Lds Church Files Friend Of The Court Brief W/ Scotus Re: Prop 8, Doma

[go_utes01]

Better evolving than stagnant. Queen Elizabeth ll isn't our monarch. To the issue of SS marriage I prefer to have the State get out of the marriage business altogether, and make them all Civil Unions and enforced like any other contract. Let the churches, mosque's, synagog's, what have you, do whatever religious ceremony they want.

I agree with you. I do not understand why anybody needs or wants the government's approval of their personal relationships. But, as long as the state is involved in incentivizing certain relationships (with my hard-earned money), then I think an argument can rightfully be made that the state is legitimate in incentivizing the "best" (as in best for society) relationship form.

Edited February 19, 2013 by go_utes01

[thesometimesaint]

Fine.

The Lord has not spoken to us yet on the subject of same gender marriage. The Church's position has continually changed over the past decades as the restoration unfolds. Until we have full revelatory clarify on the subject, I believe we ought to follow Elder Cook's advice: "As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender."

For me, personally, that means supporting their right to legally recognized marriage. And it means celebrating with them when Prop 8 is overturned by the Supreme Court.

You, of course, can continue to fear the slippery slope.

There is no excuse for being anything less than "As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender." By the same token we should never embrace the sin. As hard as it is to do we must love the sinner, but hate the sin.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with you. I do not understand why anybody needs or wants the government's approval of their personal relationships. But, as long as the state is involved in incentivizing certain relationships (with my hard-earned money), then I think an argument can rightfully be made that the state is legitimate in incentivizing the "best" (as in best for society) relationship form.

I think there is a way to incentivize producing children, necessary for any society to long exist, and not subsidizing marriage per say. Let all couples legally joined file as a couple, but only allow those with children claim that deduction. IE; My children have all long left our nest, so I can't claim them as dependents any more, but still my wife and I file a joint return as a married couple.

[go_utes01]

I think there is a way to incentivize producing children, necessary for any society to long exist, and not subsidizing marriage per say. Let all couples legally joined file as a couple, but only allow those with children claim that deduction. IE; My children have all long left our nest, so I can't claim them as dependents any more, but still my wife and I file a joint return as a married couple.

I think we should get out of the incentivizing-through-the-tax-code business altogether. A nice flat tax or fair tax would be better in my estimation.

[thesometimesaint]

I think we should get out of the incentivizing-through-the-tax-code business altogether. A nice flat tax or fair tax would be better in my estimation.

A flat tax is the least fair way to do taxes. Say we put the flat tax at 10%. To a rich person 10% means little in relative economic terms. While 10% for a poor person means actually not eating for a month and a week every year. Also the rich person uses far more public resources than the poor person. A Progressive tax structure such as Adam Smith proposed really is the fairest of methods to do the essential functions of government.

[go_utes01]

A flat tax is the least fair way to do taxes. Say we put the flat tax at 10%. To a rich person 10% means little in relative economic terms. While 10% for a poor person means actually not eating for a month and a week every year. Also the rich person uses far more public resources than the poor person. A Progressive tax structure such as Adam Smith proposed really is the fairest of methods to do the essential functions of government.

This is probably not the board to discuss tax structures, but you are probably aware that those who advocate for a flat tax or a fair tax have ways to address the problem you point out. Even if we decided on a progressive tax structure, I believe we should shrink the tax code/loopholes/special interest tax breaks etc. currently encumbering the present system. Moreover, I still stand behind my previous post that we should stop trying to "nudge" people's behavior through the tax code.

[rockpond]

There is no excuse for being anything less than "As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender." By the same token we should never embrace the sin. As hard as it is to do we must love the sinner, but hate the sin.

So is a homosexual church member who desires to live the law of chastity and marry someone of their own gender a sinner? If so, can we love them by allowing them at least the ability to marry someone of their choice outside of the church?

[rockpond]

I think there is a way to incentivize producing children, necessary for any society to long exist, and not subsidizing marriage per say. Let all couples legally joined file as a couple, but only allow those with children claim that deduction. IE; My children have all long left our nest, so I can't claim them as dependents any more, but still my wife and I file a joint return as a married couple.

