Church Has No Right In Political Discourse?

[urroner]

Can't it be both?

No Nehor, it has to either be one or the other and, just an FYI for you buddy, the following logical fallacies do not apply to the Church/homosexual debate:

• Fallacy of false dilemma
• Fallacy of false dichotomy
• Fallacy of black-and/or-white thinking,
• Fallacy of either-or
• Fallacy of false choice
• Fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses
• Fallacy of the false alternative
• Fallacy of the excluded middle

The following logical fallacies have also been used by one side or the other

• Argument to moderation
• Mind projection fallacy
• Moral high ground
• Argumentum ad populum
• Appeal to Consequences
• Appeal to Tradition

Now, let's hope that the following fallacies doesn't rear their heads during this discussion, but I don't expect they will.

• Falsum in Uno, Falsum in Omnibus
• No True Scotsman
• Ad Hominem, and my mostest favoritest
• Reductio ad Hitlerum

[Calm]

 

Thomas Jefferson said it best.

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

― Thomas Jefferson

 

But having legal recognition of gay marriage does grant them the same financial benefits as heterosexuals....so even if you believe this is only fair, it does cost taxpayers money and as yet there isn't definite evidence that there will be an increase of revenue from the benefits as happens generally in heterosexual marriages (which is the reason for the benefits....to ultimately increase revenue through more income earners...don't know if there are other expected greater income...perhaps through property taxes from homeowners who are more likely to be married) so it very well may end up 'picking pockets' through increased taxes overall.

[california boy]

Let's just look at what you are saying and see if it makes any sense at all.

CB, I view sex outside of marriage as immoral and if something that I view as immoral is legalized doesn't make it moral.  Should the Church view recreational pot smoking in Utah as immoral, but deem it moral in Colorado?

 

Sex whether inside or outside of marriage among consenting adults is already legal.  Please explain how gay sex within marriage is ANY different than the church sending a message that gays should not marry?  There has to be some logic to this whole campaign to stop gays from marrying otherwise it is a complete waste of 40 million dollars.  The difference between gay marriage and your marajuana example is that it is currently illegal to use pot in Utah.  Are you hearning about gays being arested for having consensual sex in Utah?

 

 

I have no problem, from a legal POV of the US government getting out of marriage and going to civil unions for everybody who wants one.  It's the way it's done in Mexico and, from what I understand, in Great Britain.

The problem I have with the government ruling over who can and can't get married is then the government, especially in today's political environment, will insert itself into the churches who oppose SSM and saying that if the church doesn't perform SSM, it will be taken to court.  I hear lots of people boohooing about the danger of the Church poking its nose into politics, yet, for some cryptic and enigmatical use of logic, many of these people don't have the slightest problem with government poking its nose, face, and sometimes its whole body into dictating what churches can and can't do

.

CFR an instance where the government has "insert itself into the churches who oppose SSM and saying that if the church doesn't perform SSM, it will be taken to court."  If you can not provide a source for this, then withdraw the statement. You have 250 years of history to show ONE instance where the government made any church marry someone.  So have at it,

[ERayR]

Christ's Church should be about charity, love and leading people back to Him.  It shouldn't be known as a church that tries to stop people from legaling marrying and discriminating against gays..

 

It is about defining moral behavior and that sometimes offends people. Especially when their behavior is defined as immoral. 

[ERayR]

I don't think we should be part of that large and spacious building. But I do believe that well thought out ideas do a better job of convincing than poorly thought out ones.

 

And, of course, your "well thought out ideas" are far superior to someone elses "well thought out ideas".

[thesometimesaint]

But having legal recognition of gay marriage does grant them the same financial benefits as heterosexuals....so even if you believe this is only fair, it does cost taxpayers money and as yet there isn't definite evidence that there will be an increase of revenue from the benefits as happens generally in heterosexual marriages (which is the reason for the benefits....to ultimately increase revenue through more income earners...don't know if there are other expected greater income...perhaps through property taxes from homeowners who are more likely to be married) so it very well may end up 'picking pockets' through increased taxes overall.

 

How could a state grant some financial benefits to one and not the other because of religion? IE; I may not agree with the Catholics on matters of religion, but I see no legally consistent way for the state to deny them the same financial benefits I enjoy.

