Atheist Mormon Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 2 hours ago, USU78 said: A position wholly consistent with nihilism, and therefore wholly unsurprising. Sorry but dying for any cause does not help any cause. Nihilism is an opposite ideology, since I value my life and everybody else's.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Calm said: SC, do you or do you not recognize the difference between making something illegal (against the law so practice means going to jail, thus is meant to discourage the practice) and giving something legal status (promoting the behaviour by giving tax and other incentives to participate in the practice)? I knew someone was going to point that out. Marriage requires a government certificate, it was illegal for clerks to give certificates to SS couples, it was illegal for judges or Bishops to use their authority to marry SS couples. Illegal means "not according to or authorized by law" Let's just say the church doesn't want gay marriage to be legal. 5 hours ago, Calm said: SSM is about giving SSM the same legal and legally dictated financial advantages as OSM, not about changing SSM from being illegal (someone having to go to jail or pay a fine for particiapting in). That is all politics, why does our church get involved in politics? I though the kingdom of Jesus was not of this world. Edited July 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Calm said: The LDS Church, as far as I aware, has never promoted making SSM illegal, only legal neutral (the government does not get involved in promoting or discouraging). Are you saying that SSM is just gay or lesbian s e x? Your point only makes sense if you are talking about gay or lesbian s e x, but that is not SSM. SSM was illegal. It was illegal for clerks to give marriage certificates to SS couples, it was illegal for judges or Bishops to use their authority to marry SS couples. There is no such thing as neutral gay marriage Edited July 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
ksfisher Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Are you saying that SSM is just gay or lesbian s e x? Your point only makes sense if you are talking about gay or lesbian s e x, but that is not SSM. SSM was illegal. It was illegal for clerks to give marriage certificates to SS couples, it was illegal for judges or Bishops to use their authority to marry SS couples. There is no such thing as neutral gay marriage I don't think that you are undrstanding the distinction that Calm is making. Saying that something is not allowed by law is not the same as saying that it is illegal. For example, I recently read a news story about a man who was sueing for the right to marry his computer (google for the story if you care to know more). While marrying your computer is not allowed by law, it is not specificly illegal. Calm is saying that the church has never asked that SS marriage be illegal, just that they not be recognized and carry the same legal status as traditional marriage by the government. Edited July 9, 2016 by ksfisher 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: I don't think that you are undrstanding the distinction that Calm is making. Saying that something is not allowed by law is not the same as saying that it is illegal. Okay, for the sake of argument let's just say "not legal". 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: While marrying your computer is not allowed by law, it is not specificly illegal. He will never marry his computer because he needs a marriage certificate, no such thing. 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Calm is saying that the church has never asked that SS marriage be illegal there was no such thing as SS marriage before it was legal. If there was gay marriage, it was an illegal marriage.
ksfisher Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 11 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: there was no such thing as SS marriage before it was legal. If there was gay marriage, it was an illegal marriage. Again, I don't think you understand the distinction between something that is not allowed by law versus something that is illegal. If I had had the inclination twenty years ago to marry another man in some sort of ceremony I could do that. The police would not come and arrest me because I had done something illegal. However, if I tried to have that person legally recognized as my husband I couldn't, because that marriage was not legally recognized. There is a distinction. 1
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 I knew guys and gals that defined their relationships as married back in the 70s (not that uncommon living in San Fran area as I did, one of my bosses qualified I believe). Some were even married in a religious ceremony. None of these marriages were given legal status and no doubt the LDS Church would not recognize the relationship as a legitimate marriage just as they don't recognize polygamous marriages as legitimate, but nowhere has the Church suggested if a gay couple went around telling people they were married that they should be arrested or that any minister that performed a relgious marriage ceremony for gay couples should be arrested. Notice in the link on the ERA, the concern is about proving homosexual marriages with the same legal protections, primarily allowing for legal adoptions by gay couples: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/the-church-and-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-moral-issue?lang=eng
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 21 minutes ago, ksfisher said: If I had had the inclination twenty years ago to marry another man in some sort of ceremony I could do that. No! It was impossible for you to marry another man 20 years ago. What you are talking about is called cohabitation, that is not marriage. Just ask the church. 21 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Again, I don't think you understand the distinction between something that is not allowed by law versus something that is illegal. It's the same thing! Cohabitation is allowed by the law. 21 minutes ago, ksfisher said: However, if I tried to have that person legally recognized as my husband I couldn't, because that marriage was not legally recognized. Exactly! We are talking about marriage, legal recognition. Edited July 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 "illegal" means contrary to or forbidden by law. SSM was not illegal. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Polygamous marriage is actually illegal and yet people still use the term "marriage" to apply to their relationships. Bigamy is when you marry someone when already married: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigamy
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Calm said: "illegal" means contrary to or forbidden by law. SSM was not illegal. Fine! let's just say there was no such thing as SSM, it was impossible for SS couples to get married. What you were talking about is called cohabitation, not marriage. Edited July 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Calm said: I knew guys and gals that defined their relationships as married back in the 70s (not that uncommon living in San Fran area as I did, one of my bosses qualified I believe). Some were even married in a religious ceremony. Okay, but that is not the current controversy. We are talking about marriages that have a government certificate. Quote nowhere has the Church suggested if a gay couple went around telling people they were married that they should be arrested or that any minister that performed a relgious marriage ceremony for gay couples should be arrested. because it was not really a marriage. There was no such thing as gay marriage in the 70s, unless a judge illegally did it. Edited July 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 26 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Again, I don't think you understand the distinction between something that is not allowed by law versus something that is illegal. I think you are correct in what you mean here given certain definitions of "allowed", but it is clearer to use the terms "supported" or "promoted" rather than "allowed".
