Progression of Intelligence(s) & LGBT

[Daniel2]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 3:30 PM, waveslider said:

I do think that semantics are much of the issue between our miscommunications here. I view a tendency for SS attraction as simply one facet of what is termed a, "Weakness of the flesh."

I am not saying that SS attraction isn't a difficult burden to bear, but rather that all weaknesses of the flesh are just as hard to learn to turn into strengths in overcoming them. I view true weaknesses of the flesh as something that can never be changed by ourselves. It takes the atonement and God's miracles to change them, as we offer the sacrifice of our broken heart, in order for that change to happen.

 

Hi, Waveslider,

I understand that you view “SS attraction” as “one facet” of what you call a “weakness of the flesh,” which you acknowledge is “a difficult burden to bear,” just as “all weakness of the flesh” are “just as hard to turn in to strengths in overcoming them.”  Further, I understand that you believe that “all true weaknesses of the flesh” can “never be changed by ourselves,” but that you believe it “takes the atonement and God’s miracles to change them as we offer the sacrifice of our broken heart, in order for that to happen.”

If I understand you correctly, you believe that being heterosexually-oriented (or, to use language analogous to how you refer to homosexual orientation, “Opposite-Sex Attraction,” or “OS attraction”) is a God-ordained characteristic that is preferable over being homosexually-oriented.  Presumably, you would consider being OS-attracted as the ‘strength of the flesh’ that is the flip-side of the coin of your belief that being SS-attracted is a ‘weakness of the flesh.’  You feel that individuals who are homosexually-oriented should change their nature, through the miraculous and transformative powers of the atonement, into becoming heterosexually-oriented, in alignment with God’s commandments.

Do I have the above right…?

Presuming I do, the above beliefs of yours underlie a fundamental difference in how you and I each approach our innate sexual orientation.  While I can understand and acknowledge these key points between our beliefs, I think they also likely represent the fundamental divide between our two viewpoints that marks the ultimate paradigm gulf which is probably unbridgeable.

See, while you view my homosexual orientation as something that needs changed… something that’s a “weakness of the flesh”… and while I fully support your ongoing ability to promote your beliefs as such… I take an entirely different approach.

To me, the affection, connection, commitment, concern, compassion, care, intimacy, self-sacrifice, and love my husband and I experience for one another represent, reflect, inspire, and drive me to experience the best, most worthwhile and worthy, and the most altruistic and even divine part of my self…. My relationship with him is my greatest driving and motivating force…. Within, through, and because of my relationship with him, I experience the most divine reflection of deity I have and continue to experience on an ongoing basis. 

Our common employment of the word “love” is overly simplistic in nature, and when I try to use it to describe my feelings for and through my relationship with my husband, it’s simplicity becomes clunky when considering how other cultures value ‘love.’  Consider how the Greek’s language eloquently captures the many facets of love:

"Today's coffee culture has an incredibly sophisticated vocabulary. Do you want a cappuccino, an espresso, a skinny latte, or maybe an iced caramel macchiato?

 

"The ancient Greeks were just as sophisticated in the way they talked about love, recognizing six different varieties. They would have been shocked by our crudeness in using a single word both to whisper "l love you" over a candlelit meal and to casually sign an email "lots of love."

 

"So what were the six loves known to the Greeks? And how can they inspire us to move beyond our current addiction to romantic love, which has 94 percent of young people hoping—but often failing—to find a unique soul mate who can satisfy all their emotional needs?

 

1. Eros, or sexual passion

The first kind of love was eros, named after the Greek god of fertility, and it represented the idea of sexual passion and desire. But the Greeks didn't always think of it as something positive, as we tend to do today. In fact, eros

was viewed as a dangerous, fiery, and irrational form of love that could take hold of you and possess you—an attitude shared by many later spiritual thinkers, such as the Christian writer C.S. Lewis.  Eros involved a loss of control that frightened the Greeks. Which is odd, because losing control is precisely what many people now seek in a relationship. Don't we all hope to fall "madly" in love?

 

2. Philia, or deep friendship

The second variety of love was philia or friendship, which the Greeks valued far more than the base sexuality of

eros.  Philia concerned the deep comradely friendship that developed between brothers in arms who had fought side by side on the battlefield. It was about showing loyalty to your friends, sacrificing for them, as well as sharing your emotions with them…

 

3. Ludus, or playful love

This was the Greeks' idea of playful love, which referred to the affection between children or young lovers. We've all had a taste of it in the flirting and teasing in the early stages of a relationship. But we also live out our ludus

when we sit around in a bar bantering and laughing with friends, or when we go out dancing…

 

4. Agape, or love for everyone

The fourth love, and perhaps the most radical, was agape or selfless love. This was a love that you extended to all people, whether family members or distant strangers.  Agape was later translated into Latin as caritas, which is the origin of our word "charity."  C.S. Lewis referred to it as "gift love," the highest form of Christian love. But it also appears in other religious traditions, such as the idea of mettā or "universal loving kindness" in Theravāda Buddhism…

 

5. Pragma, or longstanding love

Another Greek love was the mature love known as pragma. This was the deep understanding that developed between long-married couples.  Pragma was about making compromises to help the relationship work over time, and showing patience and tolerance.  The psychoanalyst Erich Fromm said that we expend too much energy on "falling in love" and need to learn more how to "stand in love."  Pragma is precisely about standing in love—making an effort to give love rather than just receive it…

 

6. Philautia, or love of the self

The Greek's sixth variety of love was philautia or self-love. And the clever Greeks realized there were two types. One was an unhealthy variety associated with narcissism, where you became self-obsessed and focused on personal fame and fortune. A healthier version enhanced your wider capacity to love.  The idea was that if you like yourself and feel secure in yourself, you will have plenty of love to give others (as is reflected in the Buddhist-inspired concept of "self-compassion"). Or, as Aristotle put it, "All friendly feelings for others are an extension of a man's feelings for himself."