 

Yes it costs the taxpayers money. The enforcement of any law requires taxpayer money. However the increase in economic activity more than compensates for that cost. IE; When more people that have more money to spend they can afford to pay the bill I charge for my services.

 

Yes most homeowners are heterosexual. That is a function of demographics. The average American is a white, middle class, middle aged, heterosexual, woman, living somewhere in the mid west. I certainly don't demand that everyone be just like me to enjoy all the financial benefits of being a citizen that I enjoy.  When you add in that until very recently homosexuals/blacks/Chinese/Jews were effectively excluded from the housing market, including rentals, you start to see the scope of the problem. I won't even get into the lack of affordable housing, State laws, restrictive covenants in mortgages and owner associations, redlining also had major effects on whom could buy/rent a home.

 

Thomas Jefferson had slaves so I can't draw that statement too far. But marriage has cost me money. The benefits, both emotional and monetary, more than outweigh those costs. IE; If I lived alone I sure wouldn't have as big of a house as I do now. Nor would I have as big of refrigerator to feed all the kids and Grandkids. The down side is that wouldn't have the wonderful kids and Grandkids I do have.

[urroner]

Sex whether inside or outside of marriage among consenting adults is already legal.  Please explain how gay sex within marriage is ANY different than the church sending a message that gays should not marry?  There has to be some logic to this whole campaign to stop gays from marrying otherwise it is a complete waste of 40 million dollars.  The difference between gay marriage and your marajuana example is that it is currently illegal to use pot in Utah.  Are you hearning about gays being arested for having consensual sex in Utah?

 

Legal or not, I consider it immoral.  You consider it moral.  Marriage, as has been stated before in this thread, is defined for centuries as between a man and a woman.  Now there are those who want to change that definition and they seem to expect that all those who held to the "man/woman" definition should either just shut up or agree with them, but it's all about changing the definition.

You call the money spent a waste, I call it well used.

Again, just because something is legal doesn't make it moral and it doesn't mean the Church has to agree to it and not try to fight it.

 

Just because there aren't any arrests doesn't mean that it's okay either.  Maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say in the last two sentences above.

 

CFR an instance where the government has "insert itself into the churches who oppose SSM and saying that if the church doesn't perform SSM, it will be taken to court."  If you can not provide a source for this, then withdraw the statement. You have 250 years of history to show ONE instance where the government made any church marry someone.  So have at it,

 

There is nothing to CFR on it.  I just worded it wrong.  I meant to say "The problem I fear with the government ruling over who can and can't get married is then the government, especially in today's political environment, will insert itself into the churches who oppose SSM and saying that if the church doesn't perform SSM, it will be taken to court."

This Obama administration has done much to undermine any role a Christian church can do when it comes to opposing his policies.  I don't want to bring politics into this discussion, but to clarify my thoughts, it's necessary.  It was become more and more difficult lately for any mention of Christianity when it comes to dealing with the government.  Kids being turned away from handing out Christmas cards  which mention Christ or Christmas to vets in VA hospitals.  The insurance debacle of forcing churches to provide access to medical procedures they find reprehensible.  What is to prevent the government from demanding that churches preform SSM or face legal litigation?

[thesometimesaint]

And, of course, your "well thought out ideas" are far superior to someone elses "well thought out ideas".

 

Of course they are, by definition.

 

But more seriously in this country, laws have to withstand secular court decisions. We're not a theocracy. Moreover until Christ returns to rule and reign I have no desire to live under one.

[ERayR]

Of course they are, by definition.

 

But more seriously in this country, laws have to withstand secular court decisions. We're not a theocracy. Moreover until Christ returns to rule and reign I have no desire to live under one.

 

You seem to think that the churches should be muzzled I don't.  Let them put their ideas into the marketplace of ideas.

[thesometimesaint]

Legal or not, I consider it immoral.  You consider it moral.  Marriage, as has been stated before in this thread, is defined for centuries as between a man and a woman.  Now there are those who want to change that definition and they seem to expect that all those who held to the "man/woman" definition should either just shut up or agree with them, but it's all about changing the definition.

You call the money spent a waste, I call it well used.

Again, just because something is legal doesn't make it moral and it doesn't mean the Church has to agree to it and not try to fight it.

 

Just because there aren't any arrests doesn't mean that it's okay either.  Maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say in the last two sentences above.

