Brian 2.0 Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) Marriage was forever defined and instituted by God, in his first act and command. We need to stop thinking our wisdom exceeds his own. "For this reason shall as man leave his mother and father, and bind to his wife only" (Not sure if perfectly quoted) Yes, the very purpose of the world was for marriage between a man and a woman that the plan of salvation might be fulfilled. Let's not make this emotional, but pratical. Too many are born outside marriage and now we wish to redefine it until it resembles the original plan?That's fine for you or anyone to believe. But you obviously realize that there are plenty of people in the US that do not share your religious views on marriage. Do you honestly fault the government for not subscribing to your individual religious views?We do not live in a theocracy, especially one of a Mormon paradigm. Your theological stance on the origin and purpose of marragie holds no weight in the courts of this country. Edited July 5, 2013 by Brian 2.0
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 That's fine for you or anyone to believe. But you obviously realize that there are plenty of people in the US that do not share your religious views on marriage. Do you honestly fault the government for not subscribing to your individual religious views?We do not live in a theocracy, especially one of a Mormon paradigm. Your theological stance on the origin and purpose of marragie holds no weight in the courts of this country.No we don't, but are not dismissed from our responsibilities within it...and how we act is how we will be judged, collectively and individually.
Brian 2.0 Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) No we don't, but are not dismissed from our responsibilities within it...and how we act is how we will be judged, collectively and individually.So your beef isn't necessarily with the courts, but with members who "join the ranks" of gay marriage supporters?What do you think about people who support the right for gay people to get married, but still view homosexual acts a sin?It's possible to be against something morally but be for the right to do that act legally. Edited July 5, 2013 by Brian 2.0
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 So your beef isn't necessarily with the courts, but with members who "join the ranks" of gay marriage supporters?What do you think about people who support the right for gay people to get married, but still view homosexual acts a sin?It's possible to be against something morally but be for the right to do that act legally.That we all according to our beliefs and not our ever changing feeling.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) That we all according to our beliefs and not our ever changing feeling.The sound doctrine between male and female have stood the test of time. One can create a family and one naturally cannot. upon this issue the courts will have no say. Edited July 5, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee
Brian 2.0 Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) That we all according to our beliefs and not our ever changing feeling.The sound doctrine between male and female have stood the test of time. One can create a family and one naturally cannot. upon this issue the courts will have no say.You quoted me but I don't think you have answered my question, unless you did it so poetically that it was lost on me. I'll repeat...What do you think about people who support the right for gay people to get married, but still view homosexual acts a sin?It's possible to be against something morally but be for the right to do that act legally. Edited July 5, 2013 by Brian 2.0
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 You quoted me but I don't think you have answered my question, unless you did it so poetically that it was lost on me. I'll repeat...What do you think about people who support the right for gay people to get married, but still view homosexual acts a sin?It's possible to be against something morally but be for the right to do that act legally.This issue is not about a Mormon who does not drink, voting for or against prohibition. This is marriage a doctrine that defines our entire structural make-up. The structure of family is one of the primary pillars upon which our building stands.
Brian 2.0 Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) This issue is not about a Mormon who does not drink, voting for or against prohibition.A lot of people view it somewhat the same way. This is marriage a doctrine that defines our entire structural make-up. The structure of family is one of the primary pillars upon which our building stands.So if marriage is defined by the US courts as valid between same-sex couples, you think that action can kick out one of the primary pillars upon which the church stands? Why can't that pillar stay intact within the church?The debate is how one defines "the structure of family". There are plenty out there that do not define "family" in the same way that you define it. Sealing and eternal bonds aside... there are Mormons in the church that support civil gay marriage and define those bonds as "family." Those supporters are not seeking to topple over one of the "primary pillars" of the Mormon church or society in general. They feel that that gay marriage can be a part of that pillar in society and that same-sex parents with children can quality as "family." Most of these gay marriage supporters in the church aren't out marching in the parade in hopes that the church starts sealing gay couples for eternity, any more so than someone voting against alcohol prohibition isn't voting that the church should start using wine during the sacrament. Edited July 6, 2013 by Brian 2.0
LDSAnomaly Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Let me throw something in the mix... there are currently over 400,000 children in the foster care system. What is better for a gay couple to adopt a child or for him to stay in the foster system?I also do not understand how gay marriage in or outside the church knocks out a fundamental pillar. Gay people have families either by adoption or other means. So, elaborate on what you mean by knocking out a fundamental pillar of our church? 1
ERayR Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 How would you react if someone on the other side of that situation said "we shouldn't be afraid of hurtling some Mormons feelings"They aren't.. 1
Bikeemikey Posted July 6, 2013 Author Posted July 6, 2013 They aren't..If only phones could rep point :-)
Brian 2.0 Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 (edited) Deleted. Think I misinterpreted a post. Edited July 6, 2013 by Brian 2.0
USU78 Posted July 6, 2013 Posted July 6, 2013 Let me throw something in the mix... there are currently over 400,000 children in the foster care system. What is better for a gay couple to adopt a child or for him to stay in the foster system?I also do not understand how gay marriage in or outside the church knocks out a fundamental pillar. Gay people have families either by adoption or other means. So, elaborate on what you mean by knocking out a fundamental pillar of our church?You are quite sure of that, eh? Just how can we possibly know the long-term effects on children of living with unrepentant people who themselves tend, in numbers more than statistically significant, to narcissism, abusiveness, promiscuity, and short-lived-ness? And that fails to mention the lack of gender-appropriate role models, doesn't it? 3
Recommended Posts