 

I am blessed in my life to have found a spouse who, as equally and imperfectly as I am myself, still inspires me through each of the facets listed above.  Though him, not only do we share the beautiful bonding and intimacy of eros, but I also experience the shared loyalty, self-sacrifice, and commitment of philia, the playfulness and joy of ludus, an expanding agape for my fellow brothers and sisters because of the self-awareness that comes from knowing and appreciating myself for who I am as my philautia continually strengthens my ability to accept, expand, and enhance the best parts of myself.  Now seven years into our relationship (and two years into our status as legally-and-lawfully-wedded husbands), pragma continually reminds us to temper our own self-interest, to elevate one anothers’ needs above our own, and remember to never take the other for granted. 

We are FAR from perfect individuals, and while I have spent much time lauding how wonderful our relationship is, we certainly have no guarantees in life.  But perhaps the greatest thing about our relationship is that we can openly acknowledge and respectfully work through any differences and disagreements because of the bedrock of the various forms of love that underlie our relationship as described above.  We often marvel and express our gratitude for one another on frequent (if not daily!) basis at how wonderful life now is, after years of having ‘done it wrong’ by failing to listen to, validate, and trust our inner voice, mind, and heart.  Truly, when you allow a seed to grow, by its fruits it shall be known, and the emotional, spiritual, and familial fruits of our shared relationship have been most delicious above any that either of us have previously experienced.

Ultimately, Waveslider, without knowing my husband nor myself, without witnessing our lives, our marriage, our relationship, our home, our children, or our love (not to mention the lives of millions of other same-gender couples in the world today), you (and those that promote and advocate Orthodox Mormonism's views on same-sex relationships) have pre-judged the quality of our relationship through the lens of your religious beliefs which preclude any possibility that two individuals could share genuine, authentic, and divinely-inspired love simply because the configuration of our genitals goes against your personal religious beliefs. 

Given all of the above, when I hear the blind (at least, when it comes to knowing me, personally) pre-judgement my relationship with my husband as a potentially Satanically-driven culmination of giving into “a weakness of the flesh,” I simply have no frame of reference that I can relate to, to what has become one of the greatest blessings of my life.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Daniel2

[Jeanne]

Heya...anybody...I am not understanding weakness of the flesh in terms of acceptability.  An affair???  Between two different genders is weakness of the flesh..and weakness of the flesh between two same genders say..unmarried..or married..what is the difference in core doctrine of weakness in the flesh in terms of who gets to come to church and who doesn't? Waveslider..what makes the difference in acceptability within the walls of the church?  Weakness of the flesh...then..is weakness of the flesh.  You either turn out none or everyone is exed!

Edited September 26, 2016 by Jeanne

[Daniel2]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 3:30 PM, waveslider said:

Unfortunately I agree that society has been unfair to those of the LGBTQ community. It has been horrible to know that society has been that way. Also on the flip side I see that the pendulum swing has been going too far the opposite way as well. There are ways that gay couples could have enjoyed all the rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples without having to redefine, "Marriage," in order to do so. Governmental regulations could have just as easily been changed. Now as a result there is the very real threat that churches could be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages. In reality temple marriages are threatened even though you choose to think otherwise. It isn't an unfounded fear. I wouldn't think such if there weren't already businesses that have dealt with the same thing for refusing services to gay couples, whereas before there was always a right to refuse service to anyone, for no reason at all.

 

While I appreciate your acknowledgment that society has been unfair to those of the LGBT community, I’m not quite clear what you feel has been unfair, based on your subsequent words.  Be that as it may, a few other comments:

1.    I don’t believe ‘marriage’ had to be (or even was) truly ‘redefined’ in order to accommodate the marriages between same-sex couples.  For generations, the term ‘marriage’ had already historically carried multiple acceptable definitions beyond that of the legal recognition of the wedding between a man and a woman.  The definition of ‘marriage’ continued to include phrases like, ‘the marriage of poetry and art’ or ‘the perfect marriage of flavors in the recipe’ or ‘Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments.’  The term ‘marriage’ already allowed for a vast majority of divergent things that were paired together, and many gay couples had historically been holding weddings and marrying their spouses—just without legal recognition.  The change brought about by Obergefell, then, didn’t really redefine the word ‘marriage,’ it just expanded legal recognition of what types of couples could lay claim to the legal status of ‘married.’  Again, perhaps the distinction is semantics, and you still consider the term to be ‘legally re-defined.’  If so, I guess that’s one we’d simply have to agree to disagree after at least stating our respective cases about the topic.

