Mormons

Originally posted by docb77
How did we get this discussion out of my post about what happiness is?

And as long as we're having the discussion...

Does it matter at all that 70%+ of the population opposes gay marriage or supports the proposed ammendment? Does in matter that almot 80% of the population supports restricting abortion in some manner?

We live in a republic/representative democracy here. Perhaps one day the opinions of the majority will change, until then, it is perfectly constitutional for the majority to control government benefits and try to protect what they see as people.

The will of the majority does not matter. One of the principles of a democratic republic is the balance of majority rule with the rights of the minority. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitution in 1967, 73% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.

Originally posted by Eis
even that is debateable

Maybe that is the point of Mormon marriages (procreation)

By your logic it would be pointless for infertile couples to get married.

That's fine, you believe the purpose of a man is to procreate, infertile men are useless. Marriage, whether you like it or not is a promise between two consenting adults that love each other to love each other and not love anyone else for the rest of their lives.
The other things are bonuses.

Your whole argument comes down to "Gay men cannot procreate" well I'm sorry to break your bubble but procreation is not a must. Gay men are just as much not worthy or getting married as infertile people.

And the "Gay people are a blasphemy in the eyes of god" argument, is simply irrelevant for the millions of non-christians in the US, so you should respect their opinion and allow them to do what they want, plus they already don't believe in god, one more sin can't hurt can it? 😛

By the way, I don't have a religion, I'm agnostic but I'm also Buddhist. Although I see Buddhism as a philosophical opinion not a religion.

You ignored half of what I wrote. It wasn't Mormon belief, it was my opinion. I stated that.

It seems stupid for you to say "And the "Gay people are a blasphemy in the eyes of god" argument, is simply irrelevant for the millions of non-christians in the US, so you should respect their opinion and allow them to do what they want, plus they already don't believe in god, one more sin can't hurt can it?" You asked for my stance, not my argument, I stated that earlier.

I don't think this is the reason this thread was started, so I will not respond to this line of talk further.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The will of the majority does not matter. One of the principles of a democratic republic is the balance of majority rule with the rights of the minority. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitution in 1967, 73% of Americans opposed interracial marriage.

You're contradicting yourself there. Of course it matters. This balance you speak of has to take into account the will of the majority at the same time.

So basically, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, Majority rules.

I think we're missing the biggest reason here... the one that no gay rights people will listen to. But since we're in a religion forum, in a thread specifically devoted to a church that professes modern-day revelation, The real reason is obvious - Because God said so. Like someone else said just recently, We don't use this argument when arguing with people who don't believe in God. We at least try to argue from premises that are common to both sides of the argument.

No. Its doesn't. America isn't a theocarcy. We rule on civil LAW. If the majority is against the law, they're against the law. Its not about popular decision.

Laws are just easier to enforce when it is popular opinion.

There is a reason all bigoted groups are trying to pass gay marriage amendments to the constitution. A law would work just fine. The reason the NEED an amendment so bad is that gay marriage is already protected under the state's and federal constitutions religious freedom, anti-discrimination, and anti-segregation laws. The only way to fix this is by using popular opinion to make the constitution condratict itself.

Originally posted by Alliance
No. Its doesn't. America isn't a theocarcy. We rule on civil LAW. If the majority is against the law, they're against the law. Its not about popular decision.

Laws are just easier to enforce when it is popular opinion.

There is a reason all bigoted groups are trying to pass gay marriage amendments to the constitution. A law would work just fine. The reason the NEED an amendment so bad is that gay marriage is already protected under the state's and federal constitutions religious freedom, anti-discrimination, and anti-segregation laws. The only way to fix this is by using popular opinion to make the constitution condratict itself.

I never said america was a theocracy. Try debating based on what is said.

The majority has the power to make laws. They also have the power to repeal laws. That is what I was saying.

Sorry, but regarding the ammendment you're spouting more BS. In most constitutions gay "marriage" isn't specifically prohibited, that's true. But the interpretation of those same constitutions for recorded history is that the "ban" was implied. The proposed ammendment wouldn't be changing something. The ammendments intention is a clarification. The reason they "need" the ammendment is because crazy leftist judges are reading things into the constitution that have never been there. Gay "marriage" is one example, another is eminent domain. We'll probably need to get an ammendment movement going on that one too.

