Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8

[bio-chem]

ok morrison, are you ok with polygamy? polyandry? 12 year olds marrying?

 

[DOMS]

Doms, once again, I couldn't agree more with you on this point. In no way shape form or fashion am I saying that ANY church should be forced to marry ANYONE that they do not wish to marry. I was only using the Mormon church as an example because it kicked off the debate. You can substitute it for any religious institution opposed to gay marriage.

Keep in mind that, at least this time, the gays brought it on themselves.

I lived in Utah for 7 years, I've gotten to know a lot about Mormons. Two very important things to note about them:

1. The don't preach hate from the pulpit. The never say "such and such are going to hell because they do x."

2. The only go after groups if they feel actively threatened.

They're not a church that's big on hating.

 

[jmorrison]

ok morrison, are you ok with polygamy? polyandry? 12 year olds marrying?

I am completely ok with whatever decisions consenting adults make, as long as I am not forced to be involved with it. If you don't come to my church asking to be married to your favorite Barca lounger, I have no issue with it. I may think its weird, unhealthy, socially destructive and just plain wrong, but I would not support a law taking away your own personal beliefs. I just wouldnt invite you over for lunch.

As for the 12 year olds, no. Children are not mature enough to make intelligent decisions about religion, politics, or even what to eat for lunch.

 

[bio-chem]

I am completely ok with whatever decisions consenting adults make, as long as I am not forced to be involved with it. If you don't come to my church asking to be married to your favorite Barca lounger, I have no issue with it. I may think its weird, unhealthy, socially destructive and just plain wrong, but I would not support a law taking away your own personal beliefs. I just wouldnt invite you over for lunch.

As for the 12 year olds, no. Children are not mature enough to make intelligent decisions about religion, politics, or even what to eat for lunch.

well the supreme court upholds such laws as constitutional. I also question your statement that you are ok with something that is socially destructive. the laws we have in large part determine the society we wish to live in. we have the right to outlaw that which we find to be socially destructive.

 

[jmorrison]

I will also say that I am completely ignorant to the Mormon faith, and did not know about the gay intrusion to the Mormon church and their sueing for marriage from the church. In that particular argument, I would be on the side of the Mormons, as no one should have someone elses belief system thrust on them. If the Mormon faith does not support gay marriage, they should not have to support it. I just don't think they should LEGALLY oppose it either. At that point they stop being a religious institution, and become a political movement.

 

[jmorrison]

well the supreme court upholds such laws as constitutional. I also question your statement that you are ok with something that is socially destructive. the laws we have in large part determine the society we wish to live in. we have the right to outlaw that which we find to be socially destructive.

You are completely misunderstanding what I meant by socially destructive. I mean that in a personal light. As in, people may not want to associate with you anymore. Do I think that your marriage to the Barca lounger is in anyway destroying society? Of course not...thats insane. I just don't think you will receive many formal dinner invites with the Mrs. Unless of course you surround yourself by other people who feel the same way. Which is kind of the point of why we came to American in the first place...and unless I am wrong, why Mormons have a high concentration in Utah...to get away from people persecuting them for their beliefs.

 

[Built]

I will also say that I am completely ignorant to the Mormon faith, and did not know about the gay intrusion to the Mormon church and their sueing for marriage from the church. In that particular argument, I would be on the side of the Mormons, as no one should have someone elses belief system thrust on them. If the Mormon faith does not support gay marriage, they should not have to support it. I just don't think they should LEGALLY oppose it either. At that point they stop being a religious institution, and become a political movement.

Yes!

I had this argument with my mom a few weeks ago, only it was about Catholic priests - she feels they should be allowed to marry. I do not.

If you are a Catholic priest, your faith has directed your calling. If you now wish to marry, you should - but you should stop being a priest. If you feel priests ought to be allowed to marry, that's fine - you can still be a good priest.

Just not a Catholic one. Find another Church.

I actually feel the government ought to get out of the business of marriage entirely. It should be a purely non-secular option. Join whatever Church you like, marry any which way you choose.

Legally, it won't matter at all because there will be no particular legal status. If you want a legal partnership arrangement, hire a lawyer and arrange one, just like you would for a business partnership. Negotiate as you wish with your insurance provider.