 

2.    While you assert that “There are ways that gay couples could have enjoyed all the rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples” without having to legally-recognize their status as ‘married,’ the courts actually did consider that option (including whether or not same-sex couples could be granted virtually all of the same rights and responsibilities of ‘marriage’ but with a different legal designation), but ultimately the vast majority of the rulings determined otherwise.  The culmination of all the rulings and the final decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America determined that it was unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from laying equal claim to the legal designation of ‘marriage.’  The ruling determined that refusing to acknowledge our marriages as marriages failed to provide equal dignity and only served to demean same-sex couples. 

 

3.    You assert that “there is the very real threat that churches could be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages,” including temple marriages by the LDS church.  Further, you assert that such is a reality even if “I” disagree with you.  However, no legal expert or scholar that I know of agrees with the concept that churches face any type of lawsuits for failing to marry same-sex couples.  In fact, everything that I have read suggest that such fears are entirely unfounded.  After all, despite divorcees’ legal right to marry, the Catholic church has never been sued because of their refusal to marry divorcees.  And despite interracial couples’ legal right to marry, churches that refuse to marry interracial couples have never bene sued—even to this day—for refusing to marry interracial couples.  In fact, the Supreme Court’s ruling itself even maintains churches’ right to exclude same-sex marriage:

 

Quote

 

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

 

However, given your insistence that “even though choose to think otherwise” and to demonstrate the logic behind your insistence that such “it isn't an unfounded fear,” can you please provide ANY legal precedent as cited by any credible legal expert, scholar, or source that would give credence to such a concern …?

 

4.    You claim “before” the legalization of same-sex marriage, “there was always a right [for businesses] to refuse service to anyone, for no reason at all.”  This simply is not true.  Federal public accommodations laws do not allow businesses to refuse service to anyone on the basis of legally protected classes, and that has been the case for decades. That was the basis for all of the sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement, and remains the basis for the lawsuits you mention against businesses that discriminate against same-sex couples in states where such discrimination has been deemed illegal due to public accommodations law.  Business owners and employees cannot refuse services to anyone, for no reason at all.

 

5.    Finally, your use of the example of businesses being required to provide services to same-sex couples due to public accommodations law as evidence that churches face a real threat of being sued by same-sex couples demonstrates a lack of a genuine understanding of the application of legal precedent.  Churches maintain constitutional protections that are not applicable to businesses.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Daniel2

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Apparently I confused your talk about weaknesses of your son in the context of this discussion with your son being gay.  That doesn't stop you from having an opportunity to learn and educate yourself.  If you do care about the LGBTQ community, you should listen to their stories.  Be willing to put aside what you think you already know about them, and what you think you already know about what God has said.  Open your mind and heart, I have confidence that when people do this, they are inspired and touched and will learn.  Of course, it helps a lot to have a family member or friend that you are aware of who is LGBTQ.  Start looking around, they likely exist in your circle somewhere, you just may have not been aware of them.  Best wishes.  

So what are you trying to say here? That someone who's weaknesses of the flesh include what is defined as being part of the LGBTQ community, are the only ones who can't have their weaknesses become strengths through the atonement of our Savior? Open my mind to what?

[Daniel2]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 3:30 PM, waveslider said:

P.S. That quote you wrote of mine, where you changed a few words? It doesn't make as much sense, since Mormons aren't forcing everyone to bend on their morals, in order to make sure Mormons don't get offended. Mormons aren't putting bakeries out of business for refusing to bake a cake for them. Mormons just go to the next bakery that will bake a cake for them. Two completely different contexts:

"My point is that it seems like many, even if it isn't you included, do make a lot more ado about being LGBTQ than is necessary, and that causes a lot more problems just because if creates more of a discussion about it all by itself, when in fact it is only one aspect of human behavior. It creates an us vs them type of rift more often than if it weren't so openly broadcast to (perhaps I should have used the words, "forced upon," instead of, "Broadcast to,") everyone."

"Mormons make a lot more ado about being LDS than necessary, because that causes a lot more problems just because it creates more of a discussion about it all by itself, when in fact religion is only one aspect of human behavior.  It creates an us vs them type of rift more often than if it weren't so openly broadcast to everyone."

 

 

Many people (myself included) feel that political initiatives designed to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage (such as California’s Proposition 22 and Proposition 8, Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3, and the current anti-gay marriage activities in Mexico) which many members of the LDS church proactively supported were and continue to be clear examples in which conservative religions (including said Mormons) attempted to force everyone (including non-Mormons) to bend to their LDS morals concerning ‘the sanctity of man-woman marriage.’  LDS leaders read letters from the pulpit encouraging members to get involved, quoting leaders, LDS scriptures, the Proclamation, etc., created websites advocating the enforcement of Mormon ideals about marriage even on non-Mormons, and organized grass-roots, door-to-door campaigns (including several of my own LDS family members).

When taken into that context, as well as the long-standing conversations I’ve had on the topic here on the board, my paraphrase of your comments, along with my own substitutions of ‘Mormon/LDS’ for ‘LGBT,’ are a very applicable and an appropriate analogy.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

He bears his with grace and dignity.

Kudos to your friend for finding a life of meaning, purpose, service, and peace.

