Mars Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Sure.Elder Oaks:http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/1/3/913d6fed4525a85a/Principles-To-Govern-Possible-Public-Statement-On-Legislation-Affecting-Rights-Of-Homosexuals-August-7-1984-Dallin-H.-Oaks.pdf?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06ca853ed9cd5fd494&c_id=8270928 I appreciate that link and horribly confusing legalese to sift through - thanks.
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Nope. It's not a zero sum game. You can legally marry according to your beliefs. And I advocate for your freedom to do so. A gay Christian should also be able to legally marry according to his beliefs. And I advocate for his freedom to do so. I can, yes, because my beliefs match the laws of the land. I have two distant cousins (who were first cousins to each other) who actually wanted to get married, and they couldn't, not legally. I know polygamists, and they also can't legally get married. As long as the state says 'we will recognize some marriages but not others' then there is no double standard. This is because marriage to whoever you want whenever you want is not a freedom that exists in our country. 3
Mars Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Sure.Elder Oaks:http://ec.libsyn.com/p/9/1/3/913d6fed4525a85a/Principles-To-Govern-Possible-Public-Statement-On-Legislation-Affecting-Rights-Of-Homosexuals-August-7-1984-Dallin-H.-Oaks.pdf?d13a76d516d9dec20c3d276ce028ed5089ab1ce3dae902ea1d06ca853ed9cd5fd494&c_id=8270928 Also - did you have that one off the top of your head, did you look it up, or did you know it previously?
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Atheists are just as moral as theists. There are bad and good in each camp. We(The US) is a secular nation. As a government we don't care if you have 20 Gods or no Gods, as long as you follow the law. I never said they weren't TSS. That's not the issue. 2
KevinG Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 When do the Oprah Fan Club stories podcasts start?
Mars Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I'm pretty sure this is what I had in mind, though I probably didn't do the Church justice: The Church has advocated for legal protection for same-sex couples regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.” In Salt Lake City, for example, the Church supported ordinances to protect gay residents from discrimination in housing and employment. Source: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage 1
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I disagree with the first part based on my experience with people who have fought for gay marriage. As for the second, the Church was (purposefully?) reticent about what kinds of religious freedom and services proffered would interfere with one another. If I had to guess, I'd say they felt the cake guy should be off the hook and the landlord shouldn't. The differences between having a cake for your wedding and a roof over your head in terms of needs and rights should be apparent. I personally think that the political arena of the United States is such that if you're going to offer a service, you better be prepared to offer it to anyone and everyone irrespective of religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc... I think it sucks that the Oregon Baker got successfully sued for $150K, I think the gay couple should just get over it and find another baker, but that's just not the world we live in. So if you don't want to cater to gays - literally - better not do business at all. You can disagree based on your own experience but you can't disagree that it is a religious matter for me. I definitely agree that the baker should be able to say "no thanks" to the business from the gay couple. And, honestly, I can't imagine why the gay couple would want said baker making their wedding cake. 1
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 We did not fight against anyone's religious freedoms. No one's religious rights were damaged by the church's stance on SSM. If the government today decided to stop letting the church perform legally binding marriages then our religious rights would not be impeded any. We would simply do what they do in Europe and get married civilly first. We didn't try to make it illegal for anyone to perform marriages (churches have been performing them for decades before the government sanctioned them in some states). The church was not at all interested in what other church's were doing when it came to SSM. It made no move to legally impede their actions. The church tried to keep SSM from receiving recognize from the state, which is NOT a religious right. You think that if through a vote of the people or a judiciary action, our church in the U.S. was stripped of its ability to perform legally binding marriages, that the Church leaders wouldn't call that a violation of our religious freedoms? And you think that even after reading what they had to say last week? Sorry. Not a chance.
KevinG Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I did not buy into the slippery slope theory that if gay marriage was legalized, that the church would somehow be compelled to perform them. However, with the actions taken against the BSA, trying to force the admission of openly gay leaders, even after the policy changes designed to avoid discriminating against youth, I'm not so sure that pressure would not be brought against the church in the future to act like other denominations or face penalties. I like the balance that the Brethren are trying to strike, allowing us to worship according to our conscience, while defending the civil and legal rights of same sex couples. But at some point the desires of diverse groups may conflict, and in those cases I am always wary of giving any governmental body the power to decide who wins and who loses. 1
Mars Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 You can disagree based on your own experience but you can't disagree that it is a religious matter for me. I definitely agree that the baker should be able to say "no thanks" to the business from the gay couple. And, honestly, I can't imagine why the gay couple would want said baker making their wedding cake. I accept that.