Solved.

 

[bio-chem]

Yes!

I had this argument with my mom a few weeks ago, only it was about Catholic priests - she feels they should be allowed to marry. I do not.

If you are a Catholic priest, your faith has directed your calling. If you now wish to marry, you should - but you should stop being a priest. If you feel priests ought to be allowed to marry, that's fine - you can still be a good priest.

Just not a Catholic one. Find another Church.

I actually feel the government ought to get out of the business of marriage entirely. It should be a purely non-secular option. Join whatever Church you like, marry any which way you choose.

Legally, it won't matter at all because there will be no particular legal status. If you want a legal partnership arrangement, hire a lawyer and arrange one, just like you would for a business partnership. Negotiate as you wish with your insurance provider.

Solved.

yes, thats absolutely what we need. (dripping with sarcasm) the fundamental family unit and building block of a healthy society further degraded by viewing it as a business contract. The breakdown of marriage currently is that people are selfish in marriage. Instead of each spouse putting the other first in their lives they view it as what is beneficial for them. making divorce easier. successful marriage and a healthy family (which strengthens society) requires selflessness. it requires commitment. neither of which are fostered by treating it like a negotiated business contract.

 

[DOMS]

successful marriage and a healthy family (which strengthens society) requires selflessness. it requires commitment. neither of which are fostered by treating it like a negotiated business contract.

Yep. Study after study shows that a single parent family tends to produce dysfunctional children, and thereby adults.

I'm from a single parent family, I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Built]

bio-chem, you feel a church-sanctioned marriage is important, right? So, go ahead and have a church-sanctioned marriage. This is the spiritual part of the contract. I feel this is important, too.

The legal portion - that part can be negotiated, or not. At the moment, they are both applied at once. I am in favour of separating them into two independent contracts - one is the legal arrangement, one is non-secular. There is still nothing preventing you from applying both. Churches need not be brought into the argument for or against Gay marriage. If the premise of your faith does not include Gay marriage, it becomes a matter of personal preference: stay in the Church, or find one that is in keeping with your own understanding of your faith.

If you do not feel the personal need for non-secular marriage, you may simply choose to not marry at all, or to enter into a legal partnership, much like that provided through common-law status or civil union now.

I mean really, under the current legislation, were you to marry through your Church, would you stay married because of legislation, or because your faith in God and your relationship with your faith defined your commitment to your marriage in the first place?

 

[jmorrison]

yes, thats absolutely what we need. (dripping with sarcasm) the fundamental family unit and building block of a healthy society further degraded by viewing it as a business contract.

I simply do not believe that you are too dense to see your own hypocrisy. You seem to be an intelligent guy, and there is no way you can be this shortsighted.

The fundamental family unit and building block of a healthy society...

No sir. This is nothing more than your opinion of what a healthy society entails. Just as an example, keeping in mind that I know about as much about the Mormon faith as you do about homosexual relationships, how would you respond to:

"The Mormon family unit is degrading the fundamental building blocks of society. Their beliefs are un-christian/buddist/muslim/etc and therefor wrong. They are destroying the American way of life."

Would you even bother to respond to tripe like that? Or would you recognize it for the shameless hate mongering that it is? What you do, and how you raise your family is absolutely none of my business if it does not affect me. I do not believe that the Mormon faith is negatively impacting society, because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

You obviously don't like homosexuals or at a minimum believe them to be wrong. Do you not believe that there are people that feel the same way about you and your faith? That said, should they push for legislation that will prevent you from living your life the way you see fit, or should they just not live next to you? It's an easy answer, and it's too bad that you are being deliberately thick-headed about this.

You don't have to like it, all you need to do it leave them the hell alone.

 

[Pirate!]

A belief is a belief until you push it on others.

Aren't you trying to push your belief that states should be forced to marry gays and recognize gay marriages from other states?

So what is the debate? You are ok with a "civil union" but opposed to the word "marriage" by your own definition, religious or otherwise? What about THEIR definition of marriage? What about THEIR religious beliefs? What if a gay couple believes that they need to be married in the eyes of God if they want to live as partners?

