Same-sex sealings

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that analogy works at all though, because the main doctrine behind the illegitimacy of SS-sealings is that SSM cannot produce offspring. 

One of the things Kant held about Ideal morality is the notion that while justifying an act, one must be able to universalize it, and think about what would be the outcome for humanity if EVERYONE always did the same in the same situation.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that analogy works at all though, because the main doctrine behind the illegitimacy of SS-sealings is that SSM cannot produce offspring.  Any analogy that was used would need to have a couple that had that in common in the very least to actually be analogous. 

Interracial couples can have offspring, so using those relationships would be like trying to make an analogy about apples but using oranges.  The differences would be too great to be at all useful.

I would be incredibly incredibly incredibly surprised if JLH had sex with animals at all in mind when he used that analogy.  Some people might automatically imply rape from his statement, but not all people.  In that case, it's the minds that do go there that could be said to have the telling motives, not the minds that didn't make the connection until it was pointed out.

I don't understand why you think this is apples and oranges.

Interracial marriage was a no-no because (it was taught) that since blacks couldn't go to the temple a marriage couldn't last into the eternities. Essentially it would prevent the non-black partner from being sealed to an eternal spouse. Thus a frustration of the plan of eternal families. No children without end.

The SSM issue also seems to revolve around the issue of couples not being able so sxually procreate children without end.

Both issues are about sealings of families and who is allowed based on what we think the final eternal family would look like and whether or not they could have eternal offspring. Seems very similar to me.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't understand why you think this is apples and oranges.

Interracial marriage was a no-no because (it was taught) that since blacks couldn't go to the temple a marriage couldn't last into the eternities. Essentially it would prevent the non-black partner from being sealed to an eternal spouse. Thus a frustration of the plan of eternal families. No children without end.

The SSM issue also seems to revolve around the issue of couples not being able so sexually procreate children without end.

Both issues are about sealings of families and who is allowed based on what we think the final eternal family would look like and whether or not they could have eternal offspring. Seems very similar to me.

Interesting perspective.
Is the eternal family all about God's work and glory - bringing to pass immortality and eternal life for new generations?
If so does that mean ANY marriage form that would automatically prevent eternal increase then be non-eternal in its nature?

[mfbukowski]

@bluebell

Error duplicate 

Edited September 29, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that analogy works at all though, because the main doctrine behind the illegitimacy of SS-sealings is that SSM cannot produce offspring. 

One of the things Kant held about Ideal morality is the notion that while justifying an act, one must be able to universalize it, and think about what would be the outcome for humanity if that act became a Universal Law.

That reiterates your point above.  On this view, homosexual behavior is immoral.

""One of Kant's categorical imperatives is the universalizability principle, in which one should "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” In lay terms, this simply means that if you do an action, then everyone else should also be able to do""

[ttribe]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, it's really.  Because honestly, how many times has JLH compared homosexuality to having sex with animals?  As far as I can tell, you've seen that done zero times.

My point wasn't so much about JLH, specifically, as it is about the near inevitibility of the comparison in thread after thread on this topic by some defender. It's not the same defender all the time. But it does come up with disturbing regularity. I think @The Nehor said it best when he described its occurrence as "reflexive."

 

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

One of the things Kant held about Ideal morality is the notion that while justifying an act, one must be able to universalize it, and think about what would be the outcome for humanity if that act became a Universal Law.

That reiterates your point above.  On this view, homosexual behavior is immoral.

""One of Kant's categorical imperatives is the universalizability principle, in which one should "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” In lay terms, this simply means that if you do an action, then everyone else should also be able to do""

To be fair the categorical imperative is a muddled mess.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

cannot produce offspring

And what act is it that produces offspring? The one that’s only allowed in marriage under God’s rules? And then gay marriage is analogized to animals?

 

As for how applicable the inter racial marriage is, HJW beat me to it. 

Edited September 29, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

One of the things Kant held about Ideal morality is the notion that while justifying an act, one must be able to universalize it, and think about what would be the outcome for humanity if that act became a Universal Law.

That reiterates your point above.  On this view, homosexual behavior is immoral.

""One of Kant's categorical imperatives is the universalizability principle, in which one should "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” In lay terms, this simply means that if you do an action, then everyone else should also be able to do""

No it’s not. That’s especially lazy. “Everyone should engage in the consensual sexual relationship of their choosing.” That would make homosexual relationships perfectly moral. 🙄

Edited September 29, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And what act is it that produces offspring? The one that’s only allowed in marriage under God’s rules? And then gay marriage is analogized to animals?