We all should be free to do so according to the dictates of our own conscience.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, waveslider said:

So what are you trying to say here? That someone who's weaknesses of the flesh include what is defined as being part of the LGBTQ community, are the only ones who can't have their weaknesses become strengths through the atonement of our Savior? Open my mind to what?

I start with different assumptions.  A person's sexual orientation whether homosexual or heterosexual is not a weakness of the flesh, its an attribute of their humanity, no value judgment on these orientations.  One orientation is not more moral than another, and God hasn't declared anything about sexual orientation.  

Open your mind to learning something different from the dogmatic culturally based concepts that you've learned.  Listen to the stories of people in the LGBT community and their families.  It starts with understanding and empathy, and if you can start with no more than a desire to listen (or believe), let that desire work in you.  If you trust the Alma 32 method, you have to give these seeds a chance to grow to see if the result bears good fruit.  

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

If I understand you correctly, you believe that being heterosexually-oriented (or, to use language analogous to how you refer to homosexual orientation, “Opposite-Sex Attraction,” or “OS attraction”) is a God-ordained characteristic that is preferable over being homosexually-oriented.  Presumably, you would consider being OS-attracted as the ‘strength of the flesh’ that is the flip-side of the coin of your belief that being SS-attracted is a ‘weakness of the flesh.’  You feel that individuals who are homosexually-oriented should change their nature, through the miraculous and transformative powers of the atonement, into becoming heterosexually-oriented, in alignment with God’s commandments.

Do I have the above right…?

With all due respect you don't have it right.

My view is that any natural or innate desire of the flesh, that conflicts with the laws of God are what constitutes a weakness of the flesh. I don't think we need to change our nature so much as master our nature, and change our behavior to align with Godlike behavior instead. Eventually that Godlike behavior becomes so easy to follow that it now is a strength and our nature has then become a little more Godlike. This process can take a lifetime, and even into the spirit realm, but it is a process that can be done with the miraculous power of the atonement. Too bad the word, "Nature," isn't more descriptive, just as the word, "Love," isn't either.

I do agree that our use of the word love isn't very descriptive, but in the Greek, pagan definitions of the different forms of love, I think that we all understand those differing types of love already, even though we don't have differing names for them.

The Eros type of love isn't what, according to Mormonism at least, God has ordained as being good, regardless of how accepted in our society it is. We are taught to control our passions, not let them control us. We are to learn to master ourselves, as we follow the true Master, our loving and merciful Savior. He allows us our weaknesses to help us remain humble, so we don't get all full of ourselves in pride, but allow Him to remain at the helm instead of us.

Philauta love isn't exactly as descriptive of the English counterparts either. The first part you mentioned is defined as lust, while the second part, as you have pointed out earlier, is another facet of love. I do wish that we had better descriptions of them than just the word, "Love."

I am not trying to attack your lifestyle you have chosen. I understand first hand what it is like to allow my own personal weaknesses free reign. While I have found certain good things within doing so (Which is what helps to make it appealing in the first place), I also found that to act upon those weaknesses also constitutes what is called, "Sin." It is only a personal choice for me, if I want to trust what God has said concerning my weaknesses, or if I want to come to my own conclusions and choose to not try to master that particular thing.

I am certainly not trying to judge you. I know that free agency is a divine thing and we are all allowed to choose what we will. It is a touchy subject and I am sorry if I have offended you in anyway. It is only my understanding that that choice of lifestyle isn't what God has ordained for man. My understanding is no where near complete though. That is why the Savior, who's understanding is complete, and who has the most powerful love for each and everyone of us, is the judge and not me, or anyone else for that matter. .... not even God the Father himself will even judge us.

I wish you well, and hope that your happiness remains. I think I will bow out of trying to talk with you about this at this point, unless you still don't understand where it is that I am coming from. I will be happy to try and clarify once again. I can agree to disagree on this. Thank you for having a good discussion and not getting angry or anything, but rather keeping it very civil. I can say it has been difficult for me to formulate my words because I didn't, and still don't, mean any ill will toward you. I hope I have been able convey that much at least.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Heya...anybody...I am not understanding weakness of the flesh in terms of acceptability.  An affair???  Between two different genders is weakness of the flesh..and weakness of the flesh between two same genders say..unmarried..or married..what is the difference in core doctrine of weakness in the flesh in terms of who gets to come to church and who doesn't? Waveslider..what makes the difference in acceptability within the walls of the church?  Weakness of the flesh...then..is weakness of the flesh.  You either turn out none or everyone is exed!

I am not the one who has made any church policy concerning these things, so I am the wrong person to ask. Good questions though. I would like to see them when you get the answers.

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 

While I appreciate your acknowledgment that society has been unfair to those of the LGBT community, I’m not quite clear what you feel has been unfair, based on your subsequent words.  Be that as it may, a few other comments:

1.    I don’t believe ‘marriage’ had to be (or even was) truly ‘redefined’ in order to accommodate the marriages between same-sex couples.  For generations, the term ‘marriage’ had already historically carried multiple acceptable definitions beyond that of the legal recognition of the wedding between a man and a woman.  The definition of ‘marriage’ continued to include phrases like, ‘the marriage of poetry and art’ or ‘the perfect marriage of flavors in the recipe’ or ‘Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments.’  The term ‘marriage’ already allowed for a vast majority of divergent things that were paired together, and many gay couples had historically been holding weddings and marrying their spouses—just without legal recognition.  The change brought about by Obergefell, then, didn’t really redefine the word ‘marriage,’ it just expanded legal recognition of what types of couples could lay claim to the legal status of ‘married.’  Again, perhaps the distinction is semantics, and you still consider the term to be ‘legally re-defined.’  If so, I guess that’s one we’d simply have to agree to disagree after at least stating our respective cases about the topic.

