What If The Church Had Issued The Following Pre-Prop 8 Vote?

[Bikeemikey]

Not everything. Take for example, murder. Its a religious rule not to murder. We have taken it to government. Lots of people agree with it even those who are not religious. But it came from God.

And we are OK with that coercion.

You would say: but that deals with harm. I say; "Yes it does. But it came from God and its coercion."

You might then say "Well I only agree with the laws of God that pertain to harm". To which I would reply: which ones don't?

It was this line of thinking that took me out of Libertarianism.

Harm in our current political discourse has a very specific and narrow meaning... Harm is the presence if action that violates another's consent. If something is produces negative outcomes there is no harm if the actor is consenting.

In this context I am very happy with govt action. Govt effectively is a backdrop that provides protection of citizens against coercion. Govt can only exert force when consent is violated.

In the example of murder we don't give the govt freedom to coerce, we provide them powers to protect our freedom from coercion.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[CASteinman]

Will smith has an open marriage... That is not representative of anything.

Well, they do not agree. But to sort of agree with you: That is irrelevant.

Not sure what the purpose of your share was? Are you trying to suggest that gay marriages are more likely to be open?

The article does not suggest that... it states it right out.

Edited April 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Harm is the presence if action that violates another's consent. If something is produces negative outcomes there is no harm if the actor is consenting.

By that definition (which appears idiosyncratic to me) pretty much every law creates harm.

Govt effectively is a backdrop that provides protection of citizens against coercion.

The Government engages in coercion. That is its dominant behavior.

Govt can only exert force when consent is violated.

Nonsense.

In the example of murder we don't give the govt freedom to coerce

Nonsense.

[Bikeemikey]

By that definition (which appears idiosyncratic to me) pretty much every law creates harm.

The Government engages in coercion. That is its dominant behavior.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

I am not stating the current reality of things - i am stating my current philosophical perspective on tr matter at hand so you can understand why I have the broader positions I have.

[Bikeemikey]

Well, they do not agree. But to sort of agree with you: That is irrelevant.

The article does not suggest that... it states it right out.

The article said that at some point in the future a few reports would e coming out that seemed to be suggesting that.

[CASteinman]

I am not stating the current reality of things - i am stating my current philosophical perspective on tr matter at hand so you can understand why I have the broader positions I have.

It seems to me this government you have normatively described would be fit for the holy and the perfected but not for this mortal time amongst people of various capabilities and desires. It is exotic and utopian.

[CASteinman]

The article said that at some point in the future a few reports would e coming out that seemed to be suggesting that.

"they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women."

"A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many."

"The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners."

"“With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”"

"None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. "

“If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

Edited April 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[BCSpace]

The Church cannot side with the protection from the consequences of and the encouragement or benefiting of sinful behavior. The scriptures forbid it and such is not an expansion of rights.

[wenglund]

Yep, that is pretty clearly nonsense.

Please explain why, and the basis for which you think it is "clearly nonsense." (I am asking because I suspect it was a baseless dismissal engendered by dogmatism and confirmation bias, though I am open to letting you demonstrate otherwise if possible,)

I would also question the assertion that married homosexuals are more promiscuous than married heterosexuals. Very unlikely.

I didn't make that assertion. I spoke to homosexual relationships as a whole, and not the nominal few who envy heterosexual conventions enough to press for legalization and to enter into that heterosexual convention.

Here are some sobering statistics:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

http://www.examiner.com/article/infidelity-alert-for-gay-lesbian-couples-recently-united-same-sex-marriage

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

"they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women."

"A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many."

"The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners."

"“With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”"

"None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. "

“If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

The article also states that Mormons have open marriages. What should we conclude from that? That all Mormons don't take monogamy in marriage seriously? Just how do you want to play this game?

Open relationships are not exclusively a gay domain, of course. Deb and Marius are heterosexual, live in the East Bay and have an open marriage. She belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and maintained her virginity until her wedding day at 34. But a few years later, when the relationship sputtered, both she and her husband, who does not belong to the church, began liaisons with others.

“Our relationship got better,” she said. “I slept better at night. My blood pressure went down.”

Deb and Marius also have rules, including restrictions on extramarital intercourse. “To us,” Marius said, “cheating would be breaking the agreement we have with each other. We define our relationship, not a religious group.”

So while the legal fight over same-sex marriage plays out, couples say the real battle is making relationships last — and their answers defy the prevailing definition of marriage.

[CASteinman]

The article also states that Mormons have open marriages.

But not as a doctrine acceptable to the Church or to the Lord.

What should we conclude from that? That all Mormons don't take monogamy in marriage seriously? Just how do you want to play this game?

Like this: Statistics and acceptability.

I am not disputing that LDS people will sin. But we do not set it up as a new wonderful thing that will save the world. We also try to minimize it rather than exaggerate it. And you won't find 50% of the Mormon Marriages to be considered "open" nor promiscuous.

So, how was it you wanted to play the game? With Cherry Picking?

Edited April 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yep, that is pretty clearly nonsense. I would also question the assertion that married homosexuals are more promiscuous than married heterosexuals. Very unlikely.

What is clear is that you are not making a good faith effort to really understand the issues and seem to be more or less convinced based on emotionalism rather than logic.