 

 

There is nothing to CFR on it.  I just worded it wrong.  I meant to say "The problem I fear with the government ruling over who can and can't get married is then the government, especially in today's political environment, will insert itself into the churches who oppose SSM and saying that if the church doesn't perform SSM, it will be taken to court."

This Obama administration has done much to undermine any role a Christian church can do when it comes to opposing his policies.  I don't want to bring politics into this discussion, but to clarify my thoughts, it's necessary.  It was become more and more difficult lately for any mention of Christianity when it comes to dealing with the government.  Kids being turned away from handing out Christmas cards  which mention Christ or Christmas to vets in VA hospitals.  The insurance debacle of forcing churches to provide access to medical procedures they find reprehensible.  What is to prevent the government from demanding that churches preform SSM or face legal litigation?

 

I consider a great many things immoral, but unless I can convince a majority of others whom don't consider those things immoral those things should remain/be maintained legal.

 

Churches are specifically exempt from requiring insurance to provide access to what they find objectionable. An affiliated church business is required to provide insurance covered access.

 

The First Amendment prohibits government from demanding any church or nongovernmental person or group perform any religious ceremony. 

[thesometimesaint]

You seem to think that the churches should be muzzled I don't.  Let them put their ideas into the marketplace of ideas.

 

Where have I ever said that? I have never believed that anyone or any group should be muzzled within the confines of the Constitution. I firmly believe in the right of every person and/or group to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, both real and imaginary. To stand on the soapbox of their choice and loudly proclaim whatever they see as truth.

 

Heck I'm even for the right of this Church to petition the government for a return of polygamy. Though I personally have no desire to practice it in this life, and I see no inclination on the part of the Church for its return any time soon.

[ERayR]

Where have I ever said that? I have never believed that anyone or any group should be muzzled within the confines of the Constitution. I firmly believe in the right of every person and/or group to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, both real and imaginary. To stand on the soapbox of their choice and loudly proclaim whatever they see as truth.

 

Heck I'm even for the right of this Church to petition the government for a return of polygamy. Though I personally have no desire to practice it in this life, and I see no inclination on the part of the Church for its return any time soon.

 

I get the impression you have trouble with churches paying for soapboxes.

[california boy]

Legal or not, I consider it immoral.  You consider it moral.  Marriage, as has been stated before in this thread, is defined for centuries as between a man and a woman.  Now there are those who want to change that definition and they seem to expect that all those who held to the "man/woman" definition should either just shut up or agree with them, but it's all about changing the definition.

You call the money spent a waste, I call it well used.

 

You keep making statements that are absolutely not true.  CFR where I called gay sex moral.  And WHERE did I say that those who define marriage as a man and a woman should shut up or agree with them.  

 

The question remains, Why did the church spend 40 million dollars trying to stop gay marriage when gays living together and gays married together are committing the exact same sin?  You state that you think the money was well spent, you can't seem to tell me what the money actually did.  What did the church get for the money spent?  Even if Prop 8 was not overturned, by preventing gays from marrying, how did that change ANYONES moral behavior?  Now if the church had spent 40 million on a campaign to promote celibacy amongst gays, then one could say that the church was fighting a moral principle.  Gay marriage? No one is more moral whether gay marriage is legal or not.

 

Again, just because something is legal doesn't make it moral and it doesn't mean the Church has to agree to it and not try to fight it.

 

Just because there aren't any arrests doesn't mean that it's okay either.  Maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say in the last two sentences above.

 

 

I agree that just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.  Whether gay marriage is legal or not, gay sex is still legal.  Gay sex is legal in ever state in the country.  The church fighting gay marriage does NOT make gay sex illegal.  It only makes gay marriage illegal.  Since both are considered immoral, why does the church care whether gay marriage is passed?  

 

There is nothing to CFR on it.  I just worded it wrong.  I meant to say "The problem I fear with the government ruling over who can and can't get married is then the government, especially in today's political environment, will insert itself into the churches who oppose SSM and saying that if the church doesn't perform SSM, it will be taken to court."

 

 

Well we can fear anything can't we.  For 130 years, the church did not allow blacks to marry in the temple.  Did the government force the church to marry blacks?  Just what do you base your fear on?  Should I start making straight marriage illegal because I have a fear that American will run out of space for people to live?  Come on, be reasonable.

