Law Of Chastity And The Slippery Slope

[Ahab]

All it takes for the world to get worse and worse is for more people to do bad things without repenting from doing those bad things.

It's just a numbers thing. More people doing bad things without repenting = world getting worse and worse.

This thread seems to be focusing on people doing bad things sexually while trying to pass those bad things off as okay.

Thus the world is getting worse and worse with more people doing bad things without repenting from doing those bad things.

Oh yeah, and by some standards we're not supposed to even suggest that people need to repent, are we.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Ahab

[cinepro]

Thoughts?

Thank you,

-Smac

Your post got me wondering so I did some research. And based on the pictures and videos I've found over the last three hours about what happens at college parties in this country, any college activity where kids aren't actually having sex with each other sounds like a step in the right direction.

[Lightbearer]

Of course sexual perversions and the abominations of the world will increase with every generation. When I graduated from High School the idea of SSM would be unthinkable, even a crude joke... now one is discredited or marginalized if anyone dares to speak against this modern day "golden calf" and back in 1977 "shacking up" or living together was the rage (especially for heterosexuals) actually the SSM push is actually ironic. I mean the argument back them was that "all you need is love" not a peice of paper from the government to legitimize their fornication. Internestingly the desensitzation of the world gets darker and darker to the point where good is called evil and evil good. I find it amazing that people are offended by legislation of "morality" when in truth all laws including the one trying to be foisted onto society by the SSM advocates is nothing short of trying to legislate their version of "morality" or rather immorality on society. That is an old argument to try to shame people into silence: "How dare you breach the sanctity of church and state!" Sorry but there are bigger issues here at stake than political points. The world is a sick, painful place because of the deceit of Lucifer and those who would oppose everything that is good. I pray for the day when this earth will be renewed and the wicked will be burned off. May that day come quickly so that my children or grandchildren might grow up without sin unto salvation.

[bu11fr0g]

I found it very interesting that HJGrant in 1935 gen conference warned against a movement for "free love." Nothing seems that new.

[thesometimesaint]

I found it very interesting that HJGrant in 1935 gen conference warned against a movement for "free love." Nothing seems that new.

When it comes to human interactions there is nothing new under the sun.

The Greek philosopher Plato studied under Socrates. Plato complained

about the youth of the day, also. "What is happening to our young

people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They

ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions.

Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

[Questing Beast]

...

I am sure that my parents worried about their children as the world worsened while I was growing up. I have that same worry now about my children and the world in which they are growing up. But the Restored Gospel helps me avoid despair. I am grateful for it.

Thoughts?

Thank you,

-Smac

I take comfort in the reality that I don't belong here, I am "just visiting". It will all stop eventually, if not soon enough. While "being there" (here) the learning by experience continues. While I see evidence that many around me are "learning by sad experience", that is no reason why I should stupidly choose to also learn by sad experience when I know better. And I do know better. If I give up what I know for a little diversion and acceptance by those attempting to increase "sensitivity training" in the world, I am no better than the next person who lies to him/herself, and I will deserve the outcome of my stupidity and dishonesty, which is always negative and sorrowful....

[Walden]

Of course sexual perversions and the abominations of the world will increase with every generation. When I graduated from High School the idea of SSM would be unthinkable, even a crude joke... now one is discredited or marginalized if anyone dares to speak against this modern day "golden calf" and back in 1977 "shacking up" or living together was the rage (especially for heterosexuals) actually the SSM push is actually ironic. I mean the argument back them was that "all you need is love" not a peice of paper from the government to legitimize their fornication. Internestingly the desensitzation of the world gets darker and darker to the point where good is called evil and evil good. I find it amazing that people are offended by legislation of "morality" when in truth all laws including the one trying to be foisted onto society by the SSM advocates is nothing short of trying to legislate their version of "morality" or rather immorality on society. That is an old argument to try to shame people into silence: "How dare you breach the sanctity of church and state!" Sorry but there are bigger issues here at stake than political points. The world is a sick, painful place because of the deceit of Lucifer and those who would oppose everything that is good. I pray for the day when this earth will be renewed and the wicked will be burned off. May that day come quickly so that my children or grandchildren might grow up without sin unto salvation.

I find it amazing that people are offended by legislation of "morality" when in truth all laws including the one trying to be foisted onto society by the SSM advocates is nothing short of trying to legislate their version of "morality" or rather immorality on society.