I don't know about you but the tax code had nothing to do with my desire to have children. It also had nothing to do with the choices my wife and I made regarding how many children to have. Tax benefits never once entered the conversation.

[wenglund]

Fine. The Lord has not spoken to us yet on the subject of same gender marriage.

From my experience, the Lord isn't in the habit of commanding in all things. He expects us to use the brains he gifted us. One would have to be buried under a truck-load of sandy denial not to connect all the logical revelatory dots that literally scream that homosexual behavior is a perversion, not just because it occurs outside the bonds of marriage, but also because it is UN_NATURAL--i.e. contrary to the design of God and the sacred intent for GENERATIVE parts. Again, wrapping perverse sexual behaviors in the sacred garment of marriage does not change the perversion, it merely profanes the sacred. As such, obviously the only logical conclusion is that God and reason are against same-sex marriage. Really, this isn't rocket science, but I can understand some people's confusion given the difficulty of navigating the dense fog of pop culture once one loosens their grip on the iron rod (i.e. word of God).

The Church's position has continually changed over the past decades as the restoration unfolds.

No...not essentially. What little change has occurred has been in terms of interacting with and caring for the spiritually sick, and not in terms of whether the behavior is spiritually sick or not. Try as some might, there isn't a reasonable way to blur the distinction.

Until we have full revelatory clarify on the subject, I believe we ought to follow Elder Cook's advice: "As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender."

I agree with Elder Cook. However, If you think his comment comes anywhere close to a call to support and not challenge gay marriage, then you clearly fit the upside-down world we now live in.

You, of course, can continue to fear the slippery slope.

I don't fear the slippery slope because I am not the one jumping on it and riding it down with rational abandonment. Like I said earlier, I can find a way to happily live in this new upside-down world without being of it. You, of course, are free to embrace the inversion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

A flat tax is the least fair way to do taxes. Say we put the flat tax at 10%. To a rich person 10% means little in relative economic terms. While 10% for a poor person means actually not eating for a month and a week every year. Also the rich person uses far more public resources than the poor person. A Progressive tax structure such as Adam Smith proposed really is the fairest of methods to do the essential functions of government.

This speaks to a point I made elsewhere regarding the different ways that Conservatives and Liberals understand words like "equality" and "fair share". Here is another variation from the one example I posted earlier:

See HERE.

However, this gets us a bit far afield of the topic of this thread and on to the forbidden topic of politics. So, I will say no more.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

From my experience, the Lord isn't in the habit of commanding in all things. He expects us to use the brains he gifted us. One would have to be buried under a truck-load of sandy denial not to connect all the logical revelatory dots that literally scream that homosexual behavior is a perversion, not just because it occurs outside the bonds of marriage, but also because it is UN_NATURAL--i.e. contrary to the design of God and the sacred intent for GENERATIVE parts. Again, wrapping perverse sexual behaviors in the sacred garment of marriage does not change the perversion, it merely profanes the sacred. As such, obviously the only logical conclusion is that God and reason are against same-sex marriage. Really, this isn't rocket science, but I can understand some people's confusion given the difficulty of navigating the dense fog of pop culture once one loosens their grip on the iron rod (i.e. word of God).

Yes, I certainly hear a lot of screaming.

Alternatively, this sort of rhetoric would look great on a sandwich board.

Edited February 19, 2013 by semlogo

[rockpond]

From my experience, the Lord isn't in the habit of commanding in all things. He expects us to use the brains he gifted us. One would have to be buried under a truck-load of sandy denial not to connect all the logical revelatory dots that literally scream that homosexual behavior is a perversion, not just because it occurs outside the bonds of marriage, but also because it is UN_NATURAL--i.e. contrary to the design of God and the sacred intent for GENERATIVE parts. Again, wrapping perverse sexual behaviors in the sacred garment of marriage does not change the perversion, it merely profanes the sacred. As such, obviously the only logical conclusion is that God and reason are against same-sex marriage. Really, this isn't rocket science, but I can understand some people's confusion given the difficulty of navigating the dense fog of pop culture once one loosens their grip on the iron rod (i.e. word of God).

No...not essentially. What little change has occurred has been in terms of interacting with and caring for the spiritually sick, and not in terms of whether the behavior is spiritually sick or not. Try as some might, there isn't a reasonable way to blur the distinction.

