27, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Then unsupported claims should be removed.

Well, you should take it up with the monitors and mention to them that you want to take the thread in the direction of a political argument.

[treehugger]

It does not fail if you are looking at the logic and rationale for approving gay marriage. The same rationale would apply to incestuous marriages. Indeed all the fundamental restrictions on various marriages go out the door with gay marriage being approved.

CFR, that logic and rationale for approving ssm would apply to incestuous marriages.

CFR, of what the legal logic and legal rationale is from the Court rulings in favor of ssm.

[Damien the Leper]

Just out of curiosity...when is the slippery slope argument ever going to go out of style along with its various and equally deceitful twins?

Allowing gay marriage

Allowing polygamy

Allowing incestual marriage

Allowing marriage to your pet or another animal

Allowing marriage to your refrigerator or your bedlamp

Allowing marriage to that really cool looking decorative rock in your yard

Yikes! This is absolutely ridiculous and laughable at best. Those who advocate such a logically fallacious thought processes show their hideous horns, fangs, claws and that nasty little agenda.

[CASteinman]

Just out of curiosity...when is the slippery slope argument ever going to go out of style

Probably when there is evidence showing it is no longer a justifiable argument. Until then, you will have to put up with the reality that the arguments are not invalid. Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when there is no clear connection between the initial opening gambit and the proposed outcome.

[treehugger]

Where members of the Church need to change is stop the none sense and false slippery slope arguments. When we, the members of the Church, stop such ridiculousness we will have gone a long way in helping gay members feel less alienated.

J

Edit: I do not mean this post as a support for gay marriage or homosexual practices. A person can acknowledge their homosexual attraction and be worthy of Temple attendance. The none sense members of the Church engage is not differentiating behavioral aspect of homosexuality and simply identifying as gay.

Edited July 27, 2012 by treehugger

[CASteinman]

Where members of the Church need to change is stop the none sense and false slippery slope arguments. When we, the members of the Church, stop such ridiculousness we will have gone a long way in helping gay members feel less alienated.

If they feel alienated by the stand of the Church that homosexual behavior -- whether married or not -- is a sin, then they are just going to be alienated. Its just how it is going to be.

[Libs]

The problem is that our secular government has already poked its nose into sacred matters by deciding who can issue marriage certificates and providing financial incentives for those who marry. If they back out of the marriage business and limit their activities to recording partnerships then the church would be in no danger from those who want to define marriage more broadly or perhaps enforce their own definition on others who disagree with them.

Why, exactly, does the church fell threatened by a "secular" definition of marriage that is somewhat broader than the church definition? Why is that a threat to the church, as long as the church is not being required to marry ss couples? Believe me, if it ever comes to that (the church being forced by the gov't, to marry ss couples, I will most definitely be on your side). But, as it stands right now, the church is trying to force ss couples to comply to their code of morality, rather than the other way around. So, the current threat is not towards the church.

[selek1]

Where members of the Church need to change is stop the none sense and false slippery slope arguments.

Ironically, no one here has posited a false slippery slope argument.

As to the posting of nonsense, "physician- heal thself".

When we, the members of the Church, stop such ridiculousness we will have gone a long way in helping gay members feel less alienated.

Gotta love the royal 'we'.

Do you really want to make "gays" feel less alienated?

Then stop instilling them with an unwarranted and unjustified sense of entitlement.

You want a healthy approach to supporting homosexuals?

Teach them that they are not entitled to our approval, nor to government sanction, nor dictate to us what we must consider "acceptable".

Edited July 27, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Why, exactly, does the church fell threatened by a "secular" definition of marriage that is somewhat broader than the church definition? Why is that a threat to the church, as long as the church is not being required to marry ss couples? Believe me, if it ever comes to that (the church being forced by the gov't, to marry ss couples, I will most definitely be on your side). But, as it stands right now, the church is trying to force ss couples to comply to their code of morality, rather than the other way around. So, the current threat is not towards the church.

I believe that they have multiple concerns including new intrusion of the Government into religious activities and dangers to property rights of the Church.

But above all, I think the Church believes that this is a moral issue that goes so deeply into the society all around it and which is so deeply dangerous to society overall, that it cannot be mute. The Church has been pretty clear on this: It is an issue of Morality.

[SamIam]

It is beyond reasonable that we should have to endure this topic in one more of the dozen iterations it has already taken on this site. While I have probably been more accepting of gays than most LDS I have known, I find that any distress I am sensing is coming from enduring the constant thrusting of this subject into these long drawn out debates where nothing new is discovered or said. At first, one can tolerate it and even attempt to participate but now all I feel is ambivalence. The subject is not uplifting. It does not merit this constant belaboring of the issue. If it is not obvious, the debate is moot, America has already charted its course and it is only a matter of time before the gays get everything they want. It would be nice to discuss the things that have merit for how to endure what is surely only around the corner.

For the obvious rebuttals...you are right I don't have to participate and in fact I have taken a week or so off already , only to come back today and to see this same tired subject eating up the board. I'll take another week off ...maybe it will go away and we can get back to things more meritorious. (If by chance we can get away from the second most abused subject of polygamy) It would be great to start a separate category where only gay and lesbian themes can be debated outside of the general categories area...since general categories is slowly becoming the general category of Gay and Lesbian discussions.