For me, morality is a personal thing. Each of us has our own personal view on "morality". My neighbor has a different view of morality than I do. The person sitting next to you in sacrament meeting has a different view of morality than you do (maybe not publicly, by certainly in private). As long as your morality doesn't threaten my personal liberties, infringe on my rights or present physical harm, than I don't see a problem. Of course, there is a difference between "public morality" (those things contained, defined and restricted within government legislation) and "personal morality" (the ethics that I adhere to in my personal, day-to-day life and beyond the realms of government legislation), but I am of the opinion that public morality should only define and restrict those things that threaten my personal liberties, infringe on my rights or present physical harm, none of which are threatened by SSM.

SSM does nothing to threaten my own morality. It does not affect how I love and honor my wife. It does not affect the values of integrity, honesty, hard work, etc. that I try to pass on to my children. SSM does not threaten my safety, nor does it infringe in any way on the personal liberties and freedoms that I enjoy as a citizen of this great country.

[smac97]

For me, morality is a personal thing.

No, it's not. It's not solely a personal thing. The law regulates/restricts behavior because it is either malum in se ("wrong (or evil) in itself") or malum prohibitum ("wrong" or "evil" because it is "prohibited"). A generalized sense of "morality" is the source of all laws which regulate malum in se behavior.

Each of us has our own personal view on "morality".

And we have the right, within constitutional bounds, to enact laws which are based on or otherwise reflect those personal views. To suggest otherwise - as you appear to be doing - is to relegate religious Americans and their rights to a secondary and subordinate class, with fewer rights than others. I think that's a profoundly wrongheaded way of thinking.

My neighbor has a different view of morality than I do.

Hence the legislative process, which involves voting processes, deliberative processes, and a general "majority rules" approach to legislation - within the confines of the Constitution.

Again, there is nothing wrong with a person participating in the legislative process to enact their views in the law, even when those views are about "moral" issues.

The person sitting next to you in sacrament meeting has a different view of morality than you do (maybe not publicly, by certainly in private). As long as your morality doesn't threaten my personal liberties, infringe on my rights or present physical harm, than I don't see a problem.

There is a tremendous about of ambiguity in the "as long as" caveat you employ here.

Of course, there is a difference between "public morality" (those things contained, defined and restricted within government legislation) and "personal morality" (the ethics that I adhere to in my personal, day-to-day life and beyond the realms of government legislation), but I am of the opinion that public morality should only define and restrict those things that threaten my personal liberties, infringe on my rights or present physical harm, none of which are threatened by SSM.

Tell that to the owners of Elane Photography in New Mexico.

SSM does nothing to threaten my own morality.

Same-sex marriage is a radical re-definition of the foundational institution of society. We cannot re-define it without affecting society in many profound ways.

Moreover, there is nothing about same-sex marriage that privileges it from any other radical re-definition. Thus you must also accept redefinitions based on things like number (if two people can get married, why not three? Four? Fifteen?), consanguinity (since it "does nothing to threaten (your) own morality, either), and so on.

It does not affect how I love and honor my wife. It does not affect the values of integrity, honesty, hard work, etc. that I try to pass on to my children. SSM does not threaten my safety, nor does it infringe in any way on the personal liberties and freedoms that I enjoy as a citizen of this great country.

Nor does group marriage. Do you support that as well? Polygamy? Incestuous marriages? Marriages to non-humans? Marriages involving incompetent persons? None of these "affect how (you) love and honor (your) wife."

Thanks,

-Smac

[semlogo]

Of course sexual perversions and the abominations of the world will increase with every generation. When I graduated from High School the idea of SSM would be unthinkable, even a crude joke... now one is discredited or marginalized if anyone dares to speak against this modern day "golden calf" and back in 1977 "shacking up" or living together was the rage (especially for heterosexuals) actually the SSM push is actually ironic. I mean the argument back them was that "all you need is love" not a peice of paper from the government to legitimize their fornication. Internestingly the desensitzation of the world gets darker and darker to the point where good is called evil and evil good. I find it amazing that people are offended by legislation of "morality" when in truth all laws including the one trying to be foisted onto society by the SSM advocates is nothing short of trying to legislate their version of "morality" or rather immorality on society. That is an old argument to try to shame people into silence: "How dare you breach the sanctity of church and state!" Sorry but there are bigger issues here at stake than political points. The world is a sick, painful place because of the deceit of Lucifer and those who would oppose everything that is good. I pray for the day when this earth will be renewed and the wicked will be burned off. May that day come quickly so that my children or grandchildren might grow up without sin unto salvation.

I somehow doubt that that the rate of homosexual activity has anything to do with the acceptance of gay marriage.

