Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[CASteinman]

Here's the bottom line: The Church Organization offered its land to the PUBLIC before same sex unions were approved. The Judge said that because it did this, even though the Church did not approve of same sex unions, the fact that it had offered it as a public place required it to follow the public accommodation law. The Church attempted to say that it only offered it to the public as a service under a Wedding Ministry but the judge rejected that entirely.

The Church did its best to say "But HEY!!! I AM A CHURCH!". The Judge said -- technically that does not matter because of the way you filed for tax exemption.

A trivial technicality involving a timing issue and individual and social "rights" prevailed over the first amendment.

It is more than well known.. it is a given and indeed a legal strategy to use such decisions to chip away and produce new law in the process.

Libs denials notwithstanding this is very well known. And this case sets ground in New Jersey and then later on the national stage to require Churches to marry gay people even if they do not agree.

Indeed this threat is recognized even by gay marriage advocates and for that reason, one of the gay rights advocates in California has proposed a statute that says that despite any laws of the State, no Church can be compelled to marry people against its will.

He would not provide that law if he did not recognize that it was a threat -- and he is a gay marriage advocate and the leader of the Prop 8 movement.

Despite it being a statute, the issue has risen to the level of the Constitution and Constitutional issues will prevail above statute. So his statute could be swept away by a court ruling.

[CASteinman]

Here in the UK, I could see this effecting (affecting?) the wards (not the Temple). We perform marriages for non members already. If the Church is ever forced to do marriages that go against it's standards, I expect first it'll stop doing marriages for non members, then perhaps marriages in it's wards.

Europe is in far worse shape than the USA on all of these issues but we are only 20 to 50 years behind.

I suspect that many of the people who are so confident that such things could not happen are thinking about "very soon" or "in the recognizable horizon". But the people like me who object are thinking about longer term periods.

[CASteinman]

Here is the former Archbishop of Canterberry discussing the effect of Gay Marriage provisions in England on the Church and Government. Although we function under the written US Constitution and they have a different sort of "Constitution" the issues he raises go to both countries... as some of his examples show.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9326688/Gay-marriage-is-a-threat-to-the-bonds-of-Church-and-state.html

[CASteinman]

For people who say that it is impossible that Churches would be forced to marry gay people... its already starting. It is not working yet.. but the effort is underway.

The so called "fears" are not unfounded.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/15/kansas-town-approves-amended-anti-discrimination-ordinance/

[Libs]

Most of the recent discrimination lawsuits have been against private businesses, CA...not churches.

[CASteinman]

Most of the recent discrimination lawsuits have been against private businesses, CA...not churches.

And so? Most legal entities are private businesses, not Churches. The ratio would roughly match. Your comment is irrelevant. Non-Sequitur.

Edited August 16, 2012 by CASteinman

[DBMormon]

LIBS - and any others who addressed my previous questioning

So the difference is that one is consenting adults and the other isn’t. What makes one person a consenting adult and not the other person? The Law, Moral code? Whether we are talking animals or underage people, if we take God out of the picture it boils down to legal law and moral code and what society is willing and not willing to allow. Both of the are based on popularity and not any real fixed line in the sand. It is possible then that both beastialty and pedophilia could be permitted at some later time if the general population at some point becomes forward thinking and progressive and accepts these behaviors as natural and permissable. It could be both legal and morally acceptable. There are people who have attractions to both the two illegal issues and can’t help themselves. At it’s root homosexuality can be seen as applicable and grabbing at the same acceptance that other issues do. So how is homosexual behavior at it’s root different? I would also say that heterosexual behavior is no different as well. The only true difference outside of legality and moral acceptance in a general population is if God exists and if he staes what is right and what is wrong. Only then do we have a firm line drawn, and not leave what is right and what is wrong up to public opinion.