There, the best news story headline ever written. What I am saying is that instead of comparing LGBT people to horses we should use swans and geese in the future.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

No, it's really.  Because honestly, how many times has JLH compared homosexuality to having sex with animals?  As far as I can tell, you've seen that done zero times.

As a follow-on, the frequency of this comparison is hardly new and is not something I've made up.

A recent example from this board:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74694-another-instance-of-compelled-speech-targeting-religious-people-sorta/?do=findComment&comment=1210106946

 

Examples from the national press:

https://www.hrc.org/resources/2016republicanfacts-ben-carson

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/wyoming-lawmaker-allegedly-compared-homosexuality-bestiality-pedophilia-n970711

 

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politics/rick-santorum-homosexuality-comments-same-sex-marriage

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/louie-gohmert-gay-marriage-comments-089582

 

https://ourliveswisconsin.com/candidate-for-wisconsin-state-supreme-court-compared-homosexuality-to-bestiality-called-himself-a-culture-warrior/

 

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked

 

So, back to your accusation, I guess it does say something about me that I pointed it out in JLH's post; it says I've seen this enough times, and seen how hurtful it is, such that I am sensitized to it and have no problem calling it out. If you want to fault me for that, so be it.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

"Seed" in scriptural language is often understood to mean offspring and not semen.

I think Pogi is correct here.  See Genesis 3:15:

Quote

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

And Moses 4:21:

Quote

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The Church apparently teaches that this is a reference to Jesus Christ specifically (as opposed to all of Eve's "offspring").

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

No it’s not. That’s especially lazy. “Everyone should engage in the consensual sexual relationship of their choosing.” That would make homosexual relationships perfectly moral. 🙄

Yes, of course there are many ways of seeing it, interpreting it and wording it, but my point in bringing it up was to discuss the idea of universifiability.

I am the last person here to rely on ambiguity of words to make a point, especially about universal laws.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't understand why you think this is apples and oranges.

Interracial marriage was a no-no because (it was taught) that since blacks couldn't go to the temple a marriage couldn't last into the eternities. Essentially it would prevent the non-black partner from being sealed to an eternal spouse. Thus a frustration of the plan of eternal families. No children without end.

The SSM issue also seems to revolve around the issue of couples not being able so sxually procreate children without end.

Both issues are about sealings of families and who is allowed based on what we think the final eternal family would look like and whether or not they could have eternal offspring. Seems very similar to me.

Yes, but STILL, we come up against how interracial couples were always able to reproduce offspring and SS couples never will be.  That's the main doctrinal problem with SSM so that is where the analogy has to be applicable, or it's a worthless analogy. 

[carbon dioxide]

It makes not difference if same sex couples can't biologically reproduce therefore they can't be married.  An elderly man can marry and elderly woman and they can't reproduce.  Their marriage is still 100% acceptable in terms of the doctrine of the Church.  Lots of reasons why gay marriage is not doctrinal but the issue of the capacity of having kids I think is at the bottom of the list.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but STILL, we come up against how interracial couples were always able to reproduce offspring and SS couples never will be.  That's the main doctrinal problem with SSM so that is where the analogy has to be applicable, or it's a worthless analogy. 

We don't like to explain WHY that's a doctrinal problem.

We have to recognize that creation of new generations of Gods and worlds is the entire purpose of Godhood.  It's not just that SS couples can't reproduce, it's that because of this they aren't filling the measure of their creation.  It's literally a dead line.  The more it's accepted the more God's work and purpose are frustrated.

It's Christ and the fig tree.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

My point wasn't so much about JLH, specifically, as it is about the near inevitibility of the comparison in thread after thread on this topic by some defender. It's not the same defender all the time. But it does come up with disturbing regularity. I think @The Nehor said it best when he described its occurrence as "reflexive."

 

But does it come up because the poster is actually arguing that SSM is the same as having sex with animals?   Or is that a reflexive assumption on the part of other posters that is not supported?

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, gopher said:

Is the church opposed to SSM because it poses a threat to heterosexual marriage?  I think the biggest threat is that it's causing believers to abandon their faith, testimonies, and covenants made and leaving the church as a result.  It's becoming increasingly difficult to support SSM and remain a believing, covenant keeping member of the church.

I support same sex marriage in the same sense I support porn, prostitution, drug use of all types, even legal suicide.  I believe in the doctrine of agency.  People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on agency of others.  That is what we fought a "war" in pre existence.   The right to choose to obey God's commandments or do our own thing.  Of course, with agency comes accountability and consequence.  So LDS can support SSM on the basis of agency.  SSM does not threaten heterosexual marriage anymore than porn, prostitution, swinging, and open marriage does.  