People have been having sex for hundreds of thousands of years, in all sorts of creative ways. There is nothing new under the sun.

Edited March 7, 2013 by semlogo

[semlogo]

Same-sex marriage is a radical re-definition of the foundational institution of society. We cannot re-define it without affecting society in many profound ways.

Can you list a few ways that society would be profoundly affected?

[Avatar4321]

Please Wade, do not again poison the well of an otherwise worthwhile topic with anti-gay sentiments that have nothing to do with the OP. We get it, you abhor homosexuality and consider it will lead to the downfall of Western Civilization as we know it.

Forgive me, but i fail to see how he has poisened the well of anything.

Is there a reason we shouldn't abhor violations of the law of chastity, regardless of the violation? Is there any reason we shouldn't encourage people not to engage in activities, but rather with love encourage them to live God's standards?

[Avatar4321]

Can you list a few ways that society would be profoundly affected?

Im not going to go into tons of example. I will, however, use one example.

If these laws pass, the Adversary will use them to stir up contention and violence against the Church. It's not the first time he has used marriage laws to attack the Church. It seems quite obvious that he will gladly do so again. We will not be the only Church targetted. Though it will be especially targetted to us. (As you can see it already is. The Catholics and countless protestant/evangelical churches have likewise joined with us in our efforts to preserve the definition of marriage, but we are the one being largely targetted).

We will need greater faith and devotion to bring us through what is coming.

[The Nehor]

Well, I would say we should run off to the wilderness again but the world is running out of them.

[Calm]

The Catholics and countless protestant/evangelical churches have likewise joined with us in our efforts to preserve the definition of marriage, but we are the one being largely targetted).

I suspect we are just more awarewha is happening in our on communities:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/report_details_harassment_and_antireligious_bigotry_after_prop._8_passage/

[Bikeemikey]

No, it's not. It's not solely a personal thing. The law regulates/restricts behavior because it is either malum in se ("wrong (or evil) in itself") or malum prohibitum ("wrong" or "evil" because it is "prohibited"). A generalized sense of "morality" is the source of all laws which regulate malum in se behavior.

And we have the right, within constitutional bounds, to enact laws which are based on or otherwise reflect those personal views. To suggest otherwise - as you appear to be doing - is to relegate religious Americans and their rights to a secondary and subordinate class, with fewer rights than others. I think that's a profoundly wrongheaded way of thinking.

Hence the legislative process, which involves voting processes, deliberative processes, and a general "majority rules" approach to legislation - within the confines of the Constitution.

Again, there is nothing wrong with a person participating in the legislative process to enact their views in the law, even when those views are about "moral" issues.

There is a tremendous about of ambiguity in the "as long as" caveat you employ here.

Tell that to the owners of Elane Photography in New Mexico.

Same-sex marriage is a radical re-definition of the foundational institution of society. We cannot re-define it without affecting society in many profound ways.

Moreover, there is nothing about same-sex marriage that privileges it from any other radical re-definition. Thus you must also accept redefinitions based on things like number (if two people can get married, why not three? Four? Fifteen?), consanguinity (since it "does nothing to threaten (your) own morality, either), and so on.

Nor does group marriage. Do you support that as well? Polygamy? Incestuous marriages? Marriages to non-humans? Marriages involving incompetent persons? None of these "affect how (you) love and honor (your) wife."

Thanks,

-Smac

I support the right to equal treatment underlaw and therefore SSM. I also believe in my right as a religious individual to freely believe and express my perspective about the morality of homosexuality and its weaknesses.

I do not have the right to request my private moral beliefs be enforced on the general public via legislation.

The constitution is about rights, not morality. It is a product of modern political liberalism.

Do no harm and get out of other peoples way... And make sure everyone does this equally.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Duncan]

I support the right to equal treatment underlaw and therefore SSM. I also believe in my right as a religious individual to freely believe and express my perspective about the morality of homosexuality and its weaknesses.

I do not have the right to request my private moral beliefs be enforced on the general public via legislation.

The constitution is about rights, not morality. It is a product of modern political liberalism.

Do no harm and get out of other peoples way... And make sure everyone does this equally.

that's the question though of how do you and who is going 'make sure' everyone does something equally and what is more on that point is who is going to make someone do something equally while maintaining getting out of people's way?

[Bikeemikey]

that's the question though of how do you and who is going 'make sure' everyone does something equally and what is more on that point is who is going to make someone do something equally while maintaining getting out of people's way?