Originally posted by docb77
I never said america was a theocracy. Try debating based on what is said.

I never thought you did. I was stating that religious doctrine shouldn't have an impact on US law.

The proposed amendment do change something. CLASSIC "conservatives" being liberal by passing all sorts of crazy jargon. Your same arguments were used against black during segregation. <<We're just clarifying that blacks arent equal humans, they're just 3/5ths of a human>>

An BS about your "leftist" judges. Upholding the rule of law is not "leftist." Upholding equal rights is not "leftist." "leftist" judges is a myth made up by conservatives to scare thier base into going to the polls. Those "leftist" judeges gave women rights, ended segregation, gave minorties rights, Miranda rights. Thats called AMERICAN, not "leftist." Using your position, you're against all those.

And you talk about "Reading things into the constitution that have never been there"? YOU"RE the one scrawling all over it. You're arguments BS.

Originally posted by Regret
You ignored half of what I wrote. It wasn't Mormon belief, it was my opinion. I stated that.

It seems stupid for you to say "And the "Gay people are a blasphemy in the eyes of god" argument, is simply irrelevant for the millions of non-christians in the US, so you should respect their opinion and allow them to do what they want, plus they already don't believe in god, one more sin can't hurt can it?" You asked for my stance, not my argument, I stated that earlier.

I don't think this is the reason this thread was started, so I will not respond to this line of talk further.

The ONLY reason, and I do mean ONLY reason you are opposed to gay marriage is because you believe it's against God. I trust you won't deny this since mormons try not to lie much.

And I expect you to argue for your believes, for what you really think not for something which you don't believe in but it helps you achieve your ends.

Stop trying to force everyone to follow your mormon laws. As you know Mormons weren't even tolerant of blacks for a while.
"Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based an his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate."

After all they are under the curse of Ham, no? This sub-humans perhaps should be denied marriage also?

'Bruce R. McConkie: A "woman's primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband" '

Maybe women should be denied jobs as well, I mean their place is in the kitchen!

Most of the world is not mormon, most of the United States are not mormons, accept that. You don't want gays in your Church? Deny them membership. You don't want young mormon girls to get abortions? Threaten them that if they do you will invalidate their membeship but don't force US to follow your laws.

I'm sorry if I come off as rude, it was not my intention but damn you people piss me off.

First off, the Abraham reference you made does not say anything about black people never being able to hold the priesthood. It says the current Pharaoh was deceiving people by saying he did, because Ham's descendents could not have the priesthood at that point in time.

The church has always been an advocate for civil rights for black people, escaped slaves where given shelter in Navoo, and the LDS people supported the Union from the beginning.

And, dont' you dare start telling me a woman's place can't be in the home. It is soo hypocritical of the women's rights movement to demean women who choose (CHOOSE) to raise their kids.

I suppose you wanted to spend your childhood in a daycare, but I didn't.

Don't start spouting equal rights doctrine to me until you can accept that a perfectly sane, intelligent woman can choose to stay at home and raise her kids to be the same, because until you do, it's not equal at all.
If I choose to put my kids first, don't you even think of telling my I'm the worse for it.

Women can go out and be what they want, including a stay home mom, thats the point. I don't need a job to feel self worth, get over it.

You people tick me off.

Originally posted by Eis
I ignored that part of your post because it made no sense. Something about you believing in evolution and that we must have a certain behaviour to achieve a higher level of existence? Procreation... Jesus, will you get over the fact our purpose in life is not to procreate?

I was speaking about the portion that stated they were my beliefs, and I am not going to defend them, not the other portion.

Originally posted by Eis
The ONLY reason, and I do mean ONLY reason you are opposed to gay marriage is because you believe it's against God. I trust you won't deny this since mormons try not to lie much.

Not entirely true, I probably wouldn't argue the matter if it weren't morally wrong in my opinion. I do believe in my nonreligious argument, it just wouldn't be something I'd be pushing against if it weren't for my moral objection.

Originally posted by Eis
And I expect you to argue for your believes, for what you really think not for something which you don't believe in but it helps you achieve your ends.