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Can't edit.. If there is no law dealing with eating ice cream, is eating ice cream illegal?
ksfisher Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Fine! let's just say there was no such thing as SSM, it was impossible for SS couples to get married. What you were talking about is called cohabitation, not marriage. Legally it's recognized as cohabitation. However, before SSM was recognized as legal it was not illegal for a priest to perform a marriage ceremony for a SS couple and have everyone call it a marriage. No one was going to be arrested and charged with doing anything illegal. The church would like a return to status quo ante. 1
ksfisher Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 10 minutes ago, Calm said: I think you are correct in what you mean here given certain definitions of "allowed", but it is clearer to use the terms "supported" or "promoted" rather than "allowed". I like the word allowed. There are some things that I am allowed to do by law that the government doesn't support or promote. In your example of the ice cream, I am allowed to eat ice cream as every meal of my day by the government if I so choose. This is not illegal. However, I don't think that the government is supporting my ice cream diet, or promotingthat diet as a good thing for others. But perhaps this is all just semantics.
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I like the word allowed. There are some things that I am allowed to do by law that the government doesn't support or promote. In your example of the ice cream, I am allowed to eat ice cream as every meal of my day by the government if I so choose. This is not illegal. However, I don't think that the government is supporting my ice cream diet, or promotingthat diet as a good thing for others. But perhaps this is all just semantics. All true but given the confusion SC seems to be having...and you said "not allowed" and now I am getting confused. Definitely time for bed, no more need to pass the time playing with semantics.
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Why not just live and let live? Just because the USA is a Christian majority country doesn't mean it is a Christian country. Our church says "we’re concerned that legalizing same-sex marriage" I don't understand why our Church wants to stop the legalization of gay marriage everywhere, how come our church doesn't try to make adultery illegal everywhere? or sex before marriage illegal? this is your post which started this subconversation. The Church's position was, as ks said, status quo..no law either establishing SSM as a legally recognized relationship nor making it illegal (forbidden by law so that those who attempted it would be imprisoned). Judges and clerks could be arrested because they tried to applied legal status to something that did not have legal status, not because SSM was defined as illegal. It was essentially nonlegal, no laws pertaining to it. Thus the Church is consisent in their treatment of adultery and sex before marriage and same sex marriage: no laws should be made for any of them, either forbidding or promoting. SC's argument is illogical as the Church is not trying to make SSM illegal, but nonlegal.
california boy Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 7 hours ago, Calm said: Legalizing marijuana...will it create tax incentives for smoking it. Does Nevada use tax dollars to promote prostitution? If not, somewhat different situation. Why would you expect the same. Were you around in the ERA days? That seems to me to be the closest that I can remember. The ERA would create tax incentives and laws that were seen as potentially promoting lifestyle changes that would have an impact on moral behaviour and ability to freely practice religious expression. There was a huge involvement of or push to get involved church members in the several areas of the US I lived during that time period and it was even more talked about at church and among church members in my experience. So this is about taxes? if marriage didn't have tax benefits this wouldn't be an issue?
california boy Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 7 hours ago, Calm said: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/the-church-and-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-moral-issue?lang=eng I read through the FAQ. I have to say I am a bit confused why the church got politically involved in the ERA issue. Their excuses seemed pretty lame especially looking back on them now. It is interesting that the church felt the 14 amendment already gave women equal rights. I think they were right. It is also the 14th amendment that gives gays equal rights. Yet when gays try to exercise those rights the church flips out. What do you think was the most valid reason the church gave for fighting the EEA amendment? While I was young at the time, reading about it now just seems puzzling.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Calm said: Thus the Church is consisent in their treatment of adultery and sex before marriage and same sex marriage Okay! You are right!I will give you a point for that. However, adultery and sex before marriage have been legal for many years. 24 minutes ago, Calm said: SC's argument is illogical as the Church is not trying to make SSM illegal, but nonlegal. Give me an example of something that is nonlegal? 24 minutes ago, Calm said: this is your post which started this subconversation. My main concern is that our church gets involved in politics too much Edited July 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Or would alegal be better than nonlegal, similar to asexual/nonsexual or amoral/nonmoral...it seems like "alegal" carries the nuance better. Unfortunately it has been coopted with a nuance added that is not at all what I want to convey. Will have to stick with nonlegal for now. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Alegal http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nonlegal "not related to, qualified for, or phrased in the manner of the practice of law (distinguished from illegal): a nonlegal explanation." Be sure and note how "nonlegal" is distinguished from "illegal", meaning they do not mean the same thing, they are defined differently ("illegal" is defined as contrary to or forbidden by law) And of course if there is no law about something, there can be no law forbidding that something, therefore it can't be illegal. Since using "not legal" (which can have the meanings of not legal as in illegal or not legal as in not legally determined, as in no law attached to it) still appears to confuse SC about the exact point being made, "nonlegal" is preferable. In many ways, the Church wants SSM to be given the same status it was once seeking for its own practice of plural marriage, as in they wanted no laws to be made in relation to plural marriage, either for or against (or so I understand it, I may be wrong, they may have decided after laws were made forbidding it, laws were needed that allowed for it, but did not promote or support it, just removed any legal consequences).