 

2.    While you assert that “There are ways that gay couples could have enjoyed all the rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples” without having to legally-recognize their status as ‘married,’ the courts actually did consider that option (including whether or not same-sex couples could be granted virtually all of the same rights and responsibilities of ‘marriage’ but with a different legal designation), but ultimately the vast majority of the rulings determined otherwise.  The culmination of all the rulings and the final decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America determined that it was unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from laying equal claim to the legal designation of ‘marriage.’  The ruling determined that refusing to acknowledge our marriages as marriages failed to provide equal dignity and only served to demean same-sex couples. 

 

3.    You assert that “there is the very real threat that churches could be sued for not being willing to perform gay marriages,” including temple marriages by the LDS church.  Further, you assert that such is a reality even if “I” disagree with you.  However, no legal expert or scholar that I know of agrees with the concept that churches face any type of lawsuits for failing to marry same-sex couples.  In fact, everything that I have read suggest that such fears are entirely unfounded.  After all, despite divorcees’ legal right to marry, the Catholic church has never been sued because of their refusal to marry divorcees.  And despite interracial couples’ legal right to marry, churches that refuse to marry interracial couples have never bene sued—even to this day—for refusing to marry interracial couples.  In fact, the Supreme Court’s ruling itself even maintains churches’ right to exclude same-sex marriage:

 

 

However, given your insistence that “even though choose to think otherwise” and to demonstrate the logic behind your insistence that such “it isn't an unfounded fear,” can you please provide ANY legal precedent as cited by any credible legal expert, scholar, or source that would give credence to such a concern …?

 

4.    You claim “before” the legalization of same-sex marriage, “there was always a right [for businesses] to refuse service to anyone, for no reason at all.”  This simply is not true.  Federal public accommodations laws do not allow businesses to refuse service to anyone on the basis of legally protected classes, and that has been the case for decades. That was the basis for all of the sit-ins during the Civil Rights movement, and remains the basis for the lawsuits you mention against businesses that discriminate against same-sex couples in states where such discrimination has been deemed illegal due to public accommodations law.  Business owners and employees cannot refuse services to anyone, for no reason at all.

 

5.    Finally, your use of the example of businesses being required to provide services to same-sex couples due to public accommodations law as evidence that churches face a real threat of being sued by same-sex couples demonstrates a lack of a genuine understanding of the application of legal precedent.  Churches maintain constitutional protections that are not applicable to businesses.

Okay, I guess I never thought of the word marriage in it's uses that don't pertain to two people becoming wed to each other. Thanks for the perspective.

Apparently I wasn't being constitutional when I ran a business in the late eighties and displayed a sign which read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I utilized that sign many times, whenever a customer became unruly or something I would just point to the sign, and even call the sheriff when I needed to. (It was too rural to have regular police around back then.) I never had to give any reason whatsoever as to why I refused service. I guess I am lucky that I didn't lose my business in a law suit.

Obviously things have changed since the eighties because my business wasn't the only one that had a sign like that. So why is it not possible that things could change and some judge makes a different ruling, setting a new precedent and start suing churches for not performing those types of marriage? Perhaps I'm a little paranoid or something, but to me at least it is a very real threat, eventually.

That said I can agree to disagree.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Many people (myself included) feel that political initiatives designed to exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage (such as California’s Proposition 22 and Proposition 8, Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3, and the current anti-gay marriage activities in Mexico) which many members of the LDS church proactively supported were and continue to be clear examples in which conservative religions (including said Mormons) attempted to force everyone (including non-Mormons) to bend to their LDS morals concerning ‘the sanctity of man-woman marriage.’  LDS leaders read letters from the pulpit encouraging members to get involved, quoting leaders, LDS scriptures, the Proclamation, etc., created websites advocating the enforcement of Mormon ideals about marriage even on non-Mormons, and organized grass-roots, door-to-door campaigns (including several of my own LDS family members).

When taken into that context, as well as the long-standing conversations I’ve had on the topic here on the board, my paraphrase of your comments, along with my own substitutions of ‘Mormon/LDS’ for ‘LGBT,’ are a very applicable and an appropriate analogy.

Perhaps it is because the church, just as I do, feels like it is a direct threat to being able to continue to deny SSM being performed within it's own walls. Instead of forcing LDS views upon everyone else it is more of a form of defense of the LDS churchs' rights to continue it's same practices. That said I do see your side of things from a previous post.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Perhaps it is because the church, just as I do, feels like it is a direct threat to being able to continue to deny SSM being performed within it's own walls. Instead of forcing LDS views upon everyone else it is more of a form of defense of the LDS churchs' rights to continue it's same practices. That said I do see your side of things from a previous post.