This is the core debate. As I stated previously, I don't believe government determines marraige. The piece of paper filed in a county clerks office holds no meaning to anyone I've met. The equality issue has to do with two adults entering into a legal contract. Property rights, hospital rights etc...

I have a sister who is "married" to another woman. I have two gay brothers. I don't care what they do or what they call it. I'm glad we live in a land of liberty where they have such freedom of choice.

My issue was not with your stance, but your flawed interpretation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It's ironic that you bring up the issue of racial discrimination. The civil rights movement was not one that awarded liberty. It removed it. You argue that people should be left at liberty to decide for themselves, yet they are no longer allowed to decide. It's now illegal to practice ones belief if it relates to ethnicity, gender, age and a whole slew of things.

I believe you don't see your error in reasoning; You want to see your beliefs enforced, and you are accusing your opposition of being wrong for wanting to see their beiefs enforced. The difference is the belief.

Governmental controls remove liberty. I've made no arguement that Federal Government should regulate marriage. I think they should stay out of the marriage business.

Mormons, Muslims, Methodists should be allowed to practice their religion as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. This doesn't mean that the Federal Government needs to recognize and sanction it. The free excerice of religion means that people should be at liberty to practice how they want. This includes any contractual relationship by adults that doesn't remove the rights of another. This includes racial discrimination, polygamy and many other things you may find offense.

 

[jmorrison]

First thing, you made a much clearer argument this round, and I have to agree with most of what you say. I do have a few issues with your reasoning though.

First. No I am not trying to force anything on anyone. The state would not be "forced" to do anything, other than accept its residents as equals in spite of their religious or sexual orientation.

If you a ok with a civil union, but not ok with a religious marriage, then you are only basing your argument on YOUR religion. What about the religion of the people being married? Why should they be subjected to the rules of a secular institution that they do not believe in? That is not equality.

I do not agree at all that my interpretation of the separation of church and state is incorrect. Afterall, it is the argument being used to support gay marriage. If the state refuses to respect a persons rights with equality based upon religious views, and legislation is passed to favor christianity (or any other belief system) then it has crossed directly into the realm of "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

How can you accuse me of not seeing the error in my reasoning, when you obviously haven't slowed down to even understand my reasoning. I do NOT want my beliefs enforced. I want to see people treated equally despite their religious affiliation. My personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing on what someone 3 houses down the block does with his life.

I couldn't agree more that government controls remove liberty. I also agree that government should stay out of marriage completely. However, by not allowing same sex marriages you ARE allowing for government regulation. What else would we be talking about? If people were able to pursue their own happiness without government intervention, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Remember, the gay and lesbian community is not asking for special consideration, they are only seeking equal rights.

I somewhat agree with the racial discrimination point. Many liberties WERE lost during the civil rights movement. However, no one is making it illegal to be a rascist, it is only illegal when it comes to equal treatment of the races. You can hate whoever you want, but you have to treat everyone the same. Which is once again...what the gay community is after.

I basically agree with your entire last paragraph. However, if the government is going to recognize and sanction one particular religion, they needs to extend the same rights to ALL religions. Which basically backs up your earlier point that the government should not be involved in a religious ceremony anyway. A marriage is a 2 part deal. One is legal, and one is spiritual. The legal side should extend to all Americans. The spiritual side should be between the 2 parties being married, and whatever God they believe in, NOT the government.

 

[KelJu]

Yep. Study after study shows that a single parent family tends to produce dysfunctional children, and thereby adults.

I'm from a single parent family, I know what I'm talking about.

You ever hear about the storks and the babies?


Off Topic: the ad at the bottom of the screen is killing, lol.
Meet Single Mormons
Free to Join. 1000s of Pictures & Videos of Beautiful Mormon Singles.

 

[Pirate!]

One issue is that there is no preferenicial treatment. Every man has the same "right" to marry a woman, and every woman has the same "right" to marry a man. In this regard, all are equal before the law. The Federal definition of marraige between one man and one woman was established in opposition to religious practices of the day. Interstingly, it was to stop Mormons from performing plural marraige. This made it clear that the the boundry of "free exercise thereof" was limited when dealing with marraige.

