Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

You agreed that the interpretation of the word abomination signified nothing in regards to homosexuality because it was used in reference to eating shellfish, etc, right?

And I was not trying to make people not believe in the bible, only to take a closer look at the words used before condemning a couple million people.

 

Ok, proof the word 'marriage' has divine origins, according to the Bible. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. Skip a few steps, and there's God making Man. Since Man has divine origins, everything he makes has divine origins, including the word 'marriage'.

Short of that, 'marriage' is an English word, with latin origins.

As for the idea that we are all bound by the covenants of God, this is my take on it. Having sex outside of a unique relationship blessed by God is a sin. If you enter the relationship blessed by God, it has to be the kind God will bless. Otherwise you're sinning. If you don't enter the relationship blessed by God, you're sinning, regardless of who you've got the relationship with. Guess what, though. By my belief, anyone living without God is living in sin, anyway. In other words, there is no effective difference between an atheistic heterosexual marriage and an atheistic homosexual marriage except the details of which sins are being committed.

Yes, the bulk of my post, though literally true and accurate, is posted with a bit of tongue-in-cheek attitude to show that I think many people make way too much about this issue. I take serious issue with those christians that try to say homosexuality isn't a sin, such as priests that marry homosexuals or are homosexual themselves, but that's about it.

 

That would be fine. If everything He makes is of divine origin, and -- of course -- He never makes mistakes (being perfect and all), then homosexuality is just as divine as marriage. Although I would agree, I doubt other conservatives would go along with it....

 

T2, I think he meant that He (God) made man, who has divine origins, and everything that he (man) makes therefore has divine origins.

 

He is still her father whether she accepts it or not.

No, I got more of the same old crap that people have been spewing trying to discredit my beliefs from day one around here. However, In the Book of Mormon, it states that ALL sexual sin, including fornication and adultery, constitutes an abomination. Since Marriage is explicitly between a man and a woman, homosexuals who indulge are either fornicating or committing adultery depending on whether they or their partner are married. And NOBODY has challenged the validity of the 10 commandments...

You can have sex, but you can't have kids. Marriage no longer factors in to these kingdoms. But there's more to the afterlife than sex...

That point of knowledge is far in the future. It requires faith to build ourselves to be ready for that knowledge...

I blame my Internet provider. My high speed was down and the dial up was unstable.

That's why I said some. Perhaps it is only the worst of murderers that would be sealed to this fate (Hittler comes to mind).

I've heard the words "Flesh and Bone" used to describe our resurrected bodies. I've heard that there would be no blood. Possibly no sperm or eggs either...

So your whole prove the origin of the word was a distraction from the obvious point--the fact that we now call it marriage is what's important. To use the same word in such a blasphemous manner is a greivous offense to a vast majority of Chirstians, not just one or two faiths. Use your head for something other than a battering ram and you might understand this...

That Idea comes from Satan, the adversary, in direct defiance of God's plan. Homosexuality is not from God or man. Next time put some thought into it.

 

Haha it makes her sound like a spoiled child rebelling from her dad... ah well, I'm screwed then.

Oh. I wasn't trying to disprove or discredit your religious faith at all. In fact, I enjoy the bible, I love a lot of the poetry and I think a lot of the messages are useful guidelines for personal morals. I just don't believe in the overall idea that it preaches (and I have a couple problems with organized religion, but that is for another time). I was not trying to offend, just trying to show that the references made to homosexuality in the bible are not as clear cut as they are sometimes portrayed as being.

Sweet deal! I'm liking a non-violent, non-polluted, non-corrupt, sex-filled world that this place seems to be

What if it is not in direct defiance of his plan, but just another angle of it? Perhaps the faith-world isn't so clear cut - does Satan have to be ultimate evil and God ultimate good? Plus, if Satan is a fallen angel, doesn't that imply that he was created by God (correct me if I am wrong, I don't know much about it) and as such is part of God's plan? Then him slipping homosexuality into a couple of is would be part of the plan too, right?

 

Well, then you were attacking the religion, because the sexual laws are a part of that religion. And anyway, it actually is pretty clear cut.

This is a very good question, and the answer isn't simple. The truth is, when God allowed free will (in man and apparently to some degree or another in angels) He allowed things that would change His Perfect Plan for the universe. Thus, we left His Perfect Will and entered what is usually called His Permisive Will. Now things get sticky because, God being omniscient and all, He must have known this would happen beforehand, so is it still really His Perfect Will? The crux of the point comes at this: there's a difference between knowing and choosing. God allowed sin to enter the world, because He knew He could use it for something greater (redemption, mercy, that whole boot), but He never chose it Himself, nor did He ever condone it. Every sin that has ever happened has been allowed by God, but never committed by God. Therefore, in some sense, God created sin, yes, but regardless, it's still wrong and, erm, sinful.

Another interesting point to realize is that Satan can't actually create anything new, he can only twist what already is. So, every sin you see, from greed to lust to hate, all of it, is actually just a twisting of something very good created by God. It's taking something good and pointing it at something it wasn't intended to point at. Like pointing a laser-pointer at someone's eye instead of a white board.

 

I'm not sure if you meant that as a joke or not, because I think you're smarter than that, but just in case, I'll say this...

"Since Man has divine origins, everything he makes has divine origins" - so what? So do murders, rapists, drug dealers, the stuff that comes out of my butt when I go to the bathroom, etc. It sounds to me like having divine origins isn't that big of a deal after all.

No, T2's (and my) focus on the origin of the word is not a distraction at all. It's you who claim the word "marriage" has divine origins, and it is this claim that has formed the whole basis for your further claim that the word cannot be used without attaching to it some sort of covenant from god. The fact that Christians (and others) are upset at the thought of using the word in conjunction with homosexual marriage is obvious - that's what this whole thread is about. What we dispute is the reasoning behind the misguided belief that you get to dictate who can use the word.

 

Actually Gnarff, you have it backwards. It is that you have chosen to use a word, originally meant as a business merger, to mean something sacred. You (and other Christians) have chosen to give added meaning to a word that is neither divine nor adequate for all you have decided it should mean. Perhaps at some point in the history of the Hebrews (maybe before the Tower of Babel) there was really a word for all you are attributing to "marriage." But it no longer exists. Instead, monks a few hundred years ago decided the latin root of marriage would define all that you are professing -- this occurred at the same time the Mormons believe the catholic church became "the great abomination." Please, I would really like to know how "the church of satan" could have defined a divine word?

As has been asked before, what gives you (Christians) sole determination of who can use the word and for what? It clearly has not been an issue for the Christians when scientists use the term in combining metals, crystals, or plants. Or when used in slang. It seems too convenient that the "moral majority" has suddenly taken possession of the word when the gay community wants to use it. You might have an argument had there been no other uses for the term other than "man and woman."

My biggest argument with you has always been, and continues to be, your indiscriminant use of "your Faith" in arguments when you repeated misrepresent the Mormon church. You have less knowledge of the church than most Mormon teenagers do (at least those who attend seminary). That you are using your interpretation of the faith as an excuse for your own prejudice is offensive.

Please. If you're going to insult me, at least use something original.

 

I've also got problems with abuse of authroity in religion, but that's also for other threads.

I'm sure that there's passages that suggest that fornication and adultery are also really bad (and much less debatable than your comments on homosexuality), and since marriage is explicitly heterosexual, homosexuality then falls into the categories of fornication and adultery...

Going to Mormon theology, but also supported by a cryptic passage in Isaiah for this one. Lucifer (literally "The Light Bringer") was among the best and brightest of the angels in Heaven. When it was decided that there would be a world in which we could gain bodies and life experiences so that we could become like God, he proposed an alternative plan to that of Jesus Christ, where we would not have free will. Free will was a key to God's plan, however, and 2 thirds of the spirits agreed (all of us were included in that 2 thirds). Lucifer rebelled, so he and the other third of the spirits were cast out of Heaven. Lucifer became known as Satan (Literally "The Liar"), and has since sought to lure us into misusing their free agency to deviate from the teaching that would lead us back to God.

Exactly. In this case, Satan has twisted the sacred act of sex into something offensive to God.

And the fact that there are those that insist on using marriage or extending it to homosexuals despite that objection shows an open contempt of our beliefs. While niether side can prove the word's origin--like who introduced it into the English language and what they first used it for, I have yet to come across a credible arguement that this was not religious in origin. If Marriage originates in religion, then any laws around marriage should merely regulate the practice, not override religious requirements.

Simply recognizing civil unions as binding, legal contracts (with all divine or religious implications specifically excluded) entitling the couple to any and all civilly granted benefits and obligations as a marriage should solve the problem. This would avoid the ugliness of slapping the faithful in the face by defacing something they consider sacred. By using the term marriage, you are, to quote a Japanese Admiral whose name escapes me at the moment, awakening a sleeping giant and filling him with a terrible resolve. By picking a fight with people that should otherwise sympathize with their plight (like me for example), you are hurting the cause of gay rights.

And my arguement is that such blasphemous abuse of the word is greatly offensive to over half of the country. People here have no problem calling me a bigot for simply believing that what homosexuals do is wrong, but are not so quick to recognize that forcing society to accept that definition of marriage is just as bigotted, if not moreso than any statement I make.

Noted. I'll harden my stance against homosexuals immediately, but I am uncomfortable with terms like "Filthy faggot" or "God damned queer". I guess they will be burning in Hell if they refuse to repent after all...

Actually, on some other topics, even "established", untouchable big time religions will consider the others to be "off the track". Incidentally, after Prop 8, the Mormons have gained respect from the Roman Catholics and some Evangelical faiths that as recently as Mitt Romney's presidential bid questioned our faith. I don't know or understand (or care for that matter) enough about Scientology to call it a cult. Unless there was convictable evidence against their higher authorities, I would just call them another religion.

The "discrediting of my faith" was specifically addressed to Saber's comments calling the view of Homosexuality into question. As for Discrediting my arguements, I've noticed a number of points that don't seem to be satisfactorily addressed. For example, I've suggested that re-defining marriage is not mandatory to resolve this issue. I've tried to take a more moderate position than many of my fellow Christian faiths, but I stand tarred with the same brush as those that legitimately hate them. WTF?

---------- Added 0 hours, 32 minutes and 54 seconds later... ----------

As a result that's the word we have. It's sacred to us. To use it in a blasphemous manner is bigotry.

The Catholic Church is not the "great abomination", nor is it specifically "the chruch of Satan". I believe that passage in Second Nephi refers to any "church" that denies God, or pushes its faithful to commit abominations in His name. By times (the crusades, Spanish Inquisition) the Catholics may have fallen to this, but by other times, they do not. They are not the only religion that fits this description though...

Christians are notoriously complacent. When used scientifically or for heterosexual civil unions, it doesn't piss them off. But when you insist on applying it to something offensive, now they speak up. And we won't shut up until this can be resolved without desecrating that which is sacred...

You criticize my comments, when you make a HUGE gaffe by calling out a specific faith and linking it to a passage in the Book of Mormon. You're the one trying to dig a hole for me. But to dig the hole, the digger is the one at the bottom.

Also, I found the passage about murderers. D&C 42:18 specifically states that they will have no forgiveness in this world or the next. Then D&C 76 34-38 suggests that they will go to Outer Darkness. This is straight from Scripture and originally written in English, so spare me your translation agruements.

Please, you've crossed into insult twice in that post. From someone that left the church, your credibility already takes a hit.

 

Isoroku Yamamoto

Based on this comment, your reasoning (such as it is) suggests to me that you don't know the definition of "accept" when you say things like "By using the recognized language--specifically the word Marriage, you are accepting His covenant"

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of "accept":

Note that they all require knowledge on behalf of the recipient that something is being received.

Can we at least agree that "accept" is not the right word here? How about "By using the recognized language--specifically the word Marriage, His covenant is imposed upon you whether you like it or not". Like in fiction, where saying a specific word unknowingly unlocks the gates to hell. Or saying "beetlejuice" 3 times sucks you into Michael Keaton's world. At least that is understandable. Goofy, but understandable. So now you just need to show that using the word "marriage" actually invokes that kind of response. Which brings us back to the whole "divine origin" thing.

 

I'm with Death Rabbit here, and I've given up trying to convince the unconvincable. However, I'd like to bring up a bit of an ancillary point to all of this. As it currently stands, the majority of states have laws on the books (either by statute or state constitutional amendement) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. A few states (like Massachusetts) allow gay marriage. A few other states (like New Jersey) do not allow gay marriage, but permit gays to get a civil union. Finally a few states (like Maryland) have taken no stance on the issue - they have neither passed a law prohibiting gay marriage, nor have they passed a law allowing for gay marriage or civil unions.

So we essentially have four different categories of states. If you believe that this is a state issue and not a federal issue (on the basis that the US Constitution says nothing about marraige in any way), then this is an inevitable consequence. There was very little hope of getting all 50 states to pass similar laws regarding marriage, and how it applies (or does not apply as the case may be) to gays.

I also contend that this is not a maintainable situation. People move. What happens if a gay couple, legally married in say, Connecticuit, moves to Texas? Are they still married in much the same way that gays who married in California prior to passage of Prop 8 are still considered married? If so, then what is preventing gays from taking a vacation to some state that allows gay marriage, getting married, and then returning to their home state (in much the same way that thousands of straight couples get married during a trip to Vegas every year)?

It's not unusual to have some variability in laws from one state to another. For example, the driving laws in Maryland are probably somewhat different than the driving laws in Wyoming. We probably have different maximum speed limits, there probably is little need for jug handle turns when making lefts, and a host of other differences owing to a much lower volume of traffic on the roads. However, a car purchased in Maryland will still perform just fine in Wyoming and vice versa. You may have to change the way you drive to some extent, but you don't have to get a different car.

The same cannot be said about gay marriage. There's no way to adapt a gay marriage legally into the framework of a state that does not allow gay marriage. On the other hand, it also seems unfair to deny people who were legally married somewhere else to be considered not married due to geography. (Especially in the case where both people lived in a state that allows gay marriage, and then because of a job offer or something like that later decide to move to a state that does not allow gay marriage. I think it's reasonable for a state to not acknowledge a marriage if someone just took a trip somewhere that allowed gay marriage with the express purpose of circumventing the marriage laws of their home state.)

What's more, I imagine this already has to have happened. There have to be legally married gay couples that later moved to a state that did not allow gay marriage. I also imagine that there has to have been court cases by gay couples petitioning their new states to acknowledge thier marriage for the purposes of tax benefits and the like. I know that in 1994 the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, but that law did not detail what happens when there is a difference in marriage laws between states. Is this an issue that the federal government is going to have to get involved in, at least to the degree of how states should accept or not accept marriages performed in other states with different laws?

 

Aldeth you would have to have reciprocity agreements between the states just like we do with concealed carry permits of firearms & oh what a tangled web that is.
Just as an example, North Carolina has reciprocal agreements with 31 states including Georgia & South Carolina however Georgia doesn't have an agreement with South Carolina
So my license is good in both of those states but a South Carolina license isn't good in Georgia It gets even weirder 20 states honor sc permits but SC only honors 12 other states permits. So you can have partial reciprocal agreements.
Do you have a headache yet?

If the states try to do reiciprocal agreements for marriages as well as they do for firearms it will just lead to even worse confusion.

 

By the way Gnarff, there is a passage is in the new testament Mormons use to define the Catholic church as the "abomination". It's been a while since I've read it and am not sure where it was in the Bible (perhaps Revelations 17:1...). Also, from Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine":

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.(McConkie [1958], 130.)​

Later versions of McConkie's book toned it down a bit (McConkie was ordained an apostle 1972 after 26 years in the Council of the Seventy -- he was also the son-in-law of the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith). I disagreed with many of McConkie's statements (including this one) and he is one of the main reasons I turned away from the church. I will say it is to your credit you do not fall down that same path of accusing one religion as many other Mormons do.

As taught in the Church History course: The revelation in D&C 42 caused some confusion which was clarified by D&C 76. Only blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is considered the unforgivable sin. Later revelation (I believe it was Brigham Young) clarified that while murderers could not be forgiven in this life (for no restitution is possible), in the hereafter it may be possible to attain forgivness, albeit quite doubtful -- also look in The Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball (it might also mention this, it's been over twenty years since I've read it). D&C 76 has no mention of murder as being unforgivable -- it's not even hinted at. But then, feel free to give me another negative rep for bringing up this discrepancy in your argument.

 

I think your analogy is flawed Adelth... if you drive into a state with different driving laws, you had to obey the driving laws of the new state. Your analogy says that the marriage will still work internally in both states (i.e. both people will still love each other), not that their behavior will be legal or tolerated (just as driving 15 mph above the speed limit in Massachusetts is a 150 fine; in New York it is felony.)

 

I agree - which is why I wondered if it was something that the federal government was going to get involved in...

I concede that it's not a great example. However, in my defense, I was using the analogy to show how the two were different - not how they were the same. What I was trying to show is that if you drive to a new state you could still obey the laws of the new state, but if you move to a state that prohibts gay marriage, you cannot obey the law if you are already married to someone of the same sex. Like I said - it's not great, and there probably were better analogies that could have been used.

 

Ah, I see now. Haha no worries (and sorry about that...), I couldn't come up with a better one.

 

Since I assume that you or your wife were not coerced into the wedding (extremely unlikely in front of a civil authority), you willingly accepted mariage. Marriage, in such a case of a union between a man and a woman, implies divine approval and covenant. By willingly marrying your wife, you did accept all stated and implied blessings and obligations--including the divine covenant.

I would say no. I think the Defense of Marriage Act would cover that. Just like your traffic laws analogy, it doesn't matter what the speed limit is in your home state, you are bound to the speed limit where you are at the time. I have real trouble seeing a County Mountie in a state where the limit is 55 letting you off for going 64 even though your home state has a limit of 65...

I remember hearing that McConkie was ordered by the First Presidency at some point. It sounds to me like he accepted correction, and was rewarded for his faithfulness. If this is true, then your claims about Mormon-Catholic relations may not be accurate.

I don't hold entire organizations responsible for the sins of the individual members, no matter how highly ranked they are or how well known they are. Further, the Catholic Church is not the only faith with a less than perfect track record. There are probably even incidents within the LDS faith where one or more members acted against the Lord's will and committed serious crimes against others. I've heard this to be the case with the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Again, that's why I originally said that SOME murderers go to Outer Darkness. I had heard that King David, guilty of the murder of one of his servants so that he could marry the servant's wife, would pay the debt in full, but would not spend eternity in Outer Rarkness, but would ultimately find his way to the Telestial Kingdom. There are other murderers, where the nature of their crimes may make that forgiveness "quite doubtful"...

You went beyond challenging my understanding of doctrine and ventrued into insults. Not Cool.

They would be subject to that state's laws regarding civil benefits for same sex couples. Their marriage would not be recognized, but if there were Civil Union or Domestic Partnership laws in place they would be subject to them...