I agree with Elder Cook. However, If you think his comment comes anywhere close to a call to support and not challenge gay marriage, then you clearly fit the upside-down world we now live in.

I don't fear the slippery slope because I am not the one jumping on it and riding it down with rational abandonment. Like I said earlier, I can find a way to happily live in this new upside-down world without being of it. You, of course, are free to embrace the inversion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, thank you, I'll use my brain and intellect. I'll also use the Spirit. I see nothing unnatural about a condition that has been naturally present in the world's population for as far back as we can see. I see nothing unnatural about a person's desire to love and be loved.

I do, however, see a hetero-normative culture that has enabled the majority to trample the minority. A culture that may very well have led to church policy decisions in a similar way that it did with Blacks being denied access to the temple and the priesthood.

I think that the church moving from a position that homosexuality is a choice, something that can be changed, or simply a temptation to a position of understanding that it is, for many, an innate immutable trait is a fairly significant change.

I'm not riding the slippery slope... I'm just not using it as rationalization for my position.

Edited February 19, 2013 by rockpond

[go_utes01]

Yes, thank you, I'll use my brain and intellect. I'll also use the Spirit. I see nothing unnatural about a condition that has been naturally present in the world's population for as far back as we can see. I see nothing unnatural about a person's desire to love and be loved.

I do, however, see a hetero-normative culture that has enabled the majority to trample the minority. A culture that may very well have led to church policy decisions in a similar way that it did with Blacks being denied access to the temple and the priesthood.

I think that the church moving from a position that homosexuality is a choice, something that can be changed, or simply a temptation to a position of understanding that it is, for many, an innate immutable trait is a fairly significant change.

I'm not riding the slippery slope... I'm just not using it as rationalization for my position.

So the Church doesn't believe that giving into their "innate immutable trait" is a temptation that homosexuals experience anymore? Is it a foregone conclusion, i.e. not a temptation, not a choice to engage in the sinful activity (but then how could it be a sin if there is no temptation)? When did this change occur? I must have missed it.

[wenglund]

Yes, thank you, I'll use my brain and intellect. I'll also use the Spirit. I see nothing unnatural about a condition that has been naturally present in the world's population for as far back as we can see. I see nothing unnatural about a person's desire to love and be loved.

Like I said, it is very difficult for some people to see amidst the dense fog of pop cultural obfuscations. One of the key elements of the fog machine is inanely conflating the spiritual meaning of "un-natural" (which I explicitly pointed out) with the temporal meaning of "occurs naturally." Another key element is to conflate perverse sexual behavior with "love." Imagine my lack of surprise to find you purporting both.

I do, however, see a hetero-normative culture that has enabled the majority to trample the minority. A culture that may very well have led to church policy decisions in a similar way that it did with Blacks being denied access to the temple and the priesthood.

That's the thing about obfuscatory fog: it not only prevents some people from seeing things that are actually there, but it also causes some people to see things that aren't actually there. One of the key elements of illusion for the fog machine is to inanely draw comparisons between perverse sexual behavior and skin color. Imagine my lack of surprise to find you plying this one as well.

Congratulations! You were able to fit at least three key elements of obfuscation and propaganda into the first two paragraphs of a single post..

I think that the church moving from a position that homosexuality is a choice, something that can be changed, or simply a temptation to a position of understanding that it is, for many, an innate immutable trait is a fairly significant change. I'm not riding the slippery slope... I'm just not using it as rationalization for my position.

No doubt, you feel a need to leverage the change for all its worth since you are left with not much else to proudly take your stand for perversion....while unwittingly sliding gleefully down the slippery slope to an upside-down world.

p.s. Are you able to carry on a respectful debate without resorting to personal insults or is that just your style?

It is a common obfuscatory practice to conflate sharply reasoned and conscience-pricking retorts with "insults," and this while engaging unwittingly somewhat in the same.

Truth be told, it is out of deep respect for you, and not wishing to insult your intelligence, that I have spoken frankly with you. I would be doing you and myself and others a disservice to tiptoe politely around while someone inadvertent spreads around the spiritual and ideational equivalent of AIDS.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

So the Church doesn't believe that giving into their "innate immutable trait" is a temptation that homosexuals experience anymore? Is it a foregone conclusion, i.e. not a temptation, not a choice to engage in the sinful activity (but then how could it be a sin if there is no temptation)? When did this change occur? I must have missed it.