Changing this precedent would remove all arguement against the legality of plural marraige. Almost everyone wants to draw the line somewhere. The only exceptions are those who think it's nobody's business. This would get less than 10% of the support of the people. Although I support the removal of federal controls of marraiges, I respect that the majority rules.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[bio-chem]

as of yet no one has even begun to address the links I posted. It's all there. I simply lack the ability to explain the Mormon point of view clearer than that.

the truth is, in my opinion this is how our republic is supposed to work. I love the fact that people are allowed to vote according to their conscience. we are now determining one of the fundamental questions of our generation in my opinion. How do we define a family? what is the society we wish to live in?

in my opinion, many of the problems we are facing today is because of the breakdown of the simple family unit. education, crime, and many other social ills of our time would be drastically improved by strengthening families.

mothers and fathers, husbands and wifes need to focus on each other and their children. we cannot rely upon the government, to raise our children. the reason the government is getting involved is because the American people are focusing on too many things outside of the home. for the record I consider this a small part of the overall problem.

 

[Big Smoothy]

Mormons -- heretics -- Kooks --racists -- polygamists.

 

[jmorrison]

as of yet no one has even begun to address the links I posted. It's all there. I simply lack the ability to explain the Mormon point of view clearer than that.

No one has commented on it because it is only thinly veiled hate-mongering, and to be honest it is beneath you to expect people to take it seriously.

I know NOTHING about the Mormon faith, but I typed "Mormonism is bad" into google and HUNDREDS of articles popped up. I did the same for Christianity. Sae result. Then Atheism. Then Buddism. Guess, what? There are people out there who don't like anything anyone else does.

Here Bio-Chem. Here is an article about how bad Mormonism is, and how it threatens society as a whole:

Ten reasons to protect your children from Mormonism

Now, would I expect you to take the time, effort or care to respond to such horseshit? Of course not. You believe as you believe, and no amount of hatred, bigotry or judgemental attitudes should sway you from whatever belief (or non belief) you hold in a higher power.

You are perfectly within your rights to disagree with homosexuality. To suggest that we should legislate their religious views or love for one another....you come off just as backward, redneck, hypocritical and childish as the dimwit that wrote the above article.

 

[bio-chem]

Mormons -- heretics -- Kooks --racists -- polygamists.

you are dismissed, nothing you have ever said has been of value here on this thread

 

[bio-chem]

No one has commented on it because it is only thinly veiled hate-mongering, and to be honest it is beneath you to expect people to take it seriously.

I know NOTHING about the Mormon faith, but I typed "Mormonism is bad" into google and HUNDREDS of articles popped up. I did the same for Christianity. Sae result. Then Atheism. Then Buddism. Guess, what? There are people out there who don't like anything anyone else does.

Here Bio-Chem. Here is an article about how bad Mormonism is, and how it threatens society as a whole:

Ten reasons to protect your children from Mormonism

Now, would I expect you to take the time, effort or care to respond to such horseshit? Of course not. You believe as you believe, and no amount of hatred, bigotry or judgemental attitudes should sway you from whatever belief (or non belief) you hold in a higher power.

You are perfectly within your rights to disagree with homosexuality. To suggest that we should legislate their religious views or love for one another....you come off just as backward, redneck, hypocritical and childish as the dimwit that wrote the above article.

you obviously didn't read it. nothing about it is hate mongering and I would love someone to show any part of it that could be considered that way.

 

[Pirate!]

Which link? The last one I remember seeing you post was the Official Declaration 2.

 

[jmorrison]

This one:

The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom

And he is wrong. I did read it. I was going to go through it and highlight all the areas that back up my points, but to be honest, I am simply tired of the conversation. People that are blinded by their own intolerance and bigotry seldom think that they are wrong. I am sure 100 years ago, some very decent people were quite sure that blacks were an inferior race and that women lacked the mental abilities to take a leading role in society. They wouldn't have admitted that they were just being stubborn and hateful either.

