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

[rodheadlee]

5 hours 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. 

 

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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

You all are being flippant without checking the numbers of the generations that are younger than you. Many couples are choosing not to get married but to be partners. Nor are you accounting for all the single moms in the poor areas where the father selfishly walked out rather than do the right thing. Perhaps you should leave your Mormon cocoon once in a while. You constantly complain about everything the Church does while taking full advantage of living in an area with a large Mormon population.

[Avatar4321]

the church is speaking out against sin and this is a surprise? Why? Because we aren't just doing it in the U.S.? Why would we only oppose sin in the states?

 

 

[california boy]

12 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

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.

If a marriage license is not important to gay couples then it must not be important to straight couples.  Why does anyone bother to get married?  

[california boy]

12 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

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.

You are right. I do think you are a hypocrite when you say a marriage license is important for straight couples but shouldn't be important for gay couples.   The fact that you can't see that yourself is amazing 

 

i I could care less whether the church accepts gay marriage. Never have. I just point out the hypocrisy  and the shame of working to take away the civil rights of fat couples. 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. You don't understand at all.

I understand that the church sees SSM as evil. Apparently it is even more evil than h0m0sxual relations outside of marriage with multiple partners. I understand their position but I don't agree.

I don't need the church to condone SSM, just stop fighting against equal rights. What I DON'T understand is why the church feels it should prevent society at large from allowing equal rights to gay people in the form of marriage.

The church controls its doctrines, policies, and practices. It doesn't define the culture or the laws of the land. Thank God we don't live under a church theocracy.

This is the point exactly 

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church controls its doctrines, policies, and practices. It doesn't define the culture or the laws of the land.

Anyone who seriously believes that Western culture and modern legal norms aren't direct results of Judeo-Christian doctrines and practices needs a remedial course in history.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 

You all are being flippant without checking the numbers of the generations that are younger than you. Many couples are choosing not to get married but to be partners. Nor are you accounting for all the single moms in the poor areas where the father selfishly walked out rather than do the right thing. Perhaps you should leave your Mormon cocoon once in a while. You constantly complain about everything the Church does while taking full advantage of living in an area with a large Mormon population.

Are you surprised when the mantra of many churches especially the Mormon church is that it it unimportant that gay couples be married?   If there is no good reason for gay couples to enter into marriage then why should straight couples marry

the sermon is being heard. And now you think that is a problem?

[Daniel2]

15 hours ago, DJBrown said:

 "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all." - Dr. Meagan Tyler

"The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?" - David Vakalis
 

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.” - Michelangelo Signorile,

"And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ." - Ryan Conrad
 

"But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships." - Sally Kohn, Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

"Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens." - Alex Gabriel, 

"Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"-National Conference on Organized Resistance

 "Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes." - David McGee
 

 "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." - Paul Varnell

"We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there." - Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,  London, 1971, revised 1978

 “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source] - Paula Ettelbrick, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist." - Masha Gessen,

http://www.truemarriageequality.com/12-shocking-quotes-reveal-the-hidden-homosexual-agenda---they-want-to-destroy-marriage-and-family-and-promote-homosexual-behaviour.html

A dozen quotes (including several from 40 year-old sources) don't illustrate that the aim of "a majority" or even "most" of the LGBT movement is "to destroy marriage or the family altogether."  We are not the demonic and untrustworthy enemies these cherry-picked quotes attempt to make us out to be.

You won't find examples of such radicalism from ANY of the largest, most active, and most effective mainstream pro-equality organizations, nor from any grassroots organizations, social media, etc. simply because the majority of those of us who are gay and lesbian really aren't that different from our straight counterparts--we want the freedom to protect, nurture, and safeguard our families and pursue happiness according to the dictates of our conscience, just like everyone else.

As Rockpond said,

Quote

Should we also judge Mormons or Christians or Republicans by the most radical of viewpoints among them?  I don't believe for a moment that the "destruction of the traditional family" is the end goal of most gay marriage advocates.  I know many gay/straight SSM advocates not a single one wants the destruction of the family.  Remember, traditional families produce the vast majority of LGBT kids.