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I can, yes, because my beliefs match the laws of the land. I have two distant cousins (who were first cousins to each other) who actually wanted to get married, and they couldn't, not legally. I know polygamists, and they also can't legally get married. As long as the state says 'we will recognize some marriages but not others' then there is no double standard. This is because marriage to whoever you want whenever you want is not a freedom that exists in our country. Yes, it is fortunate that your beliefs match the laws of the land. What happens if the laws of the land change and conflict with your beliefs, is it then a matter of religious freedom? There is an identifiable reason why first cousins are not permitted to marry. As for polygamy, I think it should be legal... and, essentially, in Utah it now is. My question, however, is in the context of what we were instructed by our apostles last week regarding religious freedom. "With understanding and goodwill, including some give and take, none of these rights guaranteed to people of faith will encroach on the rights of gay men and women who wish to live their lives according to their own rights and principles. Let us conclude by emphasizing this point as an alternative to the rhetoric and intolerance that for too long has come to characterize national debate on this matter. We must find ways to show respect for others whose beliefs, values and behaviors differ from ours while never being forced to deny or abandon our own beliefs, values and behaviors in the process. Every citizen’s rights are best guarded when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves." Elder Holland, 27 Jan 2015
Mars Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I did not buy into the slippery slope theory that if gay marriage was legalized, that the church would somehow be compelled to perform them. However, with the actions taken against the BSA, trying to force the admission of openly gay leaders, even after the policy changes designed to avoid discriminating against youth, I'm not so sure that pressure would not be brought against the church in the future to act like other denominations or face penalties. I like the balance that the Brethren are trying to strike, allowing us to worship according to our conscience, while defending the civil and legal rights of same sex couples. But at some point the desires of diverse groups may conflict, and in those cases I am always wary of giving any governmental body the power to decide who wins and who loses. Emotionally, it feels like the most strident voices in the gay marriage/culture change community would not rest until everyone agreed with them. Rationally, there are laws set in place to prevent that sort of thing from happening. Rationally, the most strident voices are a small but vocal minority. But laws can change. Vocal minorities can sow their message and increase their ranks. I am honestly unsure what to think. 1
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 We did not fight against anyone's religious freedoms. No one's religious rights were damaged by the church's stance on SSM. If the government today decided to stop letting the church perform legally binding marriages then our religious rights would not be impeded any. We would simply do what they do in Europe and get married civilly first. We didn't try to make it illegal for anyone to perform marriages (churches have been performing them for decades before the government sanctioned them in some states). The church was not at all interested in what other church's were doing when it came to SSM. It made no move to legally impede their actions. The church tried to keep SSM from receiving recognize from the state, which is NOT a religious right. Not a religious right but it's a civil right, as it turns out.
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Also - did you have that one off the top of your head, did you look it up, or did you know it previously? I knew it previously.
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Are you saying that it's alright if we are all forced to live by an atheist's moral beliefs, because they aren't religious, but that if an atheist is forced to live by religious moral beliefs it's wrong? Sorry that I misunderstood your post. Would you please clarify?
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Sorry that I misunderstood your post. Would you please clarify? Basically the issue is, why are atheist morals (in some people's beliefs) superior to religious morals? Why are atheists allowed to vote according to their morals, but religious people (in some people's beliefs) shouldn't vote according to theirs? 2
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Not a religious right but it's a civil right, as it turns out. And I don't really have a problem with that. But I do have a problem implying that voting against SSM takes away their religious freedom. 2
Avatar4321 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 For me, advocating for gay marriage is definitely a religious matter. I believe that God wants his gay children to be in loving, committed relationships. In last Tuesday's press conference, Oaks brought up Vidmar's advocacy against gay marriage as a matter of religious freedom. Does it only work for one side. My understanding of the press conference is that the Mormon baker should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding as a matter of religious freedom. Is that not your understanding of the message in the press conference?Based on what? All the evidence of the scriptures and prophets I've seen is that God's every effort is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. He wants us to repent of our sins and be born of the spirit. He wants us to put off our natural man and become saints. Why would you think He wants that for everyone but gays? Why would you think He wants them in relationships that will prevent that? 2
USU78 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Many LDS who support gay marriage find that the Proclamation on the Family is ambiguous in its terminology with respect to homosexual unions. They also feel that it's not doctrine, strictly speaking, as it hasn't been ratified by common consent. They esteem a same sex partnership raising children in love and monogamy to one another is every bit as equal as a heterosexual partnership doing the exact same thing. And they are self-deceiving. There is no ambiguity. There is only wishful thinking. 3
stemelbow Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 And I don't really have a problem with that. But I do have a problem implying that voting against SSM takes away their religious freedom. Once it becomes, and it will, a religious belief among a well known religion, you may have a point. The time will soon come. In another way religious right is not much different than personal opinion right.
bluebell Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Yes, it is fortunate that your beliefs match the laws of the land. What happens if the laws of the land change and conflict with your beliefs, is it then a matter of religious freedom?Maybe. It would depend on the change and the impact. If the change was that temple marriages were no longer legal, no I don't think that would impede my religious freedom any. 1
Popular Post USU78 Posted February 3, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 3, 2015 Nope. Not at all what I said. We should be very active... Very active in protecting individual freedoms and religious rights. We failed at that for a while but I'm hopeful that beginning with last weeks press conference, we'll get back on track. That's precisely what you said. Filing an amicus brief is a political act. It is political speech. If you object to the Church's filing amicus briefs, you would silence the Church. This ain't a difficult concept. 5
Mars Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Sooooo... amicus briefs aren't just underwear for lawyers? 2
ERayR Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Maybe. It would depend on the change and the impact.If the change was that temple marriages were no longer legal, no I don't think that would impede my religious freedom any. Temple sealings are not legal marriages. The couple is first married by the authority of the state then sealed by the power of the priesthood. In temple marriages, in the US, the same person holds both authorities. Pay attention to the wording. They are two different ceremonies joined together. Some countries do not allow the religious representative to perform a government function so LDS couples must first have a civil ceremony outside the temple then go to the temple for sealing. 3
rockpond Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Based on what? All the evidence of the scriptures and prophets I've seen is that God's every effort is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. He wants us to repent of our sins and be born of the spirit. He wants us to put off our natural man and become saints. Why would you think He wants that for everyone but gays? Why would you think He wants them in relationships that will prevent that? Because I don't believe those relationships will prevent that. But this is not a gay marriage debate thread. So we can't go down that road. The point is... my support for gay marriage is based in religious beliefs. It is part of my religion. You don't have to agree. But how can someone tell me that it's a matter of religious freedom to be able to advocate against gay marriage but not a matter of religious freedom to actually enter into a gay marriage. That just does not makes sense for me.
Recommended Posts