oremites Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 4 hours ago, Daniel2 said: I don't think so... unless he has a parent in a same-sex relationship (which I don't think he does--at least, nothing he's said indicates he does) while awaiting baptism (which he's not--he's already a member), he's not required to disavow same-sex marriage. Are you saying that someone wanting to be baptized and having a parent in a same-sex relationship is required to disavow same-sex marriage? Did I read that correctly?
Buckeye Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 18 hours ago, Daniel2 said: I would presume that most American Latter-day Saints will (if they have not, already) become comfortable in a very short time with the legality of civil marriage for same-gender couples. Latter-day Saints, on the whole, are very supportive of civil equality, even when it allows for behaviors with which they morally disagree (the sale of alcohol, businesses staying open on Sundays, even abortion within certain boundaries). I predict that opposition to civil marriage for same-sex couples will quickly fade into obscurity as most people become comfortable with the fact that it won't impact their lives any more or less than their own marriages impact others' lives. Daniel2, Just last night I picked up the fall copy of the BYU Family Life Sciences magazine (my wife is an alumnus so we get copies mailed to us). https://familylife.byu.edu/Documents/SFL%20Alumni%20Magazine%20Fall%202015%20Digital.pdf The last article in this edition addresses the Obergefell decision and the author's "reasonable guesses" as to how marriage may be affected. I was encouraged to see that the BYU faculty begin by acknowledging that SSM "may" be beneficial for SS couples and their children. That's really quite a remarkable admission. Quote So even though it is too early to know exactly how redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will change marriage over time, we think there are some reasonable guesses. In trying to predict the future, our focus will not be on homosexuals but on heterosexuals, who will continue to make up all but a few percentage points of the married population. Same-sex couples who legalize their relationships may benefit from doing so, and if it brings greater stability and more social support to their children, it may benefit those children, as well. Still, as the history of no-fault divorce suggests, there are also reasons to expect that there will be unanticipated negative consequences to marriage from changing its gendered meaning. And importantly, one has to look beyond the effects on same-sex families to accurately gauge the full impact of a degendered understanding of marriage. But, of course, the article's purpose is to find ways in which SSM will makes things worse, so the authors quickly turn to the possible affects of SSM on heterosexual couples. In a nutshell, their big fear is that marriage will be stripped of its "masculine" component and some significant percentage of hetero men will therefore choose not to be fathers. The authors tepidly admit that this fear is not based on any empirical evidence, but on the generally-accepted principle that men and women bring different strengths to the marriage table. Of course, they don't specify exactly what things - and even admit that mother's and father's roles largely overlap. And they fail to acknowledge that all couples, including SS couples, bring different strengths to the marriage table. The article's biggest failing (IMO) is that it does not consider how SSM may strengthen heterosexual marriages. While anecdotal, my views are shaped by my personal experience of watching LGBT couples fight for their marriages against all odds - including significant pressure from my church - and the wonderful families they have created through sacrifice and God's grace. The SS couples I know have strengthened my marriage and given me desires to be a better husband and father. It is my prediction that, while the institution of marriage will always have its challenges, our society's decision to include SS couples will turn out to be a great strength, not only for SS families but all families. Perhaps it is time to stop viewing couples like Daniel2 as the enemy, and rather see them as the anti-nephi-lehites of the BOM - outcasts that we can take into our proverbial "Land of Jershon" and whose children will bolster our ranks in the coming battles. Edited December 30, 2015 by Buckeye
california boy Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 20 hours ago, Ahab said: I am generally not in favor of any law that promotes unrighteous behavior, because to me unrighteous behavior is a bad if not a disgusting thing to behold. I absolutely abhor/hate any unrighteous behavior, which is why I promote righteous rather than unrighteous behavior. But I know we all have our own likes and dislikes. I just don't care to associate or do any business with people who I know promote unrighteous behavior as if an unrighteous act is an okay or good thing to do. Do you see any problem with passing laws that prevent gay families from marrying which forces them to just shack up? Just what do you expect gay couples to do that you would consider to be righteousness? How would you like them to raise their families? 1
california boy Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: It is way, way too soon to measure any kind of effects the legalization of ssm are or will be. IMO, the most serious damage is that this makes the institution of marriage meaningless. Do you think that sending a message that it is not important for gay couples to raise their families without marrying sends a message that marriage is meaningless and not important? If li is not important for gay couples to marry, why would it be important for a straight couple to marry especially if they are not religious?