I think if LDS would error towards allowing people to choose agency, we will be better off.   There is no reason to fear things like the Church being forced to accept doctrinal nonsense like SSM.   Just as their is no reason to believe the church will accept prostitution or swinging, there is no reason to believe the church would accept SSM.  I think we manufacture problems that really do not exist.  I believe its a thousand times more likely the Church will start polygamy again over accepting SSM.  At least polygamy can be supported in the scriptures and has historical precedent both in ancient times and early LDS times.  A legitimate case can be made for that practice.  Nothing can be made to support SSM from the scriptures or history in the church.  There is about is much support in the scriptures and teachings of the prophets for SSM as marriage between a man and his blow up sex doll.   NOTHING.

Edited September 30, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/29/2022 at 10:09 AM, The Nehor said:

Actually there are secular legal issues with my plan too.

But they have been rendered moot 

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh for Pete's sake.  I picked a noun at random.  I could just as easily have typed a bag of sand, a jar of mayonnaise, or a Ford Fiesta.

 

So, looks like you’ve been made an offender for a word.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And what act is it that produces offspring? The one that’s only allowed in marriage under God’s rules? And then gay marriage is analogized to animals?

I've already outlined my opinion of the flaws in HJW's argument so I won't go over that again.

But to the above, the production of offspring was not the point of JLH's comparison though, right?  His point was that a sealing ordinance must be ratified by God or it's not valid.  That doesn't have anything to do with offspring.  So he wasn't the one who brought sex or the rape of animals into the thread.  That was other posters (who brought it into the argument and then castigated others for it showing up).

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you provide a reference that teaches that spirits are born via a process similar to mortal sxual procreation?

Your argument presupposes that a spiritual birth must be similar to a physical birth via sxual relationship and the fertilization of egg from seed. I'm not aware of a scriptural or prophetic teaching that elucidates how spirits are created. In fact, don't we learn that intelligences are eternal and that spirits are "organized"? Is there a reason to believe that a SS couple couldn't organize eternal intelligences? If so, what is that reason?

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.
Joseph F. Smith
John R. Winder
Anthon H. Lund
First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
November 1909

That sacred process has not been revealed and probably won’t be in this life, but the First Presidency statement taken context makes it clear that a man and a woman are essential.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

As a follow-on, the frequency of this comparison is hardly new and is not something I've made up.

A recent example from this board:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74694-another-instance-of-compelled-speech-targeting-religious-people-sorta/?do=findComment&comment=1210106946

 

Examples from the national press:

https://www.hrc.org/resources/2016republicanfacts-ben-carson

 

 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/wyoming-lawmaker-allegedly-compared-homosexuality-bestiality-pedophilia-n970711

 

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politics/rick-santorum-homosexuality-comments-same-sex-marriage

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/louie-gohmert-gay-marriage-comments-089582

 

 

 

https://ourliveswisconsin.com/candidate-for-wisconsin-state-supreme-court-compared-homosexuality-to-bestiality-called-himself-a-culture-warrior/

 

 

 

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked

 

 

So, back to your accusation, I guess it does say something about me that I pointed it out in JLH's post; it says I've seen this enough times, and seen how hurtful it is, such that I am sensitized to it and have no problem calling it out. If you want to fault me for that, so be it.

 

 

You didn't point it out in his post though, not in the way that you've repeatedly implied.  You took one thing (a post about the need for God to validate ordinances) and made it into something completely different (sex with animals I guess?), and then got upset because of what you made the post into. 

That's the what I'm find fault with.  Actually comparing gay and lesbians to people who have sex with animals is atrocious.  But, JLH wasn't doing that so we didn't actually need to go there.

(And thankfully, what goes on in the great wide web is not really a good example for what goes on here--because lots of sickos out there  Thankfully in here, most of us have a long history together, so we can generally know where someone is coming from and what they are likely to mean, and what they aren't).

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

It makes not difference if same sex couples can't biologically reproduce therefore they can't be married.  An elderly man can marry and elderly woman and they can't reproduce.  Their marriage is still 100% acceptable in terms of the doctrine of the Church.  Lots of reasons why gay marriage is not doctrinal but the issue of the capacity of having kids I think is at the bottom of the list.

 

 

Since we are talking about eternal increase between two sealed spouses, the mortal ability to have offspring is irrelevant.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

My point wasn't so much about JLH, specifically, as it is about the near inevitibility of the comparison in thread after thread on this topic by some defender. It's not the same defender all the time. But it does come up with disturbing regularity. I think @The Nehor said it best when he described its occurrence as "reflexive."

 

Time for GUI’s Law1.1