Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Remove all ads!

In such a case? How so? I would think that the opposite would be true. This is not a vow made before God, nor one of his "representives," but a contract with the state. I'd like to see you prove this one.

 

Gnarff, by your own admission your knowledge of the Mormon doctrine is ... sparse. Institute classes would help (and you would probably enjoy). I stand by my comment about you using the church as a shield to front your own prejudices -- you (and others) have a clear distain for homosexuals. I think this is evident to everyone in this thread except the few who are using religion as an excuse for gay bashing.

There were many relationships forbidden by God (such as marrying a Cananite - sp?), such a union was a sin, but still accepted as a marriage. Given that homosexuality is a sin, just where, in whatever scriptures you want to use, is it specifically spelled out there cannot be a homosexual marriage (this is an actual question -- I'm curious)?



"Rewarded for his faithfulness"? In what way? He was already an apostle -- what do you think would have happened? He certainly never backed down from his rather strong opinions in conferences and talks at churches (he was a frequent speaker at stake conferences in SLC).

Funny, you had never heard of the Mount Meadows massacre when I last brought it up on the boards....

"SOME murderers" -- okay, which ones? The only one is Cain, not even Judas has that honor.

 

Willingly marrying my wife is completely different from supposedly accepting a covenant that I didn't even know about. (Which is not to say that I acknowledge it now, but at the time, I wasn't even aware that some people thought such a covenant exists in a civil ceremony.)

I guess we're back to square one. Your inability (or refusal) to grasp the meaning of simple words like "accept" and "willing" makes reasoned debate with you impossible. So once again I am going to bow out of this discussion (at least as far as continuing it with you goes).

 

I don't know how available they are here, and it's a 45 minute drive to get to any of the three closest chapels. When I don't drive, it would make it hard to attend...

It's not the homosexuals that piss me off, but people that try to use political correctness to bully people off beliefs that they don't like. If I'm using religion to hide hatred for homosexuals, then I guess that you're using political correctness to hide your hatred for religious organizations. Further, during the election campaign, the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints issued a statement that their opposition to Same Sex Marriage is not based on hatred, but preservation of what is sacred. It also urged members to maintain that focus.

No, we just maintain a strict definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. We believe that homosexuality and marriage are mutually exclusive. You people keep talking about separation of Chruch and State until you want the state to trump religion. You can't have it both ways. I want the state to stay the hell out of our religious beliefs. Civil rights for homosexuals is a CIVIL matter. You'd think people who consider themselves my intellectual superior should be able to figure that out...

These Caananites were of the opposite gender of the non-Caananites, were they not? You prove that two dudes or two chicks got hitched in the old testament, and you have an arguement.

Every instance of what classes as marriage in the Bible has been Heterosexual--strictly between a man and a woman. Considering that homosexuals were executed by stoning in the Old Testament, you won't find any such recognition.

The Lord could have taken him (death) before he would be called to the First Presidency. Also, I believe that even though he was on the Quorum of the Twelve, he is still subject to the laws of the Church. If he defied the First Presidency, he could still have been excommunicated if he didn't clean up any contentious doctrinal inaccuracies in future editions of the book.

Since then a movie came out about the incident. It was wildly inaccurate, and other members of the ward were able to explain the truth.

Cain is the only one specifically named, but I have trouble envisioning anything but Outer Darkenss for Hittler or Charles Manson. Judas Iscariot may be a special case. Talmage is surprisingly quiet on Judas. If it was foreordained that Christ would be betrayed by one of his apostles, and that was to be Judas Iscariot, then damnation might not be his fate...

You just did it again--you used the word Marriage. Marriage is Ordained of God as a sacred union between a man and a woman. It bears covenants that are in force regardless of the authority of the officiator. Civil Authorities may not believe they carry such religious implications, but Marriage CANNOT be separated from that Divine covenant. You want God out of the union, use another word to reflect this separation of Church and State. By Co-opting marriage for civil purposes, Church and State are being merged. AS such, any couple civilly married is under the same covenant as a a religiously married couple.

Now the fight comes when people want to push the state to change marriage to something that the religious side can't allow. Thank God that the people of 30 of 50 states had the courage to stand for that which is right.

 

This statement goes both ways in the argument.

Of course they did. The entire campaign would not have gone very far if they started with "don't you hate gays too." Prejudice is prejudice -- people can try to sugar coat it all they want but it still reeks of hatred.

Marriage is a civil matter.

Please be realistic. He was the son in law of a prophet he had more political connections than anyone whose name didn't end in Smith or Young. He was allowed to continue talking about it and was not required to edit his book on other subjects which were just as inflamatory.

Odds and ends: I'm sure the "truth" about Mount Meadows according to members of the Mormon church is just as entertaining (and just as edited). Neither Hitler nor Manson had a true testimony of Christ according to the Mormon faith -- neither would be sent to Outer Darkness. A prophet who commits murder could be sent there (prophets are the only ones on earth who have a "true testimony of Christ" according to the precepts of the faith).

 

Holy crap! if you thought gnarff's post was long, check out chevs on this one: http://www.sorcerers.net/forums/showthread.php?p=666518#post666518

Gnarffs post has 67 lines of answers(not counting quotes), Chevs has 153 !!!
Thats like 228% of gnarffs !!! I got tired just reading it & thnking about how long it took to type it.

 

It comes from Religious doctrine. Since Marriage is ordained of God, it does carry something sacred to it, regardless of what others try to say. By using the word marriage, you are not truly separating the civil recognition you seek from the divine implications.

Denying that manure comes from the backside of an animal does not remove the smell. You can claim anything you want about marriage, and the origin of the word, if does not change the sacred nature of the ordinance and covenant involved. By going beyond the limits of what is accepable and trying to force it on us, you show intolerance of other religious beliefs. In 30 of 30 states where the people were given the vote on the matter, the people would not stand for such an extreme change.

Then the point is not as valid as you previously though. You can't equate a heterosexual marriage to a Caananite to a marriage between two homosexuals. Marrying a Caananite may have been a sin, but it was not a capital offense in Ancient Israel. Homosexuality was treated as such. If anything, the lack of an instance of a gay marriage being tolerated might signify that they were not tolerated.

We're not the ones trying to force our values on others. We're trying to prevent their values from being forced on us.

Have you ever read the Book of Matthew? That's where much of that statement came from. While we cannot condone their sins, and are charged with defending what is considered sacred, we are not to hate them, and to treat them with respect and civility, not vandalizing gay bars with hate-filled slurs. For someone who claims to know more about my faith than I do, you really dropped the ball on that one...

So you admit that you don't care what happens to the gays, only to see the various religious organizations bullied out of certain beliefs that you don't agree with?

No, the governments have attached a number of civil riders on this religious ordinance. ALL of these rights can be extended to gay couples WITHOUT changing the definition of marriage. One simple law recognizing that Marriage is Religious in origin, and as such, rigid limits are maintained to keep the peace (like only one spouse at a time, only between man and woman) and that Civil Unions exist for those that do not seek religious sanction or are denied religious sanction under such definition. Civil unions would have ALL civil benefits and obligations that apply to married couples. It's so simple even I understand that. Either I must be smarter than all of you that oppose me in this discussion, or the sole motivation for this debate is hatred of religion.

No man is above God's Laws. And I'd think if I was married to the daughter of the prophet, he'd hold me to a higher standard than the other members because he trusted me with his daughter. You defy the prophet and oppose the Church, it doesn't matter who you are, you answer for what you do.

WEll, if someone wants to find something to rip on us about, trust me, it's not that hard...

Let's see, Brigham Young knew that there were settlers from Missouri headed through Utah to California. He ordered the saints to let them pass through unhindered. Some locals defied these orders and massacred the settlers. They were tried and punished for their crimes. Probably wouldn't make for much of a movie, so Hollywood went for their hate-filled inaccurate version that villifies the Church...

Hittler would likely be damned for the sheer magnitude of the innocent blood on his hands. And didn't Manson willingly embrace Satan, and like Cain, Love Satan more than God? Is there a point where the crimes of the worst of murderers constitute a love of Satan more than God?

No arguement there.

Look, I know you are attached to your image of me wearing a white sheet and burning crosses on the lawns of local homosexuals, but give it a rest! I don't hate homosexuals. I just don't believe what they do is morally acceptable. I believe that Marriage is sacred, and I don't want to see is defiled. I believe that government can solve the problem of gay rights without offending the religious folks, but they are just too lazy. Anyone trying to force gay marriage into place is either stupid or bigoted. Which do you admit to?

[ Warning pending. ] - Beren

 

Errr... I think you just compared sacred covenants with God to the smell of manure... well, your choice.

They can be, sure, but they aren't. And it raises the question of separate but equal. "Sure, gays can have civil unions and have the same rights, but they still aren't married like normal people." By making civil unions their only option, the government would be forcing them into a lesser class in which they could not achieve the sense of normalcy that society tries to project onto people.

In addition, one of the main ideas we have been talking about is separation of church and state. Making laws that specifically affect something religious (and I am using your belief that marriage is religious, not mine) is contrary to the idea that we won't make laws about religion.

Personally (and I know it has been stated before by a couple of other people), marriage should only be a religious ceremony in which two people dedicate themselves to each other and God. However, it has NO legal benefits. Everyone who wants to get United (I believe that term was brought up before) does it before the government and gets the same rights, regardless of who marries who. Then they can go do whatever they want with their place of worship, who can deny them the right to marry if they want because it is the Church (or synagogue, mosque, etc)'s prerogative.

 

Sorry BTA, according to the defense of marriage FEDERAL law it means exactly that.

1 man & 1 woman.

Deal with it.

 

Wow, talk about taking a comment out of context. BTA was referring to Gnarff's continued misguided opinion that marriage is strictly religious in nature, not about the "one man one woman" thing.

Anyway, shortly after I made my previous post in this thread, I came across a Monty Python reference, which reminded me of one of my favorite movies, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And then I remembered the scene with the Black Knight. You know, where Arthur chopped off the arms and legs of the Black Knight. Despite obviously being beaten, the Black Knight stubbornly refused to admit defeat, and was under the delusion that he still had a valid means of attack. That is what Gnarff’s arguments remind me of. So now, rather than Gnarff being a source of frustration, I think about Monty Python, and look at Gnarff as a source of amusement. Of course, in the case of the movie, the comedy was intentional, but still…

 

Gygax had a great comment in the original AD&D books -- people with high intelligence know smoking is bad, a low wisdom score means you think it's not bad for you. I'd say his quote applies here -- it is an idea that has been brought up many times (by at least five different posters) and ultimately discarded. By changing the name of the ceremony you lessen it in the eyes of everyone. Marriage will be on a different level than civil unions and those with civil unions will be considered of lower status. Perception is important here. So the idea is a high intelligence, but low wisdom solution.

Gnarff, my impression is you're a bit naive about what is really going on. I've lived in LA and Hollywood. I've lived in Salt Lake City. I was raised in Mesa, Arizona. I have seen members of the church cruising to attack gays. I've listened to the prideful boasts of things these "good members" have done -- members who have leadership callings. No, not all Mormons treat gays with respect and civility. Yes, some Mormons do vandalize. And it's not just an isolated few who do it.

You just don't get it. Yes, you are forcing your values on others. The religious right in America has done it for decades. It's a continual effort. Even the Pledge of Allegiance was changed to accomodate the religious right -- and the uproar when people tried to restore it to it's original form was incredible. You're way off base in this argument.

Actually its the exact opposite -- two consecutive issues you're 180 degrees out of sync. I don't care what the religious beliefs are. You can believe whatever you want -- so long as your beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others. I do not see any court forcing any religion of marrying gays, nor are the religions required to acknowledge the marriage. You can be as prejudice as you want -- you just can't act on that prejudice.

I'm sure you believe that. As I said, entertaining and edited but not historically accurate.

I'm not sure who you are aiming this sling of insults at, but: Laziness is not the issue, your "obvious" solution is entirely inadequate (at least everyone else sees it). You don't believe what gays do is morally acceptable but you don't hate them -- so your prejudice is based on disgust rather than hate, not a big difference there. Many of the same organizations opposed to gay marriage were the same organizations who opposed AIDS research (including Mormons) -- AIDS was "God's punishment to the gays." No, no hatred there at all.

 

My point was that just because someone denies that marriage comes from God does not change the sacred nature of marriage. The analogy to manure was the first thing that came to my farmboy mind.

But by recognizing that Marriage originates from religion, you are settling the dispute by saying that the state can't (or is it won't) be changing the definition of marriage. This would then force them to find some other way to ensure civil rights to this minority.

Now you're asking the state to go beyond what they can do. Homosexuals will never be considered truly normal in mainstream society because many religions, not just the Christians either, consider their behaviour to be sinful. No law will ever change that.

But that has already been done. Government has passed laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman--upheld by the Supreme Court--and establishing certain civil benefits to this union. The problem lies with a minority that want to be included in these benefits but would not qualify to be married. To truly separate Church and State means that a civil alternative that is legally equal to marriage is available to those that cannot or don't want to receive the religious sanction. The Nomenclature MUST reflect this civil origin as opposed to religious origin.

Actually, you grant civil unions, most people won't care. Call it marriage, and the majority will be up in arms over this blasphemy. Why should the religious majority be forced to see what they consider sacred defiled because the minority that do care are offended because they aren't smart enough realize that they got their rights? Gay couples will never receive that perception of equality because their chosen lifestyle is a sin.

But their actions are NOT sanctioned by Church authority, and are NOT acting in harmony with the example the Saviour set for us. Please don't judge me by their actions. I'm not surprised that some members may involve themselves with that behaviour, I am surprised to hear how frequent you claim it occurs. Members that actually attack homosexuals should be having a long talk with their Bishop--possibly higher priesthood authority--before their next trip to the Temple. I believe that the statement from the First Presidency was a reminder to the members on how to conduct themselves in regards to this issue.

But when there are two mutually exclusive sets of values, why must there be a binary solution, where one wins and one loses? That's what I see argued for here. A Binary opposition to this issue is the recriminalization of homosexuality. I'm not arguing for that, though. Why can't the state allow for an ideological separation between these groups? That's what my solution offers. It leaves marriage in the hands of the Church while offering the same civil rights to homosexuals that married couples enjoy.

So logically there's nothing wrong with my solution. Under my proposal, civil rights granted to gay couples are the EXACT SAME as the civil rights that married couples receive. Nobody's religious beliefs are infringing on any rights here.

But in Canada, there are laws in place that would make that a very real possibility if someone got a burr* up their ass to push the issue. Freedom of religion ends where the laws of the land begin. This is why I want marriage protected.

* For you city folk that have never seen one, they are round and have sharp points sticking out in all directions. While they aren't solid, and would break easily, it still stings when you step on one in bare feet.

AS opposed to your wholly unacceptable demand to force the desecration of a sacred ordinance and institution? This issue will not go away unless the "win-lose" mentality goes away first. You're demanding the majority accept something that they CANNOT reconcile with their beliefs to accommodate a minority that has obviously acted hatefully towards that majority when they didn't get their way. I offer a solution that satisfies not only my beliefs but the mandate of the state in regards to this minority. Why is it so unacceptable? I simply don't see HOW the government can fix the perception problem, let alone why they should try to. I've applied the principle of separation of church and state to the problem and got the solution. Does this mean that separation of church and state only applies when it tells the religious to shut up, but not when the state wants to impose it's terms on Religion? This would create the perception that the religious are a second class of citizen, which is also unacceptable...

No, I'm not disgusted by homosexuals (okay I got creeped out when one hit on me, but that's not the issue). I just believe that what they do is not morally acceptable. They are unrepentant sinners. I can't condone their sins, but I also find myself under the obligation to them that I am to ALL other humans (love thy neighbour as thyself). Any calls to repentance therefore are acts of love, not hatred--even though I know that they will likely either fall on deaf ears or piss them off.

But I think the rejection of my alternative may also be based on prejudice -- a prejudice against religion. By it's very nature, religion seems more arrogant because they don't handle the value of divine information well. Pride creeps into the mindset at the knowledge that they have something truly special that others don't. It's a natural temptation to let this go to your head and perceive yourself above others that don't have what you have. For this reason, some will want to see the faithfuil taken down a peg...

I don't know that is the way it should be. If AIDS is divine retribution (not just limited to homosexuals), then it stands to reason that there would be no cure. This does not relieve us of our Christian duty to make their last days more comfortable, however, or to protect those that are not infected through knowledge and prevention.

 

TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 115 > § 1738C
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Il ove how you only post i part of the law when it has 2 parts, typical liberal BS.

So BTA you are gullible enough to believe that the wording of the federal law being EXACTLY the same for the meaning of marriage as the religious wording is just a coincidence?
How dumb do you have to be to think we aren't a religious country that places 1 over the rest?
Our money says "in God we trust", every time i've had to testify in a court or seen anyone testify, they had to swear on a bible, they swear in the president on a bible.

I don't see any money saying "in allah we trust" or "buddha bless us" or any other religions than christianity.
(I'll send the insults to you in a pm)

 

Personally, I don't suggest insulting a moderator. Pick your fights well.

And that piece of the law doesn't change the fact that the law has nothing to do with religion. It says it is a legal union between one man and one woman, and states don't have to recognize marriages or unions or whatevers between homosexual couples. It isn't saying: TEH RELIGONZOR SEYZ ONLEE MEN AND WOMEN CAN MARRRIIII!!!!11 CHRISTIANITEE FTW!!!!!!!!!!!1111oneone

 

BTA: The way I see it, this is a conflict between the Declaration of Independance and the First Ammendment. Separate but Equal is a compromise that will grant equal civil rights without forcing a law that overrides religious doctrine and practice. The Defense of Marriage Act protects marriage as one man and one woman. It is there to keep the peace between the sides. Now we need Civil unions to grant civil rights to homosexual couples and the matter is satisfied as far as the government can legally do so. But if the homosexual community or their supporters can't swallow their pride and accept that, it's not my problem.