Perhaps the best way to protect ourselves from threats to our religious freedoms is to fight for the rights of everyone to live according to the dictates of their own conscience rather than fighting to enforce our definition of marriage.

[Daniel2]

14 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Okay, I guess I never thought of the word marriage in it's uses that don't pertain to two people becoming wed to each other. Thanks for the perspective.

Apparently I wasn't being constitutional when I ran a business in the late eighties and displayed a sign which read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I utilized that sign many times, whenever a customer became unruly or something I would just point to the sign, and even call the sheriff when I needed to. (It was too rural to have regular police around back then.) I never had to give any reason whatsoever as to why I refused service. I guess I am lucky that I didn't lose my business in a law suit.

Obviously things have changed since the eighties because my business wasn't the only one that had a sign like that. So why is it not possible that things could change and some judge makes a different ruling, setting a new precedent and start suing churches for not performing those types of marriage? Perhaps I'm a little paranoid or something, but to me at least it is a very real threat, eventually.

That said I can agree to disagree.

Before I respond to the post above, I wanted to touch on a few comments you've made in several different posts expressing your hope that you haven't offended, and assuring me that you mean no ill will or offense.  I really appreciate you saying so, and I want to reassure you equally that even though we are discussing as difficult a topic as this one tends to be, please know I haven't been personally offended by your posts.  I, too, appreciate keeping the discussion respectful; civility is always welcome!   So, thanks for your tact in explaining your position without inflammatory rhetoric; I'm trying my best to respond the same way.

With regards to you not being constitutional when you ran a business in the late eighties displaying a sign that says, 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone': many, many businesses display such signs, even to this day.  Freedom of speech means a business owner could put up any sign he wants; even if it's legally inaccurate.  And while businesses are entirely free to refuse service or ask customers or patrons to leave due to violations of dress codes (i.e. shirt & shoes required!) or codes of conduct (i.e. unruly, rude, or disruptive customers), business owners actually don't have the legal right to refuse service to customers based on status of a legally-protected class (race, color, religion, or national origin, etc.).  This has been true since the mid 1960's.  Wiki may be helpful, here:

Public accommodations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."^[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law^[3] as well as religious organizations.^[4] Title II's definition of public accommodation is limited to "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests," and therefore is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws,^[5] but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.

Various states in the United States, in a number of nonuniform laws, provide for nondiscrimination in public accommodation.

Federal law

Federal legislation dealing with public accommodations include these:

• Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

State law

Many states and their subdivisions prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodation prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title II).^[6][7] As of 2015, 45 states have an anti-discrimination public accommodation law for nondisabled individuals.^[8] The laws all protect against discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity, and religion.^[8] There are 19 states that prohibit discrimination in public accommodation based upon age.^[8]

Several states also have protections for breastfeeding in public.^[9] In addition several states provide for non-discrimination in public accommodation when based upon sexual orientation and/or gender identity.^[10]

So, while businesses may reserve the right to refuse service to some patrons based on violations of dress codes or codes of conduct, they cannot reserve the right to refuse service to anyone based on any or every reason at all.  And that hasn't really changed since the 1960's.  Even though your Freedom of Speech allowed you to display your (legally-inaccurate) sign in the 1980's (and continues to allow business owners to display similar legally-inaccurate signs, even today), public accommodations law hasn't changed in that regard in the last 50 years.

In answer to your question of "why is it not possible that things could change and some judge makes a different ruling, setting a new precedent and start suing churches for not performing those types of marriage?"  I would say this: Freedom of Religion is enshrined in our constitution.  It was and continues to be one of the most cherished freedoms our nation holds most dear, and is one of the freedoms most resistant to legal alterations due to it's status as an amendment to the Constitution--the changing of which is extremely difficult and highly improbable, despite conservatives' attempts to portray it as under-attack.  Any judge's ruling has to be weighed against what the constitution says, and to remove freedom of religion from the constitution would be virtually impossible.  Further, any new legal ruling must take into account centuries of legal precident; of which there is literally no chance that the government will force religions to start marrying people who have a civil claim to civil marriage, but who fall beyond the scope or doctrines of the religion in question (again, I mentioned a few of them... Catholics don't allow divorcees to marry, many churches don't allow interracial couples to marry, many churches won't marry non-members or members of other Faiths, etc.)  So, that fear isn't really founded on any legal precedent and, as I mentioned earlier, I have never read any legal expert, scholar, or source that gives any credence to that claim--even the most conservative of such legal organizations or legal experts.  Same-sex marriage has been around in the USA for twelve years (starting in Massachusetts in 2004), and I know of no credible lawsuits even having been brought to bear, let alone having succeeded.  However, there were a few recent cases that upheld the religious rights of churches to refuse to marry such couples, as recently as 2014, some :

With marriage equality officially the law of the land (though some states and districts are still denying the right), many politicians and pastors claim that the next step is forcing pastors to perform same-sex marriages against their will, and against their beliefs. This represents a complete misunderstanding of the rights pastors already claim.

A pastor is not required to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple, or any other couple. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees this. It promises that the government will not interfere with a person’s right to freely practice his religion.

To see how the marriage equality ruling affects churches, we should look back at another ruling on marriage: Loving v. Virginia.