None of this is easy to resolve. However there is a huge gap between the current conversations due to a foundational difference in the perspective of govt. one side believes the govt should be aggressively involved in moral considerations and the other believes the govt should circumscribe their sphere to that of rights.

I do not think that it is ever legitimate for the govt to be engaged in considerations of moral judgement ( except in those instances where a right has been violated; rights trump private morals). These rights are limited: rights to freedom from harm, rights to property being the two principle ones.

Ones private moral convictions would not allow them to steal from me or hurt me, though it would be permissible for them to do anything that does not harmfully impact another individual without consent.

This divide between these camps is interesting for te following reason: the less the govts has to do with legislating morality the better I think the world is, vs the other side who believes a lack of govt involvement on moral issues makes the world worse.

I am opposed in general to a key premise in the OP - the tolerance of gay marriage is in my book evidence of a better world, even if my personal belief is that both SSM and homosexuality are sin.

I believe religions, not govts, to be the most impt institutions in the world. Govts protect our rights, religions however protect out moral character by teaching us right from wrong.

Govts can never do this.

I will be the first to champion total freedom of religion and will be aggressively opposed to any attempt to control the moral judgements of religion by govt or enforce changes in religious belief through social force. However, I am also aggressively opposed to the govt attempting to legislate moral action.

I am constantly in awe of those who can reconcile a govt they wouldn't trust with their wallet with a govt they would trust with their conscience, moral beliefs and in their bedroom... That is not a leap of faith I can make.

Posted from my iphone ... Sorry for the typos.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Duncan]

None of this is easy to resolve. However there is a huge gap between the current conversations due to a foundational difference in the perspective of govt. one side believes the govt should be aggressively involved in moral considerations and the other believes the govt should circumscribe their sphere to that of rights.

I do not think that it is ever legitimate for the govt to be engaged in considerations of moral judgement ( except in those instances where a right has been violated; rights trump private morals). These rights are limited: rights to freedom from harm, rights to property being the two principle ones.

Ones private moral convictions would not allow them to steal from me or hurt me, though it would be permissible for them to do anything that does not harmfully impact another individual without consent.

This divide between these camps is interesting for te following reason: the less the govts has to do with legislating morality the better I think the world is, vs the other side who believes a lack of govt involvement on moral issues makes the world worse.

I am opposed in general to a key premise in the OP - the tolerance of gay marriage is in my book evidence of a better world, even if my personal belief is that both SSM and homosexuality are sin.

I believe religions, not govts, to be the most impt institutions in the world. Govts protect our rights, religions however protect out moral character by teaching us right from wrong.

Govts can never do this.

I will be the first to champion total freedom of religion and will be aggressively opposed to any attempt to control the moral judgements of religion by govt or enforce changes in religious belief through social force. However, I am also aggressively opposed to the govt attempting to legislate moral action.

I am constantly in awe of those who can reconcile a govt they wouldn't trust with their wallet with a govt they would trust with their conscience, moral beliefs and in their bedroom... That is not a leap of faith I can make.

Posted from my iphone ... Sorry for the typos.

this is a sticky issue as to who decides what is acceptable or not. Our society IMO rightfully has laws legislating that some moral acts are illegal and punishable by doing time in the klink, i.e pedophilia, rape, bestiality etc. but with that there are exceptions. For example in Canada a bill was announced by the Gov't that wanted police to monitor better or something computers to catch child predators but there was a backlash that the Gov't killed it so privacy rights seem to be more important then the safety of our children, is that right? I am willing to allow the Gov't access to my personal info if it means some crum bum gets caughts before he does anything to my son.I am teaching my son computer safety and I tell him I monitor what lego videos and other goofy kiddie videos he watches and I teach him morality but I hope he listens. Having said all all the Gov't lost all my personal info for my student loans...so that a sore spot....

[Bikeemikey]

this is a sticky issue as to who decides what is acceptable or not. Our society IMO rightfully has laws legislating that some moral acts are illegal and punishable by doing time in the klink, i.e pedophilia, rape, bestiality etc. but with that there are exceptions. For example in Canada a bill was announced by the Gov't that wanted police to monitor better or something computers to catch child predators but there was a backlash that the Gov't killed it so privacy rights seem to be more important then the safety of our children, is that right? I am willing to allow the Gov't access to my personal info if it means some crum bum gets caughts before he does anything to my son.I am teaching my son computer safety and I tell him I monitor what lego videos and other goofy kiddie videos he watches and I teach him morality but I hope he listens. Having said all all the Gov't lost all my personal info for my student loans...so that a sore spot....