I do not believe in arguing that people should believe as I do in a legal/secular setting. I do not believe you should HAVE to believe what I do. I think that it is wrong when, in a legal/secular setting, someone tries to argue based on religious opinion. Arguments presented in such a setting should be logical, but in no way religious, even if religious belief is the impetus for a stance. I do not believe that my "morals" should be what is argued, I believe that the arguments should be entirely based on facts. You are saying that since religion plays a part in my stance that I should try to shove my religion down your throat so that you can attack that. Religion is a straw man that is easily knocked down because many people believe different things in respect to religion. I don't believe that you can attack my argument so you want me to state my beliefs because you can then say "I don't believe like you do." And that is why my argument is the earlier one.

Originally posted by Eis
Stop trying to force everyone to follow your mormon laws. As you know Mormons weren't even tolerant of blacks for a while.
"Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based an his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.".

You don't want to argue the gay marriage thing. You want to argue that people want society to reflect their vision of a good society even when it doesn't agree with your view of it. Religion is just a target, and so that is what you are attacking because it is a powerful force in US politics at the moment and your views are a minority that have hit that force.

Originally posted by Eis
After all they are under the curse of Ham, no? This sub-humans perhaps should be denied marriage also?

This doesn't fit with my argument, you are throwing it up based on a quote you found, which doesn't fit my views in any way.

Originally posted by Eis
'Bruce R. McConkie: A "woman's primary place is in the home, where she is to rear children and abide by the righteous counsel of her husband" '

Maybe women should be denied jobs as well, I mean their place is in the kitchen!

Yes, I believe that a home where a woman is allowed/able to stay home and raise the children is a better home. I do not believe women should be forced to not work, and I have nothing against women that work. My wife works full-time, and does not want to not work. So she works, and I am fine with that.

Originally posted by Eis
Most of the world is not mormon, most of the United States are not mormons, accept that. You don't want gays in your Church? Deny them membership. You don't want young mormon girls to get abortions? Threaten them that if they do you will invalidate their membeship but don't force US to follow your laws.

It isn't just the Mormon people that are against these things, accept that. The majority of religions in the US are against homosexual relations, accept that. You need to attack the system of government, not the religions. Your issue is that despite the homosexual minority's desire, the anti-homosexual majority seems to be denying homosexual marriage.

I am sorry that you are upset, but life does seem pretty nice for the religious right at the moment. Given history, eventually homosexual marriage will be made legal. It won't bother me when it is made legal. I will just try to teach my children not to become homosexual, and live with it. When it happens, maybe you'll run into someone like yourself who will come up to you and say:

"Most of the world is not gay, most of the United States are not gays, accept that. You want gays in your Church? Allow them membership. You want young mormon girls to get abortions? Threaten them that if they don't you will invalidate their beliefs, but don't force US to follow your laws."

It will happen, and at that time, you will not understand the people that don't want to live as you want them to. I'm sorry, but you are on the losing side of the battle at the moment. Just take solace in the fact the your side will win the homosexual marriage legal debate at some point, and at that point our opinion won't mean a thing, just as yours means very little at the moment. The reason we will lose is because some on our side won't accept that belief isn't the way to argue this position, at least not in the US, and not against someone who doesn't believe as we do.

Originally posted by Eis
I'm sorry if I come off as rude, it was not my intention but damn you people piss me off.

You don't always come across as rude, you come across as bitter. Face it, your views aren't ours, and you won't alter our views on subjects like these. We believe what we do, it isn't always logical, and it does not tolerate the homosexual state of sexuality. We don't believe in voluntarily permitting homosexuality, we will attack it when we can. We do believe it is wrong. We do believe that it is not the proper way of behaving. Period.

So once again I am sorry that we don't like homosexuality. But we won't change that either. I don't understand why you care about our beliefs on the subject. You can believe how you want, we won't stop you. You seem to want our acceptance of your views, but it won't happen. Have fun.

Oh, and I am not against homosexuals marrying. I am perfectly fine with any gay man may marrying any woman he chooses, and any gay woman can marry any man she chooses. That is perfectly fine by me. Even if both of them are gay it's still fine by me.

Originally posted by Regret
I was speaking about the portion that stated they were my beliefs, and I am not going to defend them, not the other portion.

Not entirely true, I probably wouldn't argue the matter if it weren't morally wrong in my opinion. I do believe in my nonreligious argument, it just wouldn't be something I'd be pushing against if it weren't for my moral objection.