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 

You all are being flippant without checking the numbers of the generations that are younger than you. Many couples are choosing not to get married but to be partners. Nor are you accounting for all the single moms in the poor areas where the father selfishly walked out rather than do the right thing. Perhaps you should leave your Mormon cocoon once in a while. You constantly complain about everything the Church does while taking full advantage of living in an area with a large Mormon population.

And these are a direct result of SSM?  I thought they were around before SSM was considered in the US.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Apparently.  Marriage is not a civil right, it is a religious union co-opted by the state.  Equal protection under the law may be a civil right, but creating laws concerning an item of religion doesn't make that item a civil right.

It's exactly what it's done--made it a civil right.  That's already been settled. 

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Both are evils and great sins.  Both are now acceptable by a large segment of society.   Not as different as you'd like to pretend.

Well, the continual increase in percent of members of the Church who have been convinced that SSM is not a sin would be immediately evident.
 

Yeah, with reason. 

[Daniel2]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Marriage is not a civil right, it is a religious union co-opted by the state. 

While I appreciate that you believe that your God created marriage before government did, there is no historical proof that that is the case.   You assert that "marriage is a religious union co-opted by the state" based on what you believe is fact from a scriptural book of God's revealed truth.  However, many others believe your scripture is simply one mythology among a vast number of other mythologies which were handed down from earlier primitive peoples who created mythic stories to explain their origins.  Additionally, many historians and sociologists would disagree of your assessment of the origin and nature of the marital contract and it's evolution as a natural outgrowth and progression of humanity's own self-governance. 

By civic design in the USA, government should not and cannot give preferential treatment to one religion's scriptural mythology about marriage over other religions' views (let alone the lack thereof), so when it comes to how our government recognizes the civil right of civil marriage, it doesn't matter what you assert to be true about the relationship between God and marriage.  So far as government is concerned, civil marriage is the creation of the state--not your God.  The state, however, protects your religious freedom by allowing your Faith to define marriage as you see fit, according to the scope of your own religious practice.

Quote

Equal protection under the law may be a civil right, but creating laws concerning an item of religion doesn't make that item a civil right.

Again, civil marriage is a civil right which exists entirely independent of and unrelated to any religious rite of marriage.

Quote

Both are evils and great sins.  Both are now acceptable by a large segment of society.   Not as different as you'd like to pretend.

You are and remain free to believe and preach whatever you want about evil and sin, just as others are free to believe that belief in Mormonism is sinful, false, a sham, etc.  That is the nature of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

 

Edited June 3, 2016 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

You are and remain free to believe and preach whatever you want about evil and sin, just as others are free to believe that belief in Mormonism is sinful, false, a sham, etc.  That is the nature of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

 

And belief doesn't change reality.
Honestly, I really don't care what people choose to do (as long as it doesn't interfere with my religious practices and beliefs).  In the end God will correct all the evils, SSM will disappear forever, and frankly, so will civil marriage of any kind.

[T-Shirt]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

You are right. I do think you are a hypocrite when you say a marriage license is important for straight couples but shouldn't be important for gay couples.   The fact that you can't see that yourself is amazing 

I never said that, not even remotely.  I originally thought you just ignored the point, but now, it seems, you missed it completely.

[Daniel2]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And belief doesn't change reality.

I am 1,000% in agreement with you, on the above.

And honestly, I also really don't care what people choose to do or believe (as long as it doesn't interfere with my agnostic practices and beliefs and/or civil rights).

 

Edited June 3, 2016 by Daniel2

[DJBrown]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

A dozen quotes (including several from 40 year-old sources) don't illustrate that the aim of "a majority" or even "most" of the LGBT movement is "to destroy marriage or the family altogether."  We are not the demonic and untrustworthy enemies these cherry-picked quotes attempt to make us out to be.

You won't find examples of such radicalism from ANY of the largest, most active, and most effective mainstream pro-equality organizations, nor from any grassroots organizations, social media, etc. simply because the majority of those of us who are gay and lesbian really aren't that different from our straight counterparts--we want the freedom to protect, nurture, and safeguard our families and pursue happiness according to the dictates of our conscience, just like everyone else.

As Rockpond said,

Why exactly do you put "a majority" and "most" in quotes here?  Are you claiming to be quoting me?  Because I never used those words.  