The nice thing about rights is we all have the same ones. There is much less ambiguity deciding what rights we have compared to what is morally acceptable. That is why the US constitution and most western democracies favored governments engagement with peoples rights, not there moral decisions.

The examples you used of laws that result in punishment are not grounded in morality. They are grounded in rights violations. All of those examples are crimes because the actions violate consent, either because consent is refused and the act is committed anyway, or because the victim is not considered capable of informed consent ie, children and animals.

There is much that is a violation of rights that is also immoral and vice versa. There are however many immoral actions that are not crimes because they are not violations of rights.

There are many bad things that are going to happen in the world to all sorts of people. Giving the govt the power to violate our privacy in an attempt to resolve these is a big problem for me. That is a slippery slope if ever there was one.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

I support the right to equal treatment underlaw and therefore SSM. I also believe in my right as a religious individual to freely believe and express my perspective about the morality of homosexuality and its weaknesses.

I do not have the right to request my private moral beliefs be enforced on the general public via legislation.

The constitution is about rights, not morality. It is a product of modern political liberalism.

Do no harm and get out of other peoples way... And make sure everyone does this equally.

Since I have taken a vow of silence on the subject of SSM, let me address your comments generically by asking if you realize that there was and is a moral impetus behind drafting the Constitution, producing a system of laws, enforcing them, acknowledging and conferring rights, etc.? Do you realize that the notions of "do no harm" and "equal treatment" are morally based? In other words, do you realize how naive it is to assume that the Constitution and rights and laws are mutually exclusive of morality?

To see why, try explaining, in non-moral terms, why we should care about the rights of others or harming others such that we are motivated to create a binding constitution and develop a system of laws?

Also, can you show me anywhere in the Constitution and law where citizens are denied the right to vote according to the dictates of their moral conscience?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Duncan]

The nice thing about rights is we all have the same ones. There is much less ambiguity deciding what rights we have compared to what is morally acceptable. That is why the US constitution and most western democracies favored governments engagement with peoples rights, not there moral decisions.

The examples you used of laws that result in punishment are not grounded in morality. They are grounded in rights violations. All of those examples are crimes because the actions violate consent, either because consent is refused and the act is committed anyway, or because the victim is not considered capable of informed consent ie, children and animals.

There is much that is a violation of rights that is also immoral and vice versa. There are however many immoral actions that are not crimes because they are not violations of rights.

There are many bad things that are going to happen in the world to all sorts of people. Giving the govt the power to violate our privacy in an attempt to resolve these is a big problem for me. That is a slippery slope if ever there was one.

I guess for me the I don't mind the Gov't knowing stuff about me in order to catch a criminal (not saying you are pro criminal actions!) The Gov't lost my info, stuff happens I get that. In Brooks, Alberta last year a meat packing plant was apparently putting out bad meat and it was a huge mess, people cutting corners to save costs, poor inspectotions etc. So, when it all hit the fan people were wondering where the gov't was and where were all the inspections and yet before all this they brished off the inspections and inspectors apparently and so we can't have it both ways, do you want the proper guidelines followed or don't you and if you don't you have no one to blame but yourself and your meat plant should be shut down, do we want Gov't involvement or don't we?

[thesometimesaint]

Since I have taken a vow of silence on the subject of SSM, let me address your comments generically by asking if you realize that there was and is a moral impetus behind drafting the Constitution, producing a system of laws, enforcing them, acknowledging and conferring rights, etc.? Do you realize that the notions of "do no harm" and "equal treatment" are morally based? In other words, do you realize how naive it is to assume that the Constitution and rights and laws are mutually exclusive of morality?

To see why, try explaining, in non-moral terms, why we should care about the rights of others or harming others such that we are motivated to create a binding constitution and develop a system of laws?

Also, can you show me anywhere in the Constitution and law where citizens are denied the right to vote according to the dictates of their moral conscience?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Equal protection clause, the 1st Amendment, 14th, and 15 Amendments of the US Constitution. Plus the VRA of 1968. Right now before the USSC is a petition to let states use discriminatory laws to exclude certain groups from voting.

Edited March 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

Equal protection clause and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Wade:

See additions to my comments.

[Duncan]

Equal protection clause, the 1st Amendment, 14th, and 15 Amendments of the US Constitution. Plus the VRA of 1968. Right now before the USSC is a petition to let states use discriminatory laws to exclude certain groups from voting.

oh boy, I need a translator!