Daniel2 Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 9 hours ago, oremites said: Are you saying that someone wanting to be baptized and having a parent in a same-sex relationship is required to disavow same-sex marriage? Did I read that correctly? Yes, that's correct. They also have to move out from their gay parents' house and he at least 18 years of age. Edited December 30, 2015 by Daniel2
Deborah Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 On 12/29/2015 at 2:56 AM, strappinglad said: The pill didn't destroy the nation. The massive increase in the quality and availability of porn didn't destroy the nation. The acceptance of divorce as a norm didn't destroy the nation. The great increase of sexual exploitation of children didn't destroy the nation. I see no reason why gay marriage will destroy the nation. Porn is well on its way to destroying families as is divorce. Sexual exploitation destroys children's lives. But that's ok as long as the nation is still standing. Except that once the family is destroyed we are well on the way to seeing the destruction of the nation. Gay marriage is already well on it's way to destroying freedom of religion and belief. Read about the many lawsuits destroying people's lives and businesses. 1
Daniel2 Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, Deborah said: Porn is well on its way to destroying families as is divorce. Sexual exploitation destroys children's lives. But that's ok as long as the nation is still standing. Except that once the family is destroyed we are well on the way to seeing the destruction of the nation. Gay marriage is already well on it's way to destroying freedom of religion and belief. Read about the many lawsuits destroying people's lives and businesses. Thanks for chiming in, Deborah. I think your comments do a good job of illustrating the paradigms of social conservatives when it comes to framing the discussions about the perceived harm that certain issues cause towards families. Many conservatives accept assertions such as yours at face value, because their underlying values already reject things like pornography and same-gender relationships. However, for those of us who don't share those same conservative beliefs, the perceived harm that you mention isn't self-evident. Specifically: 1. Porn: I don't believe that it's self-evident that "porn is well on it's way to destroying families." While porn is perceived as a threat by conservatives who believe it's destructive, I believe many couples view porn--and implement viewing porn (either together, or while separated by trips)--as a constructive part of their shared intimate relationships which can help promote healthy intimacy and even monogamy between partners. Many sex therapist use porn in responsible ways to help couples overcome sexual problems or blockages within their relationships. In fact, LDS therapists at BYU even used porn in attempts to recondition men who were attracted to members of their same sex. 2. Divorce: I agree with you on this one. Studies I've read consistently show that divorce does destroy families and is tremendously destructive on children, and every effort should be made to preserve families as realistically as possible (short of abusive relationships, etc.) 3. Sexual exploitation: Again, I agree that this one destroys children's lives, and the research I've read bears out the destructive nature of children becoming sexually active while in their younger years. 4. Gay Marriage: While many conservatives have attempted to paint gay marriage as "destroying freedom of religion and belief," that simply isn't the case. What you refer to as "the many lawsuits destroying people's lives and businesses" are not the result of gay marriage (in fact, many of them PRE-DATED the legalization of civil marriage for same-sex couples). What you are referring to are anti-discrimination laws regarding public accommodations. These laws were passed over 40 years ago, and all of them limit and restrict business owners' ability to refuse service to customers based on protected classes--regardless of the business owners' personal religious beliefs. If you assert that such anti-discrimination laws regarding public accommodations "destroy freedom of religion and belief," then you err in suggesting that it's because of gay marriage. In America, "freedom of religion" has never meant an unfettered ability to do whatever the heck your religion says you should be allowed to do, nor has "freedom of religion" ever meant that individuals have an unfettered ability to refuse to follow the law when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. So, to characterize "gay marriage" as being the culprit of "destroying freedom of religion and belief" is untrue, and treats "gay marriage" as a scapegoat for the true culprit: anti-discrimination laws in the realm of public accommodations, which are ultimately the result of legally implementing the principles of equality and, ironically, even religious freedom as outlined in The Constitution of the United States of America. Edited December 30, 2015 by Daniel2 3
Ahab Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) "Legally implementing the principles of equality" to equate unrighteous acts with righteous acts is what is destroying our country right now, and the more we do it the more our country will be destroyed. Destroyed as in taken from one condition to another, inferior, condition. Laws ideally should promote only what is good for individuals in society, not authorizing or sanctioning what is not good, so the more we have people in our society promoting what is unrighteous as if it is good, with those people including judges and legislators, the more individuals in our country will be acting unrighteously as if it's okay or even good to be unrighteous. Edited December 30, 2015 by Ahab
thesometimesaint Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 21 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Is the guy risking church discipline? No. Some members opposed making it legal, some members supported keeping it illegal.
Deborah Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 President Monson: "I’ve lived long enough to have witnessed much of the metamorphosis of society’s morals. Where once the standards of the Church and the standards of society were mostly compatible, now there is a wide chasm between us, and it’s growing ever wider.... Stay completely away from pornography. Do not allow yourself to view it, ever. It has proven to be an addiction which is more than difficult to overcome. Avoid alcohol and tobacco or any other drugs, also addictions which you would be hard pressed to conquer." (“Priesthood Power,” General Conference, General Priesthood Session, April 2011.) I'd rather follow the prophet than the world's standards. 1
Avatar4321 Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 On 12/29/2015 at 0:31 PM, Tacenda said: This Mormon Guy, is a brave guy. I hope he isn't on the road to being ex'd. Love what he had to say, very concise and well researched, not afraid...wish I had that security. what is brave about taking a popular position with no expectation of anything negative happening for taking that position? 1
strappinglad Posted December 30, 2015 Posted December 30, 2015 Societies have to walk a line between prohibiting anything that it considers detrimental and allowing people to have the freedom to make choices. Take alcohol for example. Alcohol in its myriad forms has been part of cultures since ,well let's say Adam. Its pros and cons are well known. In the US, Prohibition gained sufficient power to be enacted. With that , the ordinary citizen could become a scofflaw and organized crime got a huge shot in the arm. These were consequences not really envisioned by those who advocated for prohibition on the grounds it would make for a better society. The same holds for many drugs which were once quite legal and used by folks for various maladies , like cocaine and heroine. The prison system is full to overflowing now with the results of society's decision to prohibit these drugs. What has been one of the results of such prohibition? Well, there is a huge illegal trade which has made for gangs and a massive increase in crimes done specifically to obtain the money to buy drugs. The potency of the drugs has increased in order to satisfy consumer demand. There are laws against me taking another person's goods,as there should be. There are no laws against me giving my goods to another( unless they don't fully belong to me ), nor should there be. When it comes to marriage, there are laws against me marrying a 10 year old and for good reason. Should there be a law against any two consenting adults getting married? Our society and many others around the world have come to the conclusion that allowing that freedom of choice is not all that detrimental. Time will tell, I suppose. My concern are the unintended consequences which inevitably arise from change. 1
Bernard Gui Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 9 hours ago, california boy said: Do you think that sending a message that it is not important for gay couples to raise their families without marrying sends a message that marriage is meaningless and not important? If li is not important for gay couples to marry, why would it be important for a straight couple to marry especially if they are not religious? Well, that is the golden question, isn't it? Why marry when marriage is now defined as a union between 2 consenting adults, or in other words, meaningless? Children are no longer part of the equation since they can be raised with or without parents who may be married or not. In the end, the institution is being destroyed, and SSM was one of the last nails in the coffin. What is magic about the number 2? What other combinations of husband [sic] and wife [sic] are possible, and why should they have to raise their families without the benefits of marriage? By opening the door to SSM, we have burned down the house. 1
california boy Posted December 31, 2015 Posted December 31, 2015 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, that is the golden question, isn't it? Why marry when marriage is now defined as a union between 2 consenting adults, or in other words, meaningless? Children are no longer part of the equation since they can be raised with or without parents who may be married or not. In the end, the institution is being destroyed, and SSM was one of the last nails in the coffin. What is magic about the number 2? What other combinations of husband [sic] and wife [sic] are possible, and why should they have to raise their families without the benefits of marriage? By opening the door to SSM, we have burned down the house. You didn't really answer any of my questions. You only repeated what you had said eariler. If you are interesting in answering my questions, here is what I asked. I would be interested in hearing your answer. But it is up to you whether you want to answer them. 13 hours ago, california boy said: Do you think that sending a message that it is not important for gay couples to raise their families without marrying sends a message that marriage is meaningless and not important? If li is not important for gay couples to marry, why would it be important for a straight couple to marry especially if they are not religious?
Recommended Posts