If you’re not familiar with this case, it’s the one in which the right to marriage was guaranteed for interracial couples — something that saw opposition at the time. (One frightening detail: “at the time” was 1967 — less than half a century ago.) According to the ACLU, the couple at the center of the case was wed in Washington, D.C., but their home state, Virginia, refused to acknowledge their marriage — and charged them with “unlawful cohabitation.” The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, saying that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

Since 1967, have churches been forced to accept interracial marriage? Let’s see.

2013-2014: Pastor Donny Reagan of Happy Valley Church in Tennessee

refuses to perform

an interracial marriage, according to

WCYB

. (Note: the sermon and marriage comments were in 2013; video went viral in 2014.)

2011: Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, in Kentucky, votes. Not only will their pastor not perform an interracial marriage, but interracial couples

cannot become

church members, the

Lexington Herald-Leader

reports.

2010: From the

Sun-Sentinel

we learn that an Ohio pastor, the Rev. Donald Ellis of Pleasant Valley Community Church,

canceled plans

to perform a marriage upon learning that the groom was black.

These churches (and others with similar stances on marriage) likely faced community backlash, but none faced legal sanctions.

Loving v. Virginia assured that the state would permit and recognize a marriage between an interracial couple, not that ministers would be forced to perform a marriage. That’s why there is a marriage case you may have heard of that did, indeed, end with legal consequences.

In 2009, according to the Huffington Post, Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Louisiana, refused a marriage certificate to an interracial couple. Though he didn’t face charges, he did resign over the incident, under pressure. He did indeed break the law, and could have faced a discrimination complaint.

What is the difference between Bardwell and the pastors in the other cases? Those pastors act as leaders of their religion, while Bardwell acts as an agent of the state.

In marriage of same-sex couples, the same principle will apply. A state employee will be expected to do his job, whether or not he approves of the marriage personally. A religious leader, however, can turn down interracial couples, non-Christian couples, young couples, previously divorced couples, and any other marriage they choose. A religious leader cannot be required to perform a same-sex marriage, and claims otherwise are either the result of misunderstanding the law, or deliberately misleading the public.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2208921/no-pastor-can-be-forced-to-perform-a-same-sex-marriage/#65X7XWeX4p4ItDSm.99

And here's a link to a great ongoing discussion titled What happened to churches that refused to hold interracial weddings? that is also highly informative about the ongoing legal precedent STILL protecting the legal rights (and tax-exempt status) of churches that refuse to marry interracial couples today, some 50 years later.

Hopefully that answers your questions, and in all honestly, more than just trying to prove my point, I genuinely hope it helps alleviate some of your concerns.

Again, Waveslider, thanks for the ongoing respectful dialogue.

Best,

D

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

 A person's sexual orientation whether homosexual or heterosexual is not a weakness of the flesh, its an attribute of their humanity, no value judgment on these orientations.

A weakness of the flesh is any desire to disobey God's laws. When a weakness becomes a strength it is when someone masters their desire to disobey God's laws. You can decide then what is and what isn't a weakness of the flesh, and if our decisions differ I can agree to disagree with you.

[waveslider]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Perhaps the best way to protect ourselves from threats to our religious freedoms is to fight for the rights of everyone to live according to the dictates of their own conscience rather than fighting to enforce our definition of marriage.

Perhaps lobbying for support of any kind should be viewed as enforcing ones' belief upon others? But throwing rocks, and vandalizing is merely protecting ones rights?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, waveslider said:

Perhaps lobbying for support of any kind should be viewed as enforcing ones' belief upon others?

No, lobbying for support of one's beliefs is great.  But our church didn't limit itself to only that.

1 minute ago, waveslider said:

But throwing rocks, and vandalizing is merely protecting ones rights?

No.  And I've never said such a thing.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, waveslider said:

With all due respect you don't have it right.

My view is that any natural or innate desire of the flesh, that conflicts with the laws of God are what constitutes a weakness of the flesh. I don't think we need to change our nature so much as master our nature, and change our behavior to align with Godlike behavior instead. Eventually that Godlike behavior becomes so easy to follow that it now is a strength and our nature has then become a little more Godlike. This process can take a lifetime, and even into the spirit realm, but it is a process that can be done with the miraculous power of the atonement. Too bad the word, "Nature," isn't more descriptive, just as the word, "Love," isn't either.

The Eros type of love isn't what, according to Mormonism at least, God has ordained as being good, regardless of how accepted in our society it is. We are taught to control our passions, not let them control us. We are to learn to master ourselves, as we follow the true Master, our loving and merciful Savior. He allows us our weaknesses to help us remain humble, so we don't get all full of ourselves in pride, but allow Him to remain at the helm instead of us.

Thanks for the clarifications and corrections about your position.

I'm a bit surprised to hear you suggest that you believe that opposite-sex attractions within the context of marriage (though obviously, the opposite-sex type, within the framework of Mormonism), as we were discussing (including the eros type of love) "isn't what God has ordained as being good." 

During my 31 year tenure as a believing Mormon, I was of the firm belief that LDS doctrine suggested that opposite-sex attractions were ordained of God, within the bonds of marriage, not only for procreation, but also as a healthy, uplifting, and God-given expression of conjugal love--a.k.a. eros.