I do not believe in arguing that people should believe as I do in a legal/secular setting. I do not believe you should HAVE to believe what I do. I think that it is wrong when, in a legal/secular setting, someone tries to argue based on religious opinion. Arguments presented in such a setting should be logical, but in no way religious, even if religious belief is the impetus for a stance. I do not believe that my "morals" should be what is argued, I believe that the arguments should be entirely based on facts. You are saying that since religion plays a part in my stance that I should try to shove my religion down your throat so that you can attack that. Religion is a straw man that is easily knocked down because many people believe different things in respect to religion. I don't believe that you can attack my argument so you want me to state my beliefs because you can then say "I don't believe like you do." And that is why my argument is the earlier one.

You don't want to argue the gay marriage thing. You want to argue that people want society to reflect their vision of a good society even when it doesn't agree with your view of it. Religion is just a target, and so that is what you are attacking because it is a powerful force in US politics at the moment and your views are a minority that have hit that force.

This doesn't fit with my argument, you are throwing it up based on a quote you found, which doesn't fit my views in any way.

Yes, I believe that a home where a woman is allowed/able to stay home and raise the children is a better home. I do not believe women should be forced to not work, and I have nothing against women that work. My wife works full-time, and does not want to not work. So she works, and I am fine with that.

It isn't just the Mormon people that are against these things, accept that. The majority of religions in the US are against homosexual relations, accept that. You need to attack the system of government, not the religions. Your issue is that despite the homosexual minority's desire, the anti-homosexual majority seems to be denying homosexual marriage.

I am sorry that you are upset, but life does seem pretty nice for the religious right at the moment. Given history, eventually homosexual marriage will be made legal. It won't bother me when it is made legal. I will just try to teach my children not to become homosexual, and live with it. When it happens, maybe you'll run into someone like yourself who will come up to you and say:

"Most of the world is not gay, most of the United States are not gays, accept that. You want gays in your Church? Allow them membership. You want young mormon girls to get abortions? Threaten them that if they don't you will invalidate their beliefs, but don't force US to follow your laws."

It will happen, and at that time, you will not understand the people that don't want to live as you want them to. I'm sorry, but you are on the losing side of the battle at the moment. Just take solace in the fact the your side will win the homosexual marriage legal debate at some point, and at that point our opinion won't mean a thing, just as yours means very little at the moment. The reason we will lose is because some on our side won't accept that belief isn't the way to argue this position, at least not in the US, and not against someone who doesn't believe as we do.

You don't always come across as rude, you come across as bitter. Face it, your views aren't ours, and you won't alter our views on subjects like these. We believe what we do, it isn't always logical, and it does not tolerate the homosexual state of sexuality. We don't believe in voluntarily permitting homosexuality, we will attack it when we can. We do believe it is wrong. We do believe that it is not the proper way of behaving. Period.

So once again I am sorry that we don't like homosexuality. But we won't change that either. I don't understand why you care about our beliefs on the subject. You can believe how you want, we won't stop you. You seem to want our acceptance of your views, but it won't happen. Have fun.

So once again I am sorry that we don't like homosexuality. But we won't change that either. I don't understand why you care about our beliefs on the subject. You can believe how you want, we won't stop you. You seem to want our acceptance of your views, but it won't happen. Have fun.

Do you seriously not see how... vile, how disgusting it is what you are doing? You guys are making it seem like gay people are not good enough to get married, as if we somehow aren't at your same level.

By the way, the reason I included the black and the women issues and quotes in my last message were to show you how your oh-so-fantastic Church can be wrong sometimes. Black people WERE denied priesthood for a long time, now they can perfectly easily. Same thing will happen with gays in your Church and pretty much all others, I'm certain of it.

Originally posted by Eis
Do you seriously not see how... vile, how disgusting it is what you are doing? You guys are making it seem like gay people are not good enough to get married, as if we somehow aren't at your same level.

Originally posted by Eis
By the way, the reason I included the black and the women issues and quotes in my last message were to show you how your oh-so-fantastic Church can be wrong sometimes. Black people WERE denied priesthood for a long time, now they can perfectly easily. Same thing will happen with gays in your Church and pretty much all others, I'm certain of it.

Never denied it. It doesn't mean wrong, it means change. The Gentiles were also denied the priesthood, according to Christianity that changed. According to most religions something changed at some point. Sexuality though, has not been something that has changed throughout history. There have been movements that have pushed homosexuality throughout history, most religions have not bent to it.The day it does I will be an atheist.