I didn't write that clearly... I was referring to past teachings that a heterosexual person could somehow be tempted into becoming homosexual. That the trait itself was not something innate but something that could be learned or even developed through other sins (ref: Elder Packer's "To The One" and Elder Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness").

[rockpond]

Like I said, it is very difficult for some people to see amidst the dense fog of pop cultural obfuscations. One of the key elements of the fog machine is inanely conflating the spiritual meaning of "un-natural" (which I explicitly pointed out) with the temporal meaning of "occurs naturally." Another key element is to conflate perverse sexual behavior with "love." Imagine my lack of surprise to find you purporting both.

That's the thing about obfuscatory fog: it not only prevents some people from seeing things that are actually there, but it also causes some people to see things that aren't actually there. One of the key elements of illusion for the fog machine is to inanely draw comparisons between perverse sexual behavior and skin color. Imagine my lack of surprise to find you plying this one as well.

Congratulations! You were able to fit at least three key elements of obfuscation and propaganda into the first two paragraphs of a single post..

No doubt, you feel a need to leverage the change for all its worth since you are left with not much else to proudly take your stand for perversion....while unwittingly sliding gleefully down the slippery slope to an upside-down world.

It is a common obfuscatory practice to conflate sharply reasoned and conscience-pricking retorts with "insults," and this while engaging unwittingly somewhat in the same.

Truth be told, it is out of deep respect for you, and not wishing to insult your intelligence, that I have spoken frankly with you. I would be doing you and myself and others a disservice to tiptoe politely around while someone inadvertent spreads around the spiritual and ideational equivalent of AIDS.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Telling me that I'm in a fog and that the world is inverted due to the pop culture is not actually an argument.

From a religious perspective you can't identify where the Lord has spoken with respect to marriage equality.

From a civil perspective, all you've got is a claim that violence is being done to a word. You never responded to my question about who was being harmed and how.

Constant claims of obfuscation and propaganda are not reasoned discourse. They've also grown quite tedious.

Have a nice day.

[go_utes01]

I didn't write that clearly... I was referring to past teachings that a heterosexual person could somehow be tempted into becoming homosexual. That the trait itself was not something innate but something that could be learned or even developed through other sins (ref: Elder Packer's "To The One" and Elder Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness").

Thanks for the clarification. You would agree that homosexuals may be tempted into committing the sin of engaging in homosexual behavior (i.e. same-sex sex - that is hard to make clear - homosexual behavior could just be any behavior by a homosexual which clearly is not inherently sinful), but could be able to withstand such temptation?

[rockpond]

Thanks for the clarification. You would agree that homosexuals may be tempted into committing the sin of engaging in homosexual behavior (i.e. same-sex sex - that is hard to make clear - homosexual behavior could just be any behavior by a homosexual which clearly is not inherently sinful), but could be able to withstand such temptation?

Yes. I agree that anyone who participates in sexual relations outside of marriage has violated the law of chastity. And yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are expected to abide that law and withstand temptation.

[go_utes01]

Yes. I agree that anyone who participates in sexual relations outside of marriage has violated the law of chastity. And yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike are expected to abide that law and withstand temptation.

It is clear that you believe that there has been no revelation or final word disallowing homosexual marriage and homosexual sexual behavior inside such a marriage. Do you believe that if homosexual marriage is recognized by the state - as it already is in several states - that no further revelation would be necessary by the Church concerning sexual relations inside those homosexual unions, i.e. that those that are already legally married in states that recognize same-sex civil marriages and are engaging in homosexual sexual relations are not breaking the law of chastity? And that they should be allowed to be baptized, go to the temple, etc. even without additional revelation? Just curious. Does the lack of revelation run both ways, or is the default position, in your estimation, that once homosexual marriage is recognized by the state, those that are legally married are no longer breaking the law of chastity? Thanks.

Edited February 19, 2013 by go_utes01

[Hestia]

I think it's time this thread closed. Conversation is deteriorating.