When representatives from a movement that seeks to change the definition of marriage- something that is fundamental and indispensable to society- claim that the movement is actually seeking to achieve something more profound and effectual to society than is openly admitted, I don't think one should be faulted for paying attention.  

We can easily see what was portrayed in the campaign leading up to the legalization of same-sex marriage by those advocating the change- happy, two-parent homes with happy kids and the white picket fence as the norm among same-sex couples.  But we also have studies showing that a majority of those same-sex couples have open marriages of some form- something that was never alluded to or mentioned in the aforementioned campaign.  "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 

You all are being flippant without checking the numbers of the generations that are younger than you. Many couples are choosing not to get married but to be partners. Nor are you accounting for all the single moms in the poor areas where the father selfishly walked out rather than do the right thing. Perhaps you should leave your Mormon cocoon once in a while. You constantly complain about everything the Church does while taking full advantage of living in an area with a large Mormon population.

I was not being flippant..just stating a fact in my corner of the world.

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

Why exactly do you put "a majority" and "most" in quotes here?  Are you claiming to be quoting me?  Because I never used those words.  

When representatives from a movement that seeks to change the definition of marriage- something that is fundamental and indispensable to society- claim that the movement is actually seeking to achieve something more profound and effectual to society than is openly admitted, I don't think one should be faulted for paying attention.  

We can easily see what was portrayed in the campaign leading up to the legalization of same-sex marriage by those advocating the change- happy, two-parent homes with happy kids and the white picket fence as the norm among same-sex couples.  But we also have studies showing that a majority of those same-sex couples have open marriages of some form- something that was never alluded to or mentioned in the aforementioned campaign.  "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

Should 19th-century church leader quotes that bash monogamy be considered representative of the entire church's position on monogamy? 

[Avatar4321]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you surprised when the mantra of many churches especially the Mormon church is that it it unimportant that gay couples be married?   If there is no good reason for gay couples to enter into marriage then why should straight couples marry

the sermon is being heard. And now you think that is a problem?

no. We aren't teaching its unimportant that gay couples get married. We are teaching its absolutely sinful for them to. Gay marriage is atrocious because it has two parties enter into a covenant to perpetually sin together. Sinning is one thing, entering into a covenant to do so is completely different. And this particular one doesn't just screw you for eternity but it has eternal ramifications on your entire posterity, if you have any.

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I am 1,000% in agreement with you, on the above.

And honestly, I also really don't care what people choose to do or believe (as long as it doesn't interfere with my agnostic practices and beliefs and/or civil rights).

 

thats just it. We never were interfering with your actions

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

thats just it. We never were interfering with your actions

Are you kidding me?  What was prop 8 all about?

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

no. We aren't teaching its unimportant that gay couples get married. We are teaching its absolutely sinful for them to. Gay marriage is atrocious because it has two parties enter into a covenant to perpetually sin together. Sinning is one thing, entering into a covenant to do so is completely different. And this particular one doesn't just screw you for eternity but it has eternal ramifications on your entire posterity, if you have any.

Who knew - fornication is now preferable to committed marriage. We're witnessing the creation of new doctrinal innovations in this thread. What a time to be alive. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who knew - fornication is now preferable to committed marriage. We're witnessing the creation of new doctrinal innovations in this thread. What a time to be alive. 

Maybe now you can understand why some of us don't consider SSM to be a real marriage.  Partly because what is supposed to sanctify a committed relationship doesn't work with SSM, because their "marriage" acts are still not sanctified.  They're still sinful even though they are then "married".  No better off at all, as far as being any more righteous, than they are when fornicating while not being married. 

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Who knew - fornication is now preferable to committed marriage. We're witnessing the creation of new doctrinal innovations in this thread. What a time to be alive. 

Hey...I thought the 60's were crazy!  This place is getting groovy!

[california boy]

48 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

thats just it. We never were interfering with your actions

Rolling on the floor laughing.  Amazing what some people believe.  How does one actually block out an entire political. campaign to take away the civil rights of gay couples?   

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Who knew - fornication is now preferable to committed marriage. We're witnessing the creation of new doctrinal innovations in this thread. What a time to be alive. 

A SS relationship is never anything other than fornication, no matter what label you give it.