No, what I'm saying is I don't care. I don't believe in legalizing it, and I don't care if it makes homosexuals upset. I believe homosexuals can marry now, it just isn't legally recognized. Why does the law have to recognize it? What does marriage mean, to the law, not to homosexuals or to me, to the law? What is the purpose of legalizing it? Answer those questions, you still have not. Unless there is some benefit to our government I do not think the government should officially or legally recognize any of it, including heterosexual marriage. So what is the benefit, why is marriage a legally recognized thing? But quit attacking us, and state your reasons, and don't say because of equality. Quit hiding behind the "Ohhh, you're so vile, it's not fair...etc." crap and answer the question. So far you have been unable to state anything without attacking us in some way.

Never denied it. It doesn't mean wrong, it means change. The Gentiles were also denied the priesthood, according to Christianity that changed. According to most religions something changed at some point. Sexuality though, has not been something that has changed throughout history. There have been movements that have pushed homosexuality throughout history, most religions have not bent to it.The day it does I will be an atheist.

Originally posted by Eis
NOTHING, the government wins nothing. I'm sorry but last time I checked the purpose of the government was not to win benefits by passing laws, the purpose of the government is to maintain order in the nation and rule the people equally and fairly! Which is something it is NOT doing.

Then it should stop legally recognizing marriage between anyone. Or is there a reason for it being recognized in the first place. Marriage isn't a governmental institution, why is it in the law? Answer the question. Why is it legally recognized? And if there is a reason then how does homosexual marriage fit under it?

Originally posted by Eis
Most religions have not bent to it? They went from burning us alives to allowing us membership... I'd say they have.

Originally posted by Eis
NOTHING, the government wins nothing. I'm sorry but last time I checked the purpose of the government was not to win benefits by passing laws, the purpose of the government is to maintain order in the nation and rule the people equally and fairly! Which is something it is NOT doing.

Most religions have not bent to it? They went from burning us alives to allowing us membership... I'd say they have.

Hate is what you are up against. This person may not hate you, but the hate of generations is upon the people who stand in the way of homosexual marriage. They use the excuse of religion, but they will not give into any argument.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hate is what you are up against. This person may not hate you, but the hate of generations is upon the people who stand in the way of homosexual marriage. They use the excuse of religion, but they will not give into any argument.

I do agree with you on this. I do not hate homosexuals though, but the act is something I hate. I have friends that are homosexuals, we get along fine, but I do disagree extremely with the practice. There is a difference between hating the practice and hating the person.

Originally posted by Regret
I do agree with you on this. I do not hate homosexuals though, but the act is something I hate. I have friends that are homosexuals, we get along fine, but I do disagree extremely with the practice. There is a difference between hating the practice and hating the person.

IMO nothing good can come from hate.

Then it should stop legally recognizing marriage between anyone. Or is there a reason for it being recognized in the first place. Marriage isn't a governmental institution, why is it in the law? Answer the question. Why is it legally recognized? And if there is a reason then how does homosexual marriage fit under it?

Throughout history they have not, it is the recent century that has changed. I believe that this is a total deviation from Christian history, without claiming divine intervention they have changed something without Biblical precedent. Doesn't this go against their claims of Biblical base? I want an answer to the earlier question first though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
IMO nothing good can come from hate.

Agreed, when it comes to hating people. I don't think it can extend to hating practices, murder would be an example I think should fit in here (albeit an extreme example, and not used as a comparison to homosexuality, they are not nearly the same, murder is much different.) I think that is the issue with Eis here. His vehemence is probably due to the hate that exists, I do believe that many people hate the people not the practice, or at least confuse the two.

Originally posted by Eis
Marriage is nothing else than a formal vow of devotion between a two people, a man and a woman in most cases but not always.
It's not some kind of a "Give us babies, we give you benefits." agreement.

I am not asking what it is. I am asking why it is legally recognized, for what purpose? Why was it placed in law? Did they just say "Hey, I just noticed people get married, let's make some laws!!!"? Why do those laws exist, what is the purpose? What do the laws do? And, given this, does a homosexual marriage fit under the reasons that the laws exist?

Religions would still marry people even without the laws.