Law Of Chastity And The Slippery Slope

[CV75]

Everyone will still be equal.

It is an artificial equality since it is reliant upon sin and downgraded moral standards. It is an equality that is based on redefining and perverting something that was once instituted of God. Such a course does not make it right, only temporarily popular.

[california boy]

It is an artificial equality since it is reliant upon sin and downgraded moral standards. It is an equality that is based on redefining and perverting something that was once instituted of God. Such a course does not make it right, only temporarily popular.

You may consider it a sin and therefore not choose to marry someone of the same sex. You are free to do so. What becomes a problem and probably the reason why Prop 8 lawyers have no interest in using this argument, is expecting the government or its citizens to accept what you consider a sin. You have not been given that right or authority to determine what is a sin and what is not in this country. Sorry to break the bad news to you.

[CV75]

You may consider it a sin and therefore not choose to marry someone of the same sex. You are free to do so. What becomes a problem and probably the reason why Prop 8 lawyers have no interest in using this argument, is expecting the government or its citizens to accept what you consider a sin. You have not been given that right or authority to determine what is a sin and what is not in this country. Sorry to break the bad news to you.

411: Let’s be clear: I consider gay “marriage” a sin and I think that is sufficient reason to legislate against it, despite the sound strategy of not using sin as a legal argument. Those who cannot comprehend the difference between reason and strategy easily get caught up (or remain entangled) in all sorts of life errors. News Flash: There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Earth to Mars: There is an interesting thread underway about legislation’s role in securing rights and morality, so I refer you that (“Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...”). Here’s the Lowdown: There is a great deal of legal support for “legislating morality (as haters love to call it),” indirectly if not always in a blatantly direct fashion—such is the complex nature of the world we live in (sorry to break the bad news to you!). FYI. Just so you know. Etc. etc. etc.

[california boy]

411: Let’s be clear: I consider gay “marriage” a sin and I think that is sufficient reason to legislate against it, despite the sound strategy of not using sin as a legal argument. Those who cannot comprehend the difference between reason and strategy easily get caught up (or remain entangled) in all sorts of life errors. News Flash: There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Earth to Mars: There is an interesting thread underway about legislation’s role in securing rights and morality, so I refer you that (“Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...”). Here’s the Lowdown: There is a great deal of legal support for “legislating morality (as haters love to call it),” indirectly if not always in a blatantly direct fashion—such is the complex nature of the world we live in (sorry to break the bad news to you!). FYI. Just so you know. Etc. etc. etc.

I have no problem legislating morality until it interferes with other peoples rights. That is the case with gay marriage. What are your legislative plans for breaking the word of wisdom? What laws do you want to see passed on fornication? Both of which are a much wider practiced sin than gay marriage.

For some reason, forcing people to not commit sin by passing laws seems like the other guys plan of salvation. How do you justify forcing people to not do what you consider is a sin and still claim to follow God's plan of salvation? I guess the teaching them correct principles and let them govern themselves idea died out with Joseph Smith.

Edited March 11, 2013 by california boy

[Maestrophil]

OK... while we are completely off the track... Ill ask this, specifically of California Boy.

I am of the mindset that I wish we could remove the government from marriage entirely and have it be a strictly moral/religious principle. That way anyone can "marry" when they want and the government need not care - nut that is another topic.

So IF gay marriage is legalized, what would prevent gay couples from suing the LDS church for discriminating against them by not marrying them, sealing them or letting them hold callings? Members of the church have a right under religious freedoms to hold fast to their principles without facing legal threats. So my question is, how can we make both sides happy, AND maintain the rights of both sides should the legal definition of marriage change?

MP

[thesometimesaint]

OK... while we are completely off the track... Ill ask this, specifically of California Boy.

I am of the mindset that I wish we could remove the government from marriage entirely and have it be a strictly moral/religious principle. That way anyone can "marry" when they want and the government need not care - nut that is another topic.

So IF gay marriage is legalized, what would prevent gay couples from suing the LDS church for discriminating against them by not marrying them, sealing them or letting them hold callings? Members of the church have a right under religious freedoms to hold fast to their principles without facing legal threats. So my question is, how can we make both sides happy, AND maintain the rights of both sides should the legal definition of marriage change?