 

This Obama administration has done much to undermine any role a Christian church can do when it comes to opposing his policies.  I don't want to bring politics into this discussion, but to clarify my thoughts, it's necessary.  It was become more and more difficult lately for any mention of Christianity when it comes to dealing with the government.  Kids being turned away from handing out Christmas cards  which mention Christ or Christmas to vets in VA hospitals.  The insurance debacle of forcing churches to provide access to medical procedures they find reprehensible.  What is to prevent the government from demanding that churches preform SSM or face legal litigation?

 

This is a completely different subject and party politics that the moderators do not want on this discussion board.  So I won't comment.  If you want to rephrase your question in a non partisan manner, I would be more than happy to comment. 

[california boy]

And how do we lead people back to Christ when we encourage the laws of the land to steep them in sins that keep them away from Christ?

 

Well I would think that if the churches policy is that gays should be celibate, and the church feels that this is an important issue to lead people back to Christ, then spend 40 million on a campaign to preach celibacy.  But preventing gay marriage does nothing to make anyone more moral.  It was like spending 40 million telling the world that gay sex is less immoral if it is done outside of marriage.  If gays will only have sex outside the bonds of marriage, then they will be closer to Christ.  Does that make any sense at all???

 

 

 

There is no law that stops anyone from marrying. But by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. You can call a square a circle all you want. It's not going to magically become round.

 

My question is, why is satisfying lust and encouraging people to do so, more important than submitting to Christ? We all have sexual desires. And the Lord requires we all submit our desires to live according to the laws He has given us. The Lord has told us that sexual relationships outside of marriage are not appropriate. He has also told us that sexual relationships with people of the same gender aren't appropriate.

 

Why exactly should we be encouraging anything contrary? The Gospel is true. The Lord has given us the ability to born again through His Atonement. And the process of HIs Atonement has the ability to change our very natures. Why should we encourage people to remain in sin? Why should we legally recognize relationships we don't believe in? Why should we accept that human nature cannot be changed when the scriptures clearly tell us the Atonement can change our hearts?

 

I don't understand why we should need to deny the power of the Atonement or why doing so is going to bring those who are sexually attracted to the same gender to Christ. And how is it charitable to pretend sin isn't sin? or how is it mean to call sin sin?

 

All of your points may be true.  But that is not what the church spent money doing.  The church spent the money fighting gay marriage not on preaching about the power of the atonement.  The money was not spent on telling the world that sexual relations with the same gender aren't appropriate.  The money was spent telling gay people they should not marry.  Period.  If the church wants to publicly pass laws against sin, shouldn't it be about sin?  Shouldn't the church be passing laws that outlaws sex outside of marriage for everyone?  Shouldn't the church be passing laws that prevent gays from ever having sex at all?  If the church wants to become a political action pac, then it should go after laws that actually address sin.  Whether gays are having sex outside of marriage or being allowed to marry are both immoral.  Not a single moral principle is promoted.  If anything, some young people may think that since it is not important for gays to marry, then why should they?

[Daniel2]

As a member of a church (Unitarian Univetsalist) that is VERY politically active, albeit FAR less influential than the LDS Faith, and as one who believes that churches have played an integral part of the political discussions leading up to the struggle for religious freedom upon which our nation was founded, the subsequent "civil rights" movement, and "the gay rights" movement (which I also believe are all extensions of the same issue), I STRONGLY believe that churches should have a voice in the political process--even and (in the current climate) especially voices that differ from mine. The healthy dialogue and the need to vigorously examine and defend one's ideas are what cause the advancement of Equality, more than any stifling or suppression could ever accomplish. I find the idea that gays wish "to silence" those that oppose them to be completely erroneous--wherever open dialogue and debate occur, gay rights have been advanced, not curtailed. Although, I do understand how mis-characterizing gays as wanting to silence those who disagree with them is a powerful attempt to perpetuate the "gays are the boogymen that want to silence freedom of speech and religion and will cause the destruction of society" argument.

D

[Tacenda]

As a member of a church (Unitarian Univetsalist) that is VERY politically active, albeit FAR less influential than the LDS Faith, and as one who believes that churches have played an integral part of the political discussions leading up to both "the civil rights" and "the gay rights" movements, I STRONGLY believe that churches should have a voice in the political process--even and (in the current climate) especially voices that differ from mine. The healthy dialogue and the need to vigorously examine and defend one's ideas are what cause the advancement of Equality, more than any stifling or suppression could ever accomplish. I find the idea that gays wish "to silence" those that oppose them to be completely erroneous--wherever open dialogue and debate occur, gay rights have been advanced, not curtailed.