Broken down into the simplest terms, the article is a well written piece detailing the Mormon stance on gay marriage, which boiled down is that they do not believe that it conforms with their ideals of a moral existance and what they believe to be threats to society as a whole if this were to be allowed.

It is propaganda. Better written than most, not as well as some, and I am sure well meaning, but propaganda none the less.

And Bio chem...if you honestly, truly believe that procaiming love for homosexuals on one hand, while accusing them of living "amoral" lives, of being unable to properly raise children, and of generally being deliquents in the same paragraph is not hate rhetoric at worst, and hypocritical at best...then you are entirely too dense to converse with.

I am going to attempt to back out of this conversation now. This has literally made me sick to my stomach. To see an ignorant bigot trash an entire social caste is bad enough. To see an intelligent and educated man do the same is just disheartening.

 

[DOMS]

This seems an appropriate place to post this.

YouTube Video

 

[Dark Geared God]

yes, thats absolutely what we need. (dripping with sarcasm) the fundamental family unit and building block of a healthy society further degraded by viewing it as a business contract. The breakdown of marriage currently is that people are selfish in marriage. Instead of each spouse putting the other first in their lives they view it as what is beneficial for them. making divorce easier. successful marriage and a healthy family (which strengthens society) requires selflessness. it requires commitment. neither of which are fostered by treating it like a negotiated business contract.

well said..

 

[Pirate!]

jmorrison,

I agree with your above post, except for your suggestion that it is not possible to love someone who you believe is sinning. God loves all his children, yet the scriptures tell us he does not tolerate sin. Two of the main themes of the New Testament are: 1) Love thy neighbor and 2) Call him to repentence. A humble Christian would not call his neighbor to repentance if he wasn't acting out of love. It serves him no good. Calling sin something else in order to be PC was not a practice taught by Christ. There is a difference between condemning somebody and reaching out to him by alerting them to the error of their ways.

What do the missionaries in the Methodist Church do if not boldly claim the gospel as they understand it?

 

[bio-chem]

The Divine Institution of Marriage - LDS Newsroom

the offer still stands, if anyone wishes to discuss anything here, I'd love to hear their thoughts. I don't expect to change anyones mind here, And my mind will not be changed, but I do like to try to understand the other point of view

 

[SYN]

YouTube Video

 

[bio-chem]

YouTube Video

painful to watch all that. the girl is fairly well spoken and intelligent for her age, but she has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the meaning of separation of church and state means, as do many individuals on this forum and in this country.

Our founding fathers who wrote separation of church and state into our laws spoke often of this being a Christian nation. It is pretty obvious that separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of being a state sponsored religion. We will not have a titular head of government and church as the british monarch queen elizabeth is the head of the church of england. Prop 8 does not violate that. Nothing in our laws prohibits me from voting to define what type of society i wish to be in. comparing this issue to brown vs. board of education is an offense to that landmark case.

saying that prop 8 breaks the separation of church and state is the definition of ignorance on this issue. are we then to say that we cannot have laws against murder because it would be supporting the 10 commandments? on the surface to those who do not wish to dig to the fundamental facts this girls argument may make sense. That is what prop 8 is fighting.

 

[Dark Geared God]

painful to watch all that. the girl is fairly well spoken and intelligent for her age, but she has a fundamental lack of understanding of what the meaning of separation of church and state means, as do many individuals on this forum and in this country.

Our founding fathers who wrote separation of church and state into our laws spoke often of this being a Christian nation. It is pretty obvious that separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of being a state sponsored religion. We will not have a titular head of government and church as the british monarch queen elizabeth is the head of the church of england. Prop 8 does not violate that. Nothing in our laws prohibits me from voting to define what type of society i wish to be in. comparing this issue to brown vs. board of education is an offense to that landmark case.

saying that prop 8 breaks the separation of church and state is the definition of ignorance on this issue. are we then to say that we cannot have laws against murder because it would be supporting the 10 commandments? on the surface to those who do not wish to dig to the fundamental facts this girls argument may make sense. That is what prop 8 is fighting.

I think we can all agree she has a nice tittys

 

[maniclion]

YouTube Video

I want to fuck her face so hard just because she looks like Lois Griffin...giggity giggity goo!