MP

As a private, nonpublic accommodation enterprise, you can't sue them for discrimination. The solution as I see it is to take marriage out of the control of the state by making them all domestic partnerships. Let the churches perform whatever religious ceremony they want.

[Maestrophil]

As a private, nonpublic accommodation enterprise, you can't sue them for discrimination. The solution as I see it is to take marriage out of the control of the state by making them all domestic partnerships. Let the churches perform whatever religious ceremony they want.

Is that really true? Do they risk loosing tax-exempt status as a religion? Your solution is one I tend to agree with too. Let marriage be a religious undertaking.

[sjdawg]

So IF gay marriage is legalized, what would prevent gay couples from suing the LDS church for discriminating against them by not marrying them, sealing them or letting them hold callings? Members of the church have a right under religious freedoms to hold fast to their principles without facing legal threats. So my question is, how can we make both sides happy, AND maintain the rights of both sides should the legal definition of marriage change?

MP

Has this happened in other areas where gay marriage is legal? Or is it just your fear that it could potentially happen?

Edited March 11, 2013 by sjdawg

[Maestrophil]

Has this happened in other areas where gay marriage is legal? Or is it just fear-mongering?

I have not heard of it happening, and I am not trying to promote fear... I just know people are happy to sue when the opportunity presents itself. I am just wondering if there is a way to ENSURE people had no grounds to do so.

[Rock_N_Roll]

OK... while we are completely off the track... Ill ask this, specifically of California Boy.

I am of the mindset that I wish we could remove the government from marriage entirely and have it be a strictly moral/religious principle. That way anyone can "marry" when they want and the government need not care - nut that is another topic.

So IF gay marriage is legalized, what would prevent gay couples from suing the LDS church for discriminating against them by not marrying them, sealing them or letting them hold callings? Members of the church have a right under religious freedoms to hold fast to their principles without facing legal threats. So my question is, how can we make both sides happy, AND maintain the rights of both sides should the legal definition of marriage change?

MP

What is preventing non-members from suing the LDS church for discrimination for not sealing them?

What is preventing women from suing the LDS church for discrimination for not letting them hold the Priesthood?

What prevented black LDS members from suing for discrimination pre 1978?

The answer is that the LDS church is a private operation and therefore exempt from anti-discrimination lawsuits.

I too would like to see “Marriage” taken out of the control of the state. Let the state grant licenses for Domestic Partnerships, and let religion perform marriages and sealing’s as they see fit.

[sjdawg]

I have not heard of it happening, and I am not trying to promote fear... I just know people are happy to sue when the opportunity presents itself. I am just wondering if there is a way to ENSURE people had no grounds to do so.

Thanks. I edited my original post to remove the term fear-mongering. That was a little stronger terminology than I meant to use.

[Maestrophil]

What is preventing non-members from suing the LDS church for discrimination for not sealing them?

What is preventing women from suing the LDS church for discrimination for not letting them hold the Priesthood?

What prevented black LDS members from suing for discrimination pre 1978?

The answer is that the LDS church is a private operation and therefore exempt from anti-discrimination lawsuits.

I too would like to see “Marriage” taken out of the control of the state. Let the state grant licenses for Domestic Partnerships, and let religion perform marriages and sealing’s as they see fit.

Agree

[wenglund]

Agree

At the risk of breaking my vow of silence about SSM, let me just briefly and indirectly say that I think there is value in the state promoting the ideal fundamental institution of society, and there is little or no practical sense in promoting (equally or otherwise) less than ideal human relationships and families, and so state sanctioning of traditional marriages as "marriage" made sense to me, and for the same reasons I wasn't in favor of domestic partnerships or civil unions for homosexuals.

However, since common sense seems to have been tossed to the wind, and pop cultural inanity has taken hold, I would prefer the state go with domestic partnerships and civil unions for one and all, and get out of the marriage business, rather than doing violence to the definition of marriage and profaning the sacred.

Yet, as evinced in the several U.S. states that have had domestic partnerships or civil unions, the gay advocates haven't been satisfied with these legal labels. They want the "marriage" legal label, not so much because they care about the state-conferred rights and privileges of marriage (they already have those rights and privileges with civil unions), but because what they really want, at this point, is equal social acceptance for their relationships and sexuality as for heterosexual relationships. They want to completely normalize homosexuality, and it appears they believe they cant do that were the state to go strictly with domestic partnerships or civil unions all around.