[california boy]

But not as a doctrine acceptable to the Church or to the Lord.

Like this: Statistics and acceptability.

I am not disputing that LDS people will sin. But we do not set it up as a new wonderful thing that will save the world. We also try to minimize it rather than exaggerate it. And you won't find 50% of the Mormon Marriages to be considered "open" nor promiscuous.

So, how was it you wanted to play the game? With Cherry Picking?

So you are willing to cherry pick the gay relationships as being some kind of factor in this discussion but not the Mormon relationship mentioned. Ok I see. Sounds fair to me.

[CASteinman]

So you are willing to cherry pick the gay relationships as being some kind of factor in this discussion but not the Mormon relationship mentioned. Ok I see. Sounds fair to me.

Do you understand what Cherry Picking is? It isn't clear to me that you do.

Tell you what... find ANY source.. I don't even care if it is an anti-Mormon source -- ANY Source that involves an actual survey and poll that shows that Mormons have anywhere NEAR 50% of marriages as being open. I will take "near" to be -- within 40%.

Go ahead.

Now, do this. Again, find ANY source.. ANY Source you want, that says that the LDS Church today promotes open marriage.

Go ahead.

Now. re-read the article. It says 50% of gay marriages are open. And that such marriages may well be the salvation of marriage -- active promotion of it.

I understand you don't like what this article says. But you should at least hold on to a teensy tiny bit of reasonableness if you want to contradict it.

Edited April 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[omni]

People sharing their testimony doesn't invite the spirit? Or do you believe that is just a pr campaign? Do you think they are really all members or are some just actors?

Why such a defensive tone? Of course I don't believe they're actors, I know the participants are faithful LDS. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the church being concerned with their image, in fact if they weren't I'd be much more concerned a la Westboro Baptists, FLDS, and Islamic extremists.

I think it's pretty naive to think the campaign filled with members of a variety of races and highlighting their diverse backgrounds wasn't in part an effort to fight the negative image of us all being white conservative business men and homemakers. By the way I love the effort and often find myself watching the profiles with my family.

[california boy]

Do you understand what Cherry Picking is? It isn't clear to me that you do.

Tell you what... find ANY source.. I don't even care if it is an anti-Mormon source -- ANY Source that involves an actual survey and poll that shows that Mormons have anywhere NEAR 50% of marriages as being open. I will take "near" to be -- within 40%.

Go ahead.

Now, do this. Again, find ANY source.. ANY Source you want, that says that the LDS Church today promotes open marriage.

Go ahead.

Now. re-read the article. It says 50% of gay marriages are open. And that such marriages may well be the salvation of marriage -- active promotion of it.

I understand you don't like what this article says. But you should at least hold on to a teensy tiny bit of reasonableness if you want to contradict it.

So this is all about percentages. I see. How exactly does this work? Should we decide that if Catholics have sex outside their marriage 35% of the time, then all Catholics should not be allowed to marry? How about Mormons. If 10% of Mormons are not faithful in their marriages, then all Mormons should not be allowed to marry? Just wondering what percentage we should use to determin if an entire group should not be allowed to marry.

[Stone holm]

So this is all about percentages. I see. How exactly does this work? Should we decide that if Catholics have sex outside their marriage 35% of the time, then all Catholics should not be allowed to marry? How about Mormons. If 10% of Mormons are not faithful in their marriages, then all Mormons should not be allowed to marry? Just wondering what percentage we should use to determin if an entire group should not be allowed to marry.

I guess I am unclear. Several churches in our community actually perform and recognise SSMs. So do we as Mormons have the right to tell them that no they cannot perform such marriages because it is against our religious beliefs? Or do we call them secularists? Or something worse?

[CASteinman]

I guess I am unclear. Several churches in our community actually perform and recognise SSMs. So do we as Mormons have the right to tell them that no they cannot perform such marriages because it is against our religious beliefs? Or do we call them secularists? Or something worse?

This is irrelevant to the topic and it is begging the question fallacy that depends upon bad assumptions.

[CASteinman]

So this is all about percentages. I see.

As I said. Statistics.

Just wondering what percentage we should use to determin if an entire group should not be allowed to marry.

If you insist on putting it that way, I would say 50% of marriages being "open" would be a good cutoff.

But...

1. No one but you has talked about not allowing people to marry

2. You are ignoring the context of this conversation which was that Stoneholme stated: "I would also question the assertion that married homosexuals are more promiscuous than married heterosexuals." The New York Times article referencing the study was a source with information suggesting that, Yes, they are. There is more data to this effect. Would you like to see it?

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

This is irrelevant to the topic and it is begging the question fallacy that depends upon bad assumptions.

Okay, there are such churches in our community, and in effect we would be telling them no you can't do that because according to our beliefs it is immoral and we have more votes than you (of course out here the latter would not be true, but for argument sake lets pretend that it was). So which question would I be begging?

[CASteinman]

Okay, there are such churches in our community, and in effect we would be telling them no you can't do that because according to our beliefs it is immoral and we have more votes than you

Nonsense. Why do you build strawmen? Are you unable to make your case without them?

No one has proposed telling other Churches what to do.

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman