When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression--LDS Church moves their Same-Sex Marriage fight to Mexico

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would guess that it has more to do with the idea that what becomes normal in society soon becomes morally acceptable.  If you believe that something is immoral but is starting to be seen as moral by society, working to keep the government from legitimizing it is logical. 

Didn't the state of Utah vote to repeal prohibition?  How does that fit in with your logic?  

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I remember in the 70's, when the practice of couples living together became more prominent and out in the open, the argument that was often used by the proponents of living together, against the more conservative, religious view, was that they didn't need a piece of paper to show their commitment and faithfulness to each other.  Now you are flipping the argument upside down by claiming that gay people need to have a piece of paper in order to show their commitment and faithfulness to each other.

While I disagree with the practice of living together, I agree that a piece of paper is not necessary to prove commitment and faithfulness, and, frankly, your argument does not do much for the character of gay people.

Yet you find yourself arguing that "a piece of paper" is not important for gay couples.   And you wonder why the youth of the church don't have the prejudices against gay marriage that you have.  Maybe they don't get the hypocrisy 

[T-Shirt]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet you find yourself arguing that "a piece of paper" is not important for gay couples.   And you wonder why the youth of the church don't have the prejudices against gay marriage that you have.  Maybe they don't get the hypocrisy 

You've completely ignored the point.  Someone on your side of the argument claimed that gay couples need a marriage license in order to stay faithful to each other, do you agree with that?  In my opinion, anyone, gay or straight, who feels that a marriage license is what controls their ability to stay faithful to their partner, shouldn't be in a relationship in the first place.

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would guess that it has more to do with the idea that what becomes normal in society soon becomes morally acceptable.  If you believe that something is immoral but is starting to be seen as moral by society, working to keep the government from legitimizing it is logical. 

Could be but this isn't the stated intention the Church uses.  It says, instead, that gay marriage will destroy marriage.  Which is kind of silly, if you ask me. 

[Gray]

59 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

I don't think there is anything that would convince you otherwise.  It is not enough that a high percentage of same-sex relationships are open.  And it doesn't seem to matter that there is a significant element in that campaign that wants to destroy marriage altogether.  

Ultimately, it is about standing up for truth as defined by the restored gospel.  If homosexuality is sinful and wrong to God, what could we or anybody possibly benefit from advocating for it?  I suppose if a person does not believe that God sees it as a sin, there is no argument to make (other than the benefit of the kids).

Other than a few rare extremists, it's pretty hard to find anyone who wants to destroy marriage in general. It is, however, sadly easy to find people who wish to destroy gay marriage. They tend to be very vocal about their anti-marriage platform. 

If your concern is that too many gay people are in open relationships, do you hope to reduce that number by denying them access to legal marriage? It sounds like that would only promote more of the same. 

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Didn't the state of Utah vote to repeal prohibition?  How does that fit in with your logic?  

They did.  They were the 36th state to ratify the 21st amendment which would end federal control over alcohol consumption and return that power to the state, despite the fact that leaders asked the members not to do so.

There are probably a lot of reasons why that happened.  One i'm sure was that Utah, like every other state, was ultimately unable to prevent the manufacturing and distribution of alcohol despite serious efforts and costs to do so and its citizens recognized that.  Another is probably due to the presence of non-mormons in Utah (many of the biggest cities in Utah were more non-member than member).  A third reason is likely because mormons don't believe that it is immoral for non mormons to drink alcohol and that such applies only to those who have covenanted not to do so. And there are probably other reasons as well.

I have never studied the issue though, so those are just preliminary thoughts on the topic.

[Gray]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would guess that it has more to do with the idea that what becomes normal in society soon becomes morally acceptable.  If you believe that something is immoral but is starting to be seen as moral by society, working to keep the government from legitimizing it is logical. 

Adultery is legal (it used to be illegal in many places). Very few people think it's morally acceptable. 

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I remember in the 70's, when the practice of couples living together became more prominent and out in the open, the argument that was often used by the proponents of living together, against the more conservative, religious view, was that they didn't need a piece of paper to show their commitment and faithfulness to each other.  Now you are flipping the argument upside down by claiming that gay people need to have a piece of paper in order to show their commitment and faithfulness to each other.

While I disagree with the practice of living together, I agree that a piece of paper is not necessary to prove commitment and faithfulness, and, frankly, your argument does not do much for the character of gay people.

Think about early Mormonism and polygamy. Those relationships weren't legal marriages either. And they seemed to enter into them and leave them rather casually. The relationships seemed pretty open, even. Does that speak to character of early Mormons, or the problems that naturally develop when people have relationships outside of legal marriage? 

Perhaps I simply have faith in the good effect that legal marriage has on people who enter into the institution. I can't comment on the "it's just a piece of paper" idea, as it was never my argument. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I came across two articles today and I was struck by the contrast:

 

 

 

"Free thought?" 

 

How is anyone's freedom to think being threatened by same-sex marriage...??

 

"Religious liberty"?
 

Ironic that the church is still beating their drum to the tune that legal recognition of same-sex marriage to be a matter of “religious liberty,” given that the denial of legal recognition of same-sex marriage refuses to equally recognize and respect those religions that recognize and sanction marriages between same-sex couples.

 

Now contrast the above tone and rhetoric with the thoughts brought up by this second article, which struck me as very applicable:

 

Anywhere the Church has members it has the right and,obligation to defend it beliefs. Wouldn't you agree? All others Churches defend what they believe. Many other faiths did this in CA, (Catholics) and especially in Mexico where they are the dominant Church by far. Many other Protestant Churches as well. This is not just a Mormon thing, although many would think so based on the number of Threads posted. 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Adultery is legal (it used to be illegal in many places). Very few people think it's morally acceptable. 

I know many leaders preached against interracial marriages.  It was seen as obscenely immoral by many of the leaders.  Now it's kind of silly to see it as immoral.  Even if one sees it as immoral it's completely obtuse to think any two people who want to marry and are different races should not be allowed to. 

[Gray]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I know many leaders preached against interracial marriages.  It was seen as obscenely immoral by many of the leaders.  Now it's kind of silly to see it as immoral.  Even if one sees it as immoral it's completely obtuse to think any two people who want to marry and are different races should not be allowed to. 

They were so sure that their views represented the will of the Lord and not just cultural prejudice. And history repeats itself. 

[Daniel2]

2 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Anywhere the Church has members it has the right and,obligation to defend it beliefs. Wouldn't you agree? All others Churches defend what they believe. Many other faiths did this in CA, (Catholics) and especially in Mexico where they are the dominant Church by far. Many other Protestant Churches as well. This is not just a Mormon thing, although many would think so based on the number of Threads posted. 

PaPa, I believe your post is what is commonly known as a Strawman argument.

I didn't say that the LDS church doesn't have a right or obligation to defend it's beliefs, and of course I agree that it has every right to do so.

And all other churches also have that right, just as many Faiths did in California.

To be clear, then, your comment, welcome as they always are, really didn't address any points made in the OP.

[bluebell]

Just now, Gray said:

Adultery is legal (it used to be illegal in many places). Very few people think it's morally acceptable. 

Something being legal and something being legally recognized by the government are two different things.  Polygamy in most states (Utah excepted) is a good example of the difference.  Living polygamy in most states is legal, even though the government does not recognize or legitimize such marriages.

It would be interesting to see if ideas about adultery changed if the government legitimized it thru law though.  Already it's seen as much less of a big deal than it was a few decades ago, especially now that most states are 'no fault' states, where committing adultery has no legal negative consequences like it used to.  

And while cheating on a spouse is still seen as mostly unacceptable, open marriages are becoming much more accepted in society than they used to be (polyamorous relationships are all the rage right now), showing that morality, marriage, and monogamy are in fact changing in our society.  

The line now seems to be an issue of 'consenting adults'.  Society's standard today are moving towards (though not completely there yet) if all adults involved are consenting then it's not immoral.  That seems to have changed from what it used to be. 

[T-Shirt]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet you find yourself arguing that "a piece of paper" is not important for gay couples.   And you wonder why the youth of the church don't have the prejudices against gay marriage that you have.  Maybe they don't get the hypocrisy 

This is a great example of what I find so troubling about the approach by the proponents of the gay lifestyle.  Rather than trying to defend a bad argument you resort to attempting to paint the one who disagrees with that argument as a hypocrite or some other negative epithet such as homophobe or bigot.  While it is a very effective tactic, it is disgusting and totally disingenuous.  The main reason that the same sex life style is becoming more and more accepted is because of this same tactic used by the proponents of such.  The media, Hollywood and the gay community have been very successful and labeling opponents to their view as haters, homophobes, hypocrites, bigots and all manner of bad people.  This wave of dishonest labeling has become so big that many people have just decided it is easier to go along than to get falsely labeled.  It is like the guy in the story above that expected everyone to move for him, most people have just chosen to get out of the way.  What bothers you, is that the Church has not caved into your name calling, and they won't.  You can label me anything you want, but I and those who know me, know the truth and I will stand by the Church on this issue, no matter what disgusting tactics you use to intimidate people.

