Are The Leaders Becoming More Bold?

[Deborah]

I'll accept that.  However, I myself am married to someone with lighter skin.  This didn't seem to go over well when we visited a restaurant in Ogden.

 

Was it that he had lighter skin or something else, or just your perceived notion of how you were accepted because of your own bias?

[LinuxGal]

I don't get how not allowing marriage is "forcing" anyone to shack up together. That applies to heterosexual couples as well.

 

His point was that if a same-sex couple are going to get together anyway, to do so with the obligations and rights associated with a married opposite-sex couple is not inherently worse than only permitting them to come together in an act of fornication.

[CV75]

His point was that if a same-sex couple are going to get together anyway, to do so with the obligations and rights associated with a married opposite-sex couple is not inherently worse than only permitting them to come together in an act of fornication.

I think SSM is more immoral in that it institutionalizes fornication (the immoral act of sex between unmarried partners) by changing the definition and standards for marriage and then counting it as good. It is perverse to re-imagine marriage as legitimized fornication in the first place.

[LinuxGal]

I think SSM is more immoral in that it institutionalizes fornication (the immoral act of sex between unmarried partners) by changing the definition and standards for marriage and then counting it as good. It is perverse to re-imagine marriage as legitimized fornication in the first place.

 

This horse already left the barn when the authority to define and regulate marriage was handed over to the state.  In our state it is legal, one of only four to make it legal by popular vote rather than legal chicanery.  In other states it is not legal.  The only issue now is whether those other states must recognize the marriages from my state, such as when a same-gender spouse stands to inherit property.

[Garden Girl]

I'm thinking that if my husband was a Lamanite there would have been no problem, or if I was a Nephite there would have been no problem, but it's the Lamanite with the Nephite that was the problem.  Then again, this was back in 1990, so times might have changed.  Haven't been back since then, however.  Went to Yellowstone and steered clear away from Utah.

 

What a shame... Utah has some of the most beautiful areas... Zion and Bryce National Parks are absolutely awesome...

Your perceptions, which I do not believe to be valid from my experience, have kept you from some wonderful territory.  I doubt if you went into a restaurant anyone would bat an eye, Utah or wherever...

 

GG

[CV75]

This horse already left the barn when the authority to define and regulate marriage was handed over to the state.  In our state it is legal, one of only four to make it legal by popular vote rather than legal chicanery.  In other states it is not legal.  The only issue now is whether those other states must recognize the marriages from my state, such as when a same-gender spouse stands to inherit property.

I don’t think it is immoral for a free people to grant their state authority to regulate their institutions. But regulation doesn't determine whether an institution is moral or not, only the laws recognizing these institutions do since laws have a moral basis. A free people can define and corrupt their moral codes and then do the same with their laws and institutions, but an immoral horse coming out of the barn doesn't make him any more moral.

[california boy]

I think SSM is more immoral in that it institutionalizes fornication (the immoral act of sex between unmarried partners) by changing the definition and standards for marriage and then counting it as good. It is perverse to re-imagine marriage as legitimized fornication in the first place.

I find it immoral to deny someone their civil rights just because they don't share the same religious beliefs. Your marriage or beliefs are not being affected one iota.

[sunstoned]

Not one.  Neither did anyone believe that two members of different races would have a right to marry.  That was settled by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, in 1967.  When the marriage equality issue is settled, shortly, that case will be cited.

This is true, and at the time the was apposed to interracial marriage.  This is something that they have backed away from because of social pressures from withing and without  the church. 

[Vance]

I'll accept that.  However, I myself am married to someone with lighter skin.  This didn't seem to go over well when we visited a restaurant in Ogden.

Your belligerent attitude could have been the cause.

[CV75]

I find it immoral to deny someone their civil rights just because they don't share the same religious beliefs. Your marriage or beliefs are not being affected one iota.

It seems you are not following the conversation. As was pointed out above, society’s (not my individual) moral conviction of the religious institution of marriage gave rise to its (not just my) support for the morality-based public institution and its governing laws and regulations. When the morality-based religious institution of marriage gets set aside, that would be immoral, and when the public institution follows suit, that would also be immoral. The point at which that gets flipped around is canonically referred to as a perversion.

 

Civil rights do not define morality, but the other way around. It would be immoral to compromise morality to establish a right because it limits the focus to the individual at the expense of how he relates to (shares responsibility with) the broader interests of many, many others, namely the community/society. Marriage belongs more in the category of responsibility in the perpetuation of human society, and not just the immediate rights of the couple. When it is taken out of that category, the greater good is compromised.

 

So defining an individual’s rights over society’s greater good would be immoral; what is interpreting one's own interests as society’s?

[HappyJackWagon]

"LinuxGal, on 29 Nov 2014 - 7:22 PM, said:
I'll accept that. However, I myself am married to someone with lighter skin. This didn't seem to go over well when we visited a restaurant in Ogden.

Vance said:
Your belligerent attitude could have been the cause."

Vance, You seem determined to take every opportunity to belittle LinuxGal. Why is that? Does she threaten you in some way? Or just a favorite hobby?

 

If the off-topic squabbling doesn't stop the thread will be closed.

[LinuxGal]

"LinuxGal, on 29 Nov 2014 - 7:22 PM, said:

I'll accept that. However, I myself am married to someone with lighter skin. This didn't seem to go over well when we visited a restaurant in Ogden.

Vance said:

Your belligerent attitude could have been the cause."

Vance, You seem determined to take every opportunity to belittle LinuxGal. Why is that? Does she threaten you in some way? Or just a favorite hobby?

 

If the off-topic squabbling doesn't stop the thread will be closed.

 

It's okay I've already left the forum, except for this one note informing of that fact.

[sethpayne]

It's okay I've already left the forum, except for this one note informing of that fact.

 

LinuxGal can't go!  She's one of the few around here who understand:

 

echo $ScottLoydComment > /dev/null

 

p.s. -- just teasing, Scott!

Edited December 3, 2014 by sethpayne

[Stone holm]

Okay, I hate to open this can of worms, but something about that statement strikes me as really odd.

 

If we could rate things on a morality scale from 1 -> 10, with 10 being the most "moral", and 1 being the least moral, how would we rate two gay couples, one of whom has committed to long-term monogamy and companionship in a "marriage", and a couple that hasn't made such a commitment?  Is there nothing that is more "moral" about a committed monogamous gay relationship?  Even if we rate uncommitted gay relationships as a "1", and committed, monogamous relationships as a "1.5", isn't that still making the world slightly better?

 

Sure, the ideal is a faithful heterosexual marriage sealed in the Temple (a "10"), but it isn't a choice between gay couples and heterosexual marriages.  It's a choice between unmarried gay couples and married gay couples.  Isn't the latter better for society, even if only incrementally?

Agree, for what it's worth. And I don't think leaders have become more bold. Going politically polar isn't necessarily a sign of boldness. Now if they were to start firing out doctrinal comments about how God and the Cosmos works like the Early Brethren, that would be bold.