D

This is the case with my wonderful gay niece who "liked" a post on FB recently, of Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty show. It was speaking about how Phil should have freedom of speech and be able to speak out against gays and their acting on it. Even though I disagree because of what Phil said, it was horrendous!

[cdowis]

The question remains, Why did the church spend 40 million dollars trying to stop gay marriage when gays living together and gays married together are committing the exact same sin?

snip

 

I agree that just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.  Whether gay marriage is legal or not, gay sex is still legal.  Gay sex is legal in ever state in the country.  The church fighting gay marriage does NOT make gay sex illegal.  It only makes gay marriage illegal.  Since both are considered immoral, why does the church care whether gay marriage is passed?  

 

 

The church opposition to SS marriage is not about "sin" but the effect it will have on society.  Clearly you disagree disagree that SS marriage has a harmful, even fatal effect on the family and society, but that is the position of the church.  Read the Proclamation on the Family. 

 

That is why the church devoted resources to this issue ==>> to save society from self-destruction by protecting the family and marriage.

 

 

Church shouldn't be in the business of defining law.

 

The church has the right and responsibility to voice its opinion on this and other issues.  And has done so regardless of whether you feel it was a good investment.

[california boy]

The church opposition to SS marriage is not about "sin" but the effect it will have on society.  Clearly you disagree disagree that SS marriage has a harmful, even fatal effect on the family and society, but that is the position of the church.  Read the Proclamation on the Family. 

 

That is why the church devoted resources to this issue ==>> to save society from self-destruction by protecting the family and marriage.

Can you explain what harmful effect the church thinks gay marriage will have on society?  What do they think will happen when gay marriage is legalized?  I have never seen anything released on this idea from the church.

[cdowis]

Can you explain what harmful effect the church thinks gay marriage will have on society?  What do they think will happen when gay marriage is legalized?  I have never seen anything released on this idea from the church.

 

We have discussed that issue extensively on this very forum.

[ERayR]

This is the case with my wonderful gay niece who "liked" a post on FB recently, of Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty show. It was speaking about how Phil should have freedom of speech and be able to speak out against gays and their acting on it. Even though I disagree because of what Phil said, it was horrendous!

 

Tacenda taken out of context even you appear to make "horrendous!" statements.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda taken out of context even you appear to make "horrendous!" statements.

Have you read what he said?  I'll PM you if you need the reference.  And if anyone is interested I'll provide a youtube of him being extremely sexist.  So "horrendous" to me anyway.  And I am a fan of the show, or was.  The point being, my niece doesn't even care what he said, just that he is able to say it, free speech and all.    

[ERayR]

Have you read what he said?  I'll PM you if you need the reference.  And if anyone is interested I'll provide a youtube of him being extremely sexist.  So "horrendous" to me anyway.  And I am a fan of the show, or was.  The point being, my niece doesn't even care what he said, just that he is able to say it, free speech and all.    

 

I am well aware of what he said and where he said it.  It was in an interview for a magazine.  He was asked his opinion and he gave his opinion.  While I may not agree with his opinion he still has the right to express that opinion from which the sound bites are somewhat taken out of context.  The TV company has the right to suspend him, which they found to be bed of quicksand and the fans of the show have a right to voice their opinion, which they did.  Makes for quite a dynamic incident, right?

[thesometimesaint]

I get the impression you have trouble with churches paying for soapboxes.

 

When have I ever said that? At most all I have ever said about it is that I don't want my tax dollars paying for the soap box of any sectarian group. You know all that old Separation of Church and State thing from the Age of Reason(Enlightenment)

 

See

[ERayR]

When have I ever said that? At most all I have ever said about it is that I don't want my tax dollars paying for the soap box of any sectarian group. You know all that old Separation of Church and State thing from the Age of Reason(Enlightenment)

 

See

 

Sorry that I misunderstood you.

[thesometimesaint]

This is the case with my wonderful gay niece who "liked" a post on FB recently, of Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty show. It was speaking about how Phil should have freedom of speech and be able to speak out against gays and their acting on it. Even though I disagree because of what Phil said, it was horrendous!

 

Mr. Robertson has the right to be as much of a bigot as he wants to be. What he doesn't have a right to is a television show.