So, good luck.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 11, 2013 by wenglund

[california boy]

OK... while we are completely off the track... Ill ask this, specifically of California Boy.

I am of the mindset that I wish we could remove the government from marriage entirely and have it be a strictly moral/religious principle. That way anyone can "marry" when they want and the government need not care - nut that is another topic.

So IF gay marriage is legalized, what would prevent gay couples from suing the LDS church for discriminating against them by not marrying them, sealing them or letting them hold callings? Members of the church have a right under religious freedoms to hold fast to their principles without facing legal threats. So my question is, how can we make both sides happy, AND maintain the rights of both sides should the legal definition of marriage change?

MP

I think you got some pretty good answers to your question. I hope you will use rational thinking in working how gay marriage will actually not effect you or the church at all.

[california boy]

At the risk of breaking my vow of silence about SSM, let me just briefly and indirectly say that I think there is value in the state promoting the ideal fundamental institution of society, and there is little or no practical sense in promoting (equally or otherwise) less than ideal human relationships and families, and so state sanctioning of traditional marriages as "marriage" made sense to me, and for the same reasons I wasn't in favor of domestic partnerships or civil unions for homosexuals.

However, since common sense seems to have been tossed to the wind, and pop cultural inanity has taken hold, I would prefer the state go with domestic partnerships and civil unions for one and all, and get out of the marriage business, rather than doing violence to the definition of marriage and profaning the sacred.

Yet, as evinced in the several U.S. states that have had domestic partnerships or civil unions, the gay advocates haven't been satisfied with these legal labels. They want the "marriage" legal label, not so much because they care about the state-conferred rights and privileges of marriage (they already have those rights and privileges with civil unions), but because what they really want, at this point, is equal social acceptance for their relationships and sexuality as for heterosexual relationships. They want to completely normalize homosexuality, and it appears they believe they cant do that were the state to go strictly with domestic partnerships or civil unions all around.

So, good luck.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I actually agree with you on this one. In fact it is one of the reasons on some of the briefs to overturn Prop 8. If marriage is good for straight couples, then it is also good for gay couples in all the exact same ways. Marriage provides a stabilizing effect on any relationship. It makes no sense to try and present a rational that marriage is only good for straight families. The government benefits from anyone that chooses to marry their partner and raise a family in that environment. Heaven knows we have way too many people these days choosing not to marry at all. Just living together has never been an ideal kind of family relationship. It is no wonder that so many gay couples are willing to fight for the right to marry. If marriage had no value to anyone, it would not be worth fighting for.

[Calm]

If marriage is good for straight couples, then it is also good for gay couples in all the exact same ways.

This may or may not be true. I don't think generally speaking one can assume that what works for one group works for any other group unless one had demonstrated that the groups are identical in all the affected ways. If one hasn't demonstrated this yet, then it is an assumption....educated assumption in that the closer a group is the more likely it is affected the same way, but still an assumption. Edited March 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

I actually agree with you on this one. In fact it is one of the reasons on some of the briefs to overturn Prop 8. If marriage is good for straight couples, then it is also good for gay couples in all the exact same ways. Marriage provides a stabilizing effect on any relationship. It makes no sense to try and present a rational that marriage is only good for straight families. The government benefits from anyone that chooses to marry their partner and raise a family in that environment. Heaven knows we have way too many people these days choosing not to marry at all. Just living together has never been an ideal kind of family relationship. It is no wonder that so many gay couples are willing to fight for the right to marry. If marriage had no value to anyone, it would not be worth fighting for.

In principle, this is as inane as suggesting that since birth control can be beneficial to heterosexual couples, then it must be good for homosexual couples; or since gynecologists are good for women, they must be good for men; or since driving cars are good for adults, then it must be good for children; or if eyeglasses are good for people with sight problems, they must be good for people with perfect vision; or if rough-housing is good for little boys, it must be good for little girls; if urinals are good for males, then they must be good for females; etc. etc..

The notion that "marriage is as good for homosexual couples as it is heterosexual couples" completely ignores the fundamental reason marriage is good for heterosexual couples, and is thus banal on its face.

However, I accept that what I just said isn't the prevailing way things are viewed in our increasingly upside-down, non-critical-thinking world. What may once have been generally considered as idiotic, has now become feel-good sayings on bumper stickers. God help us.