Here's several examples of what I'm referring to:

Intimacy in Marriage

They Twain Shall Be One: Thoughts on Intimacy in Marriage

Between Husband and Wife: Gospel Perspectives on Marital Intimacy

Edited September 26, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, waveslider said:

Perhaps lobbying for support of any kind should be viewed as enforcing ones' belief upon others? But throwing rocks, and vandalizing is merely protecting ones rights?

Could you clarify a bit more what you're referring to here, Waveslider....?

As Rockpond pointed out, in the public debate over whether or not to legally grant the status of civil marriage to same-sex couples, the LDS church did far more than lobbying for support of it's own right to have LDS-authorized marriages recognized by the state, or even it's ability to maintain the right to only solemnize marriages according to the Faith's precepts...  Rather, church leadership proactively called upon it's members to preserve the ability to prevent other religious Faiths from having their marriages (and religious freedoms) equally recognized and respected by the state (speaking specifically of those Faiths who's precepts and clergy allow and solemnize weddings for same-sex couples).

Additionally, I'm unfamiliar with anyone who's advocated that throwing rocks or vandalism is a legitimate form of protecting one's rights, at least as related to any of the issues at play in this thread...

Perhaps some further clarification from you would help us better understand your point.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Daniel2

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Kudos to your friend for finding a life of meaning, purpose, service, and peace.

We all should be free to do so according to the dictates of our own conscience.

Indeed. 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

This philosophy neither I can understand nor I can accept......   There's only one explanation "mystery". "beyond my capacity to understand" and "eternal" .....The worst part is, "Not sure what is correct" .........

There are better answers out there.....(Perhaps not out there, in real world)....   

Well, by all means, instruct us in those "better answers" -- from the "real world" which you understand so well.

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, by all means, instruct us in those "better answers" -- from the "real world" which you understand so well.

Answers are out there.....Science provides us.

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for the clarifications and corrections about your position.

I'm a bit surprised to hear you suggest that you believe that opposite-sex attractions within the context of marriage (though obviously, the opposite-sex type, within the framework of Mormonism), as we were discussing (including the eros type of love) "isn't what God has ordained as being good." 

During my 31 year tenure as a believing Mormon, I was of the firm belief that LDS doctrine suggested that opposite-sex attractions were ordained of God, within the bonds of marriage, not only for procreation, but also as a healthy, uplifting, and God-given expression of conjugal love--a.k.a. eros.

Here's several examples of what I'm referring to:

Intimacy in Marriage

They Twain Shall Be One: Thoughts on Intimacy in Marriage

Between Husband and Wife: Gospel Perspectives on Marital Intimacy

I was only saying that getting out of control isn't ordained of God. Being in control is. I was always taught that is one of the main reasons we are here on Earth, to learn how to control physical things. It's part of gaining a physical body. I didn't say anything about conjugal love, only lack of control over our passions. If we let our passions dictate our actions we are not in control. If we exert our control over our passions we are better able to keep our conjugal love alive in a more perfect union, instead of being promiscuous. I was going off of what you described as Eros love and how Eros involved a loss of control:

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

But the Greeks didn't always think of it as something positive, as we tend to do today. In fact, eros

was viewed as a dangerous, fiery, and irrational form of love that could take hold of you and possess you—an attitude shared by many later spiritual thinkers, such as the Christian writer C.S. Lewis.  Eros involved a loss of control that frightened the Greeks.

Passion in marriage isn't what I was saying was bad at all.

[waveslider]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Could you clarify a bit more what you're referring to here, Waveslider....?

As Rockpond pointed out, in the public debate over whether or not to legally grant the status of civil marriage to same-sex couples, the LDS church did far more than lobbying for support of it's own right to have LDS-authorized marriages recognized by the state, or even it's ability to maintain the right to only solemnize marriages according to the Faith's precepts...  Rather, church leadership proactively called upon it's members to preserve the ability to prevent other religious Faiths from having their marriages (and religious freedoms) equally recognized and respected by the state (speaking specifically of those Faiths who's precepts and clergy allow and solemnize weddings for same-sex couples).

Additionally, I'm unfamiliar with anyone who's advocated that throwing rocks or vandalism is a legitimate form of protecting one's rights, at least as related to any of the issues at play in this thread...

Perhaps some further clarification from you would help us better understand your point.

I suppose I need to study the actual events that happened. I always thought that the church was just lobbying and asking members to lobby as well. I remember something about some violent protests made against the church, by the LGBTQ community, in California around the time of Prop. 8 being voted on. I didn't pay too close of attention to it since my state had long ago voted against SSM. Perhaps I have a few things wrong. Sorry for the misunderstandings.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Answers are out there.....Science provides us.

So address the issue in the OP.  Give us those better answers which are provided by science.  Or are you going to flake out on us now?

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So address the issue in the OP.  Give us those better answers which are provided by science.  Or are you going to flake out on us now?

You are using the answers every day, all day long...There's no mystery about it. From Darwin to Einstein, the hospital healing my wife's cancer....Our lives are enriched, improved beyond imagination...You walk into any Natural History museum, any hospital, Observatory, where you get the answers for where the Universe originated from....

We were enlightened by Minds like Darwin, Sagan, Pasteur, Einstein and thousands like them. I do understand the world well enough not to depend on Prayers, hopes only.....