Edited July 27, 2012 by SamIam

[Damien the Leper]

Ironically, no one here has posited a false slippery slope argument.

As to the posting of nonsense, "physician- heal thself".

Gotta love the royal 'we'.

Do you really want to make "gays" feel less alienated?

Then stop instilling them with an unwarranted and unjustified sense of entitlement.

You want a healthy approach to supporting homosexuals?

Teach them that they are not entitled to our approval, nor to government sanction, nor dictate to us what we must consider "acceptable".

Entitlement...good terminology, Selek. No one is entitled to anything...not even heterosexuals. But you, I believe, would argue this just the same. What I like about you is that you are not willing to claim any blessing for your yourself that you would not wish for another. Nor would you impose any burden that you yourself would not bear.

Heterosexual couples do not need any sanction from the government.

Their relationships do not need, in any way, to be accepted by either a governmental or religious entity.

Heterosexual couples are just another group of people entitled to no more than homosexual couples. But we, you and I, understand this.

[Calm]

I don't think it is against the law, in all cases, to marry a step or adopted child. Woody Allen married his adopted daughter.

As a side note, Allen hadn't adopted his current wife, it was only his previous wife who had.....how sad it is that this is something I can remember.

It is beyond reasonable that we should have to endure this topic in one more of the dozen iterations it has already taken on this site.....

It would be great to start a separate category where only gay and lesbian themes can be debated outside of the general categories area...since general categories is slowly becoming the general category of Gay and Lesbian discussions.

Actually the mods have limited the topic to only one current thread at a time, more than one usually gets locked though sometimes they allow one per forum.

[treehugger]

CAsteinman, please address the CFRs in post 85 or redact your comments.

Edited July 27, 2012 by treehugger

[treehugger]

Where members of the Church need to change is stop the none sense and false slippery slope arguments. When we, the members of the Church, stop such ridiculousness we will have gone a long way in helping gay members feel less alienated.

Edit: I do not mean this post as a support for gay marriage or homosexual practices. A person can acknowledge their homosexual attraction and be worthy of Temple attendance. The none sense members of the Church engage is not differentiating behavioral aspect of homosexuality and simply identifying as gay.

[why me]

Just out of curiosity...when is the slippery slope argument ever going to go out of style along with its various and equally deceitful twins?

Allowing gay marriage

Allowing polygamy

Allowing incestual marriage

Allowing marriage to your pet or another animal

Allowing marriage to your refrigerator or your bedlamp

Allowing marriage to that really cool looking decorative rock in your yard

Yikes! This is absolutely ridiculous and laughable at best. Those who advocate such a logically fallacious thought processes show their hideous horns, fangs, claws and that nasty little agenda.

Not quite laughable but certainly if we go back in time, gay marriage would have gotten a yikes too. But with time and with hollywood making the gay lifestyle mainstream, no longer does it get a yike. Now the argument here is about a human right. Gays and lesbian have a human right to marry and they have a human right to adopt children etc.

When should a human right be denied. In your list above, would you deny anyone their human right to marry?

[why me]

But above all, I think the Church believes that this is a moral issue that goes so deeply into the society all around it and which is so deeply dangerous to society overall, that it cannot be mute. The Church has been pretty clear on this: It is an issue of Morality.

Hetero marriage and family have been under attack for decades now and we can see the result around us. There seems to be a sense of moral degradation. As definitions of family have changed and have become more loosely connected, we see just what this has done to our communities and to our schools and to the moral fabric that keeps us all together.

[california boy]

Two things: 1-If you want to know why the church urged involvement in the ssm issue read the Proclamation to the Family. It is a moral issue. Churches are all about moral issues.

2-You can always tell when ones arguments are weak when they have to resort to the race card. I know it plays well in the media it is really a desperation ploy.

Two things:

The church calls gay marriage a moral issue, yet who becomes more moral when gay marriage is denied? Do gays become more moral by not allowing them to marry? Are heterosexual couples more moral because gays are not allowed to marry? If the church does not allow gay marriage, do gays suddenly decide to be straight or celibate? Just why is this a moral issue.

That aside, my post was in agreeing with Wade that THIS sin, the sin of homosexuality is blown way out of portion. What other moral issue does the church march to the ballot box over and ask it's members to donate millions of dollars to when as Wade said, only 1-4% of the population identifies as gay.

Point 2: I was only agreeing with Wade that gay marriage gets way too much attention in the media. I simply made the statement that many felt race discrimination also got too much attention in the media before laws were passed eliminating race discrimination. The same thing will happen when gay marriage and other discriminating laws such as DOMA are passed. This issue will no longer be in the news on a daily basis. Do you disagree with that, or are you just taking pot shots? Because this post looks more like a drive by since you don't actually argue any of the points I made.

So if you want to make a point about what I ACTUALLY wrote, feel free to. Your drive by slams are uncalled for and have no relevance to what my post was about.