Well...I best go back into silent mode on this issue since I am wasting my breath again and I don't want be thread-banned or get the thread to locked up

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 11, 2013 by wenglund

[Maestrophil]

I hope you will use rational thinking in working how gay marriage will actually not effect you or the church at all.

Sorry, I am a Mormon... I can't think rationally. :-)

And Wade, I agree. I wish things were different. It reminds me of the school recently in France that had Muslims upset because they banned all head wear/scarves for girls. The Muslims cried discrimination citing that Christians could wear crosses - so the school said "OK"... and promptly banned crosses. Don't let the state define marriage, if it is going to muddy the definition of the institution.

MP

[Calm]

if rough-housing is good for little boys, it must be good for little girls

This is a fact proven by my own family.

[wenglund]

This is a fact proven by my own family.

My sisters and some of my nieces would say otherwise, though I grant that there my be exceptions to the rule. Either way, I hope the point of all my analogies, individually and collectively, isn't clouded by some of the less obvious analogies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 11, 2013 by wenglund

[california boy]

In principle, this is as inane as suggesting that since birth control can be beneficial to heterosexual couples, then it must be good for homosexual couples; or since gynecologists are good for women, they must be good for men; or since driving cars are good for adults, then it must be good for children; or if eyeglasses are good for people with sight problems, they must be good for people with perfect vision; or if rough-housing is good for little boys, it must be good for little girls; if urinals are good for males, then they must be good for females; etc. etc..

The notion that "marriage is as good for homosexual couples as it is heterosexual couples" completely ignores the fundamental reason marriage is good for heterosexual couples, and is thus banal on its face.

However, I accept that what I just said isn't the prevailing way things are viewed in our increasingly upside-down, non-critical-thinking world. What may once have been generally considered as idiotic, has now become feel-good sayings on bumper stickers. God help us.

Well...I best go back into silent mode on this issue since I am wasting my breath again and I don't want be thread-banned or get the thread to locked up

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You present strawman arguments. If there was only ONE reason why people get married, and if that reason was solely to procreate, then you might have a point. The fact is, there are numerous reasons why it is good for people to participate in marriage. And ALL of those reasons are beneficial even when procreation is not taking place. But then you knew that.

[CV75]

I have no problem legislating morality until it interferes with other peoples rights. That is the case with gay marriage. What are your legislative plans for breaking the word of wisdom? What laws do you want to see passed on fornication? Both of which are a much wider practiced sin than gay marriage.

For some reason, forcing people to not commit sin by passing laws seems like the other guys plan of salvation. How do you justify forcing people to not do what you consider is a sin and still claim to follow God's plan of salvation? I guess the teaching them correct principles and let them govern themselves idea died out with Joseph Smith.

Straw-man/men argument(s). When you can say something substantive I will reply. I already referred you to the other thread which treats these issues far less superficially than you are doing here. Please review it and if you really wish to get into it, engage more substantially over there.

[DH]

IMHO the Law of Chastity has largely or mostly to do with strengthening family ties and maintaining commitments to our spouses and children. Whether or not Fred and Joe a couple of doors down decide to "do the dirty" has no impact on my commitment to my spouse and children, or theirs to me. Of course I would appreciate it if people don't have sex on park benches when my family is trying to play Frisbee, because that could have an impact on my children's perceptions about appropriate boundaries and possibly inflame their passions when they're not married, but other people can do what they want, as far as I am concerned, in the privacy of their own home.

[california boy]

Straw-man/men argument(s). When you can say something substantive I will reply. I already referred you to the other thread which treats these issues far less superficially than you are doing here. Please review it and if you really wish to get into it, engage more substantially over there.

I don't blame you for not wanting to answer those questions. Good dodge.

[wenglund]

You present strawman arguments. If there was only ONE reason why people get married, and if that reason was solely to procreate, then you might have a point. The fact is, there are numerous reasons why it is good for people to participate in marriage. And ALL of those reasons are beneficial even when procreation is not taking place. But then you knew that.

I will break my silence to make this one needed correction. I didn't claim that there was only one reason why marriage was good. I spoke to the FUNDAMENTAL (did you catch it that time) reason. Now I will go back into silence while you go back into denial and engaging in ironic false projections.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-