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Calm said: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nonlegal "not related to, qualified for, or phrased in the manner of the practice of law (distinguished from illegal): a nonlegal explanation." dictionary.com? reputable? 25 minutes ago, Calm said: In many ways, the Church wants SSM to be given the same status it was once seeking for its own practice of plural marriage, as in they wanted no laws to be made in relation to plural marriage, either for or against but that is still politics. The church has no need to get involved in politics. So how would gay couples adopt a child? 25 minutes ago, Calm said: Be sure and note how "nonlegal" is distinguished from "illegal", meaning they do not mean the same thing I understand what you are saying, the problem in debates is that both sides have a different definition for the same word. To me illegal means something that is not legal, or "not according to or authorized by law" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal Gay marriage was not authorized by the law, so by definition gay marriage was illegal. Edited July 9, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 23 minutes ago, california boy said: So this is about taxes? if marriage didn't have tax benefits this wouldn't be an issue? Not quite, it is about using the governments to promote a lifestyle that is believed to be immoral in the LDS faith tradition and thus potentially damaging in the long term to society and to the individual, in part through preventing fulness of potential progress due to seeing other avenues of behaviour as preferable as well as removing preferences given to what is believed by church leadership a more 'beneficial for the child' mother/father family unit for adopted children. Giving SSM legal recognition gives adoption and other familial rights due to being required to remove any form of discrimination no matter the reason for it, gives financial promotion through tax incentives thus leading more to choose to expand their family where they may have chosen not to before because of a greater sense of security and help available, and there are other ways legal recognition contributes to greater social acceptance which means more will feel comfortable in choosing a gay lifestyle in general. If it is on the whole an immoral behaviour/relationships even if many attributes in themselves are admirable, it thus promotes harm in the understanding of church leadership as all things immoral do. If people attempt to promote SSM by going around speaking about the positive values of SSM, the Church responses with teachings what they see as the negative consequences (whether or not they have sufficiently demonstrated their claims so they are more than assertions is being debated) while attempting imo to place those teachings solidly in the loving, merciful and just world of God's gospel. If people push for legislation that will promote gay marriage, the Church responds by trying to stop the approval of that legislation. Some claim they attempted to reverse the law, others see the law process as incomplete as long as there are legitimate challenges to the legal status of laws which have not been resoved by moving though all legitimate avenues of legal appeal and the Church was just involving itself in the process from almost the start to the finish. Once the final decision gets made, as far as I have seen, the Church has abided by that in the various countries where it has reached that point, but is still attempting to influence the process where it is in flux. Even to the point of condemning a clerk for doing too little and not fulfilling the requirements of her job, just as they had previously condemned those who stepped outside the boundaries of their job to do too much. This may be an incomplete thought that I hope I won't come back to tommorrow. It is easier to do no postings than few...few become some, some become many. and I just may have to go back to that for at least a week at a time (day on, day off doesn't work with interesting conversations). My apologies if I have left anyone confused or annoyed by the unfinished conversation.
Calm Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 1 hour ago, california boy said: What do you think was the most valid reason the church gave for fighting the EEA amendment? While I was young at the time, reading about it now just seems puzzling. Quick answer...it was always presented in my memory as redundant in most needed areas, that it would take less money and time and attention if they used laws in place, act now on laws already passed rather than ignoring them in their campaign for the ERA which meant improvement would be delayed significantly, figure out how well the in place laws worked before declaring new ones were needed and finally it was too expansive (combatand unisex bathrooms are the things that stick out, I don't really get the bathroom obsession by either side of either ERA or LGBT gender debate). Thus the ERA was seen as mostly unneeded and where better laws might have been needed, it was overkill, it was seen as better to enforce current laws and then tweak them as needed once it was seen where they came up short rather than assuming such efforts weren't going to work before given a fair chance and instead use a massive law that would give too much power that would more than likely be used for things not originally intended to be fixed or even seen as needing to be fixed (given how government tends to function over time).
Recommended Posts