[T-Shirt]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Could be but this isn't the stated intention the Church uses.  It says, instead, that gay marriage will destroy marriage.  Which is kind of silly, if you ask me. 

It has already destroyed marriage by radically changing the definition.  Marriage is no longer marriage.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I came across two articles today and I was struck by the contrast:

 

 

"Free thought?" 

 

How is anyone's freedom to think being threatened by same-sex marriage...??

 

"Religious liberty"?
 

Ironic that the church is still beating their drum to the tune that legal recognition of same-sex marriage to be a matter of “religious liberty,” given that the denial of legal recognition of same-sex marriage refuses to equally recognize and respect those religions that recognize and sanction marriages between same-sex couples.

 

Now contrast the above tone and rhetoric with the thoughts brought up by this second article, which struck me as very applicable:

 

Tone and rhetoric have nothing to do with the issue, Daniel.  As your citation points out, it is up to a democratically elected Mexican Congress to approve or disapprove of the Presidential initiative.  The question one would want to ask is whether this new law would impinge on religious freedom in some way.  What is the real fear?

Just for perspective, it might be well to observe that, since Mexico is a failed state with major drug cartels controlling nearly everything, this matter is the least of their problems as a nation.

[T-Shirt]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Think about early Mormonism and polygamy. Those relationships weren't legal marriages either. And they seemed to enter into them and leave them rather casually. The relationships seemed pretty open, even. Does that speak to character of early Mormons, or the problems that naturally develop when people have relationships outside of legal marriage? 

Please provide examples of these claims.  I disagree completely.

Quote

Perhaps I simply have faith in the good effect that legal marriage has on people who enter into the institution. I can't comment on the "it's just a piece of paper" idea, as it was never my argument. 

It wasn't my argument either, but I think you knew that. 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

It has already destroyed marriage by radically changing the definition.  Marriage is no longer marriage.

Well if that be the case, then what can you do?  Marriage is destroyed, so there's nothing more to do or say.  It's all over.  I don't know what that means about my marriage, but hey, it doesn't matter it's not really there since marriage is destroyed. 

or else when applied to reality, your comments above are incoherent. 

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

It has already destroyed marriage by radically changing the definition.  Marriage is no longer marriage.

All the people I know that were married before are still married..didn't change a thing!

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Something being legal and something being legally recognized by the government are two different things.  Polygamy in most states (Utah excepted) is a good example of the difference.  Living polygamy in most states is legal, even though the government does not recognize or legitimize such marriages.

It would be interesting to see if ideas about adultery changed if the government legitimized it thru law though.  Already it's seen as much less of a big deal than it was a few decades ago, especially now that most states are 'no fault' states, where committing adultery has no legal negative consequences like it used to.  

And while cheating on a spouse is still seen as mostly unacceptable, open marriages are becoming much more accepted in society than they used to be (polyamorous relationships are all the rage right now), showing that morality, marriage, and monogamy are in fact changing in our society.  

The line now seems to be an issue of 'consenting adults'.  Society's standard today are moving towards (though not completely there yet) if all adults involved are consenting then it's not immoral.  That seems to have changed from what it used to be. 

Well, entering into adultery doesn't require a specific license to do so. I suppose it's a little different, but the transition from illegal to legal didn't seem to change too much. A vast majority of people still take a dim view of it:

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183455/once-taboo-behaviors-acceptable.aspx 

Edited June 2, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

It has already destroyed marriage by radically changing the definition.  Marriage is no longer marriage.

I assume that means all of the top 15 leaders of the church are now single?

[T-Shirt]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well if that be the case, then what can you do?  Marriage is destroyed, so there's nothing more to do or say.  It's all over.  I don't know what that means about my marriage, but hey, it doesn't matter it's not really there since marriage is destroyed. 

or else when applied to reality, your comments above are incoherent. 

Contempt and sarcasm are duly noted.  It doesn't add much to your argument, however.

[Ahab]

I'd like to see more complete yet still concise statements from our Church leaders to help other people understand why we and our leaders are against same-sex marriage.

Like instead of just encouraging Church members to vote against same-sex marriage they should also say something about why they are encouraging others to vote against it... something short and simple about how we believe same-sex marriages are immoral because same-sex sexual relationships are immoral. 

Then at least others would understand why we are against same-sex relationships including same-sex marriages.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I assume that means all of the top 15 leaders of the church are now single?

I am still single. If the gays steal all the marriages there might be none left for me!

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, T-Shirt said:

Contempt and sarcasm are duly noted.  It doesn't add much to your argument, however.

Well, I guess we're left at odds because we differ on what destroy means then.  There was no contempt expressed.  I said it all, even if I disagree with you, with love in my heart.