Obviously in the underage case we must assume consent has been given verbally though obviously not legal consent. In the animal case there is legal precident that animal consent is not needed to do harm to an animal, as the farmer asks no one before he kills his chickens or cow for food. Any deterrant to kill an animal is again a matter of law and again an be changed by popular opinion

Any thoughts ???

again not exactly my view but playing devils advocate

Edited August 16, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I have adjusted the previous post to reflect the following details

Obviously in the underage case we must assume consent has been given verbally though obviously not legal consent. In the animal case there is legal precident that animal consent is not needed to do harm to an animal, as the farmer asks no one before he kills his chickens or cow for food. Any deterrant to kill an animal is again a matter of law and again an be changed by popular opinion

[DBMormon]

Would this thought process change if we found those who struggle with pedophillia were found to be geneticly different from others and it was shown that these orientations were natural and individuals were born with it?

[ERayR]

For people who say that it is impossible that Churches would be forced to marry gay people... its already starting. It is not working yet.. but the effort is underway.

The so called "fears" are not unfounded.

http://www.foxnews.c...tion-ordinance/

And Libs said there was no slippery slope.

[CASteinman]

Would this thought process change if we found those who struggle with pedophillia were found to be geneticly different from others and it was shown that these orientations were natural and individuals were born with it?

I believe that it is possible that such things might have a biological component that may be present even from birth. I don't know that there is great evidence for this, but it is not out of the question.

Regardless, the gospel sets lines and standards that are for our benefit -- and they apply to all of us, even those of us who may have these challenges.

[Tacenda]

Matt Mosman, a San Francisco Stake High Councilman, gave this talk at the Circling the Wagons Mormon LGBT Conference, posted on Mitch Mayne's blogspot.

http://mitchmayne.blogspot.com/2012/08/circling-wagons-mormon-lgbt-conference_14.html

Very interesting and relates well to the topic!

[wenglund]

Despite your assurances that LGBT activists will go "this far and no further", members of your caucus are agitating to changes to the age of consent laws.

Lest we think this beyond the realm of possibility, keep in mind that up until the 1890's in the U.S. the age of consent in most states was 10-12 years-old and as low as 7 in Deleware. (see )

According to the same article, from 1950 to 1990 "several paedophile membership organisations advocated lowering or abolishing age of consent laws to legalize sexual activities involving an adult and a child. As one of their arguments to lower or abolish the age of consent, members of paedophile advocacy groups promoted their belief that children are psychologically capable of consenting to sexual interactions with adults, and they often portrayed themselves as fighting for the right of children to engage in what the activists consider to be consensual sex with adults. Some activists managed to link their goals with those of the early LGBT social movements, but in the course of time those movements universally rejected this linkage. In 1994 the International Lesbian and Gay Association expelled three pedophile activist member groups..."

It would be interesting to read the rationale behind the expulsion after so many years in cahoots.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

I was just thinking about the title of this thread and wonder why it is only those who oppose gay marriage need to keep open minds. Shouldn't the same apply to the other side?

[ERayR]

Matt Mosman, a San Francisco Stake High Councilman, gave this talk at the Circling the Wagons Mormon LGBT Conference, posted on Mitch Mayne's blogspot.

http://mitchmayne.bl...ference_14.html

Very interesting and relates well to the topic!

I can't find a thing to disagree with in this article. The thing I want you to notice is he did not advocate ssm nor for dispensation for homosexual people who are sexually active to receive temple recommends. That said the article gives some very good advice.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I was just thinking about the title of this thread and wonder why it is only those who oppose gay marriage need to keep open minds. Shouldn't the same apply to the other side?

Yes yes it should.

I also note that there are a large portion of those that are supporters of SSM that are not very tolerant. And the only reason I bring this up is because they are always telling us how tolerant of others we need to be.

[ERayR]

I was just thinking about the title of this thread and wonder why it is only those who oppose gay marriage need to keep open minds. Shouldn't the same apply to the other side?

A very astute observation.

[DBMormon]

I felt a serious set of questions were asked and look forward to those who feel SSA behavior should be permitted and acceptable within the church to help me reason out the thoughts I wrote down.

[wenglund]

And Libs said there was no slippery slope.

Another point or two about warranted slippery slope arguments concerning gay issues like SSM. It is irrational to flippantly dismiss them, but even more so (insipid?) when leading gay activist groups spell out their intentions and goals, and those intentions lay at the end of the argued slippery slope and even in some cases beyond.

For example, read the Gay Liberation Manifesto, which explicitly states that they are not content with various reforms, but are intent on revolution, with the primary target being the traditional family, schools, and the law. Their stated goals spell out their end game and further substantiate the warranted slippery slope arguments.

As such, this raises the question as to why certain gay activist are so quick to dismiss the warranted slippery slope arguments? Could it be that they wish to sweep the manifestos and agendas under the rug, thinking their chances of success are greatly improved if they go about their business by way of stealth? And, dismissing the warranted slippery slope arguments is a way of preventing the gig from being up or brought out of the closet as it were?

Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

Matt Mosman, a San Francisco Stake High Councilman, gave this talk at the Circling the Wagons Mormon LGBT Conference, posted on Mitch Mayne's blogspot.

http://mitchmayne.bl...ference_14.html

Very interesting and relates well to the topic!

I don't agree with everything he said. Not sure if my disagreements are all that material but:

1. He considers it insane to claim that homosexuals choose to be "Gay". Yet we know that some do choose. Thus his claim that believing it is insane -- is a denial of reality.

2. He claims that "eunuchs" are gay. That is just false. A person who is not able or does not want to have sexual relations is not the same thing as a person who desires sex from someone of the same gender. In addition, we have accounts on this board of people who are attracted to the same sex and yet have been married to women, happily and with a rewarding sexual relationship. They are "gay" but they are not eunuchs. So...his unauthorized interpretation is insulting to both eunuchs and to gay people. Although, I can imagine that in some respects gay people are so eager to see acceptance and apologetics for their condition that they will accept the insult if it means more people will accept them.

Those are my two areas of disagreement but other than that, his talk was enjoyable and useful.

Edited August 16, 2012 by CASteinman

[USU78]

Sorry, I just do not see any evidence of that, in the case of ss marriage, and you have not presented any, because none exists.

YOu cannot make the case. I understand. Nobody else can either.

[USU78]

Ray, you are obviously not familiar with the case.

Some church had a gazebo of some sort (I think it had an ocean view, or something not sure, but it was not inside their church...a completely separate venue) that they were renting out for marriages. There was no stated requirement that those renting the venue had to be affiliated with their religion. They were renting to the public and it was not even a religious building or anything close to that. It would be like the LDS Church renting out a facility in their new mall, for weddings. When you are selling something to the public (selling, leasing, whatever), then you must follow the non-discrimination laws setup for businesses. It's that simple. The LDS Temple is NOT a public building, nor is it being leased to the public for any reason. Completely different "rules" for private religious facilities.

That's a quibble at best: Unless you can demonstrate by citing a string of cases where courts upheld free exercise over personal liberty/etc when they came into conflict, you are avoiding the issue and hurt your credibility.

[Calm]

2. He claims that "eunuchs" are gay.

Aren't eunuchs individuals who have been castrated? If so, then how does that accord with the reasoning that homosexuality is inborn?

[Libs]

Yea, a eunich is someone who has been castrated and has absolutely nothing to do with being gay.

[USU78]

Interesting. Given the sources for the arguments against Boswell that these authors share...there seems to be much more than their disagreement with him that they have in common.

If you want to make the case that this one linkee (I found a whole bunch in about 30 seconds on google) contained links to works, all of whose authors were/are constitutionally incapable of fairness . . . then show us why.

Don't say that an iconoclast who overturns based upon the strength of his naked assertions millenia of understanding of ancient texts is beyond criticism.

Fact is, his argument is presentist: The term "homosexual" as a taxonometric construct didn't exist until the XIXth Century; The concept of homosexuality as anything other than a highly regrettable and destructive syndrome was invented during my lifetime; To assume Saul/Paul would have know what the heck we're talking about when you and your source assert his support of homosexuality "done right" is to presume something preposterous.