posted
Senoj: However, you also can't imply that marrying younger would decrease the divorce rate for the same reason.
I'm trying to think of a list of factors that cause divorce, other than "irreconcilable differences." I'm sure there are a lot, but maybe we could look at them in general terms.
posted
Tom, And I'm offering reasons for them to consider a different perspective. Namely that gay people and gay marriage advocates are not out to destroy commitment or selflessness or sacrifice in the marriage relationship, that these are acutally things we value very highly, that we want marriage for gay people specifically because we think that they are capable of these things and that them growing in a relationsip with them is a great thing, and that there aren't actually logical reasons to believe that this disrespct for commitment, etc. is going to follow from gay marriage. Dag took exception to that last part, saying that the essay did in fact provide reasons for why it will follow. But now he seems to me to be saying that the essay offered a statement of it, but no reasons, which is what I have said from the first.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Senoj: However, you also can't imply that marrying younger would decrease the divorce rate for the same reason.
Right. That's why I've been saying it's conjecture on both sides. Neither set of conjectures has been (or can be from the information posted thus far) proven.
quote: I'm trying to think of a list of factors that cause divorce, other than "irreconcilable differences." I'm sure there are a lot, but maybe we could look at them in general terms.
I think this is the right way to go. Here's the genesis of a list: financial issues, lack of time together, disagreement over sex, lack of romantic interst, having/raising children, loss of shared values.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Far be it from me to upset you Mormons and religious right wingers but the issue I see is pluralism. It's fine to be "against" abortion or "against" gay marriage but when you take that stance to mean making such things illegal and a matter of the state you are no better than the countless millions of oppressors in the history of mankind that have imposed their beliefs on others. If you don't like Gay marriage, don't be gay or don't get married. If you are against abortion, don't do it. But to Hell with you if you think you can tell me I can't. It's my America too.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
making Gay Marriage illigal is a modern day Jim Crowe law and you should be ashamed of yourself and your god
Posts: 128 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, StickyWicket, are you done bragging and thumping your chest yet? Shall we perhaps see how far you can pee?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're bragging about how righteous and honorable and brave you are by putting down those who disagree with you as ignorant bigots.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, maybe it seems that I am attempting to get into a pissing contest but I'm so sick of ppl using religion as a cover story for prejudice and self righteous judgment.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
no seriously, is all I have to do to say something heinous like "Black people should be locked up" is attach a "my religious background suggests that:" in front of it?
Posts: 128 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what he's saying Sticky is that we can't discuss any of these topics unless we have a civil forum. One where everyone feels they can contribute their opinion and concerns without being instantly judged and ridiculed. Everyone here has reasons for their feelings and, although you might not agree, they have as much right to voice them as you do. It's OUR America....
Posts: 484 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But now he seems to me to be saying that the essay offered a statement of it, but no reasons, which is what I have said from the first.
No, he's not. I've said there are reasons, which are premised on axioms you don't accept.
Just as you premise your ideas of what government should do on some axiom at some level, then use those axioms to provide reasons.
I certainly HAVE NOT said there aren't reasons there. I've said I can't explain them to you properly.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: that there aren't actually logical reasons to believe that this disrespct for commitment, etc. is going to follow from gay marriage
Except that this is precisely something you won't be able to convince them, because it's one of their givens. It's ASSUMED that committment comes from marriage, and that SSM cheapens marriage. Ergo, SSM cheapens committment.
You need to challenge the presumptions to make any headway, but that's precisely the hardest thing to do in ANY debate. You need to somehow get someone to see that what they think is a given is actually a conclusion, and that can be very difficult.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"First, just because some marriages fail doesn't mean radically redefining marriage won't make things worse."
But *how* will it make things worse? There's no logic for it. Gay couple who want to spend the rest of their lives with each other, raise a family, be monogamous, etc. are actually within the author's traditional ideals of marriage- they just happen to be members of the same sex. By support same-sex marriages, you're actually encouraging those kind of ideals. And like I said before, there is no evidence that gay marriage will make things worse. Until someone can give me reasons, then I do not accept your stance.
"Further, I don't see how the author's logic would imply young people shouldn't get married (especially since I think divorce rates would decrease if people married younger). What is your logic here?"
The author doesn't think gays should marry because he *doesn't believe they hold the same traditional ideals that he does.* With that logic, we shouldn't allow teenagers to marry because they don't understand that kind of lifelong committment.
"Why can't we? We deny marriage to all sorts of groups for a variety of reasons, among which are a shared value system."
Yes, for a variety of reasons- some of which makes sense, *others don't.* Your point is?
"As for evidence that gay marriage will be more or less moral, what morality are you talking about? I think homosexuality is immoral, therefore I believe every homosexual union is less moral than an average heterosexual one."
I'm not talking about religious morality. We all know that being gay is a sin according to Christians. I'm talking about the morality posed in the author's essay- the traditional marriage ideals that include monogamy, commitment, transformation, etc. There is no evidence that most gay couples are immoral in that aspect- which debunks the author's entire argument.
"Men and women are different biologically and, I would assert and you may disagree if you choose, spiritually. To say a gay man can act like a woman is meaningless. He's still a man."
How are women and men different spiritually? And I sincerely hope you haven't bought into the notion that one's sexuality and sense of gender is determined solely by their genitalia. There is biological evidence of homosexuality, and even "disorders" such as Gender Identity Disorder. (Actually, because of such evidence GID is no longer being recognized as a mental illness, something that needs to be "fixed.")
"Wouldn't that belief be an argument for reintroducing gender roles (assuming we want to prevend the crumbling of marriages) which you conclude is an ignorant thing to do?"
I would much rather see both genders be able to act as they wish, seek out their dreams however they wish, without the burden of strict gender stereotypes. If we must compromise marriage tradition for that, then so be it.
"And why would it be ignorant? Is it just because "everyone knows" we're better off since we got rid of traditional gender roles (a term often misunderstood and misused by both sides)?"
Men and women *are* better off. People who think we should go back to the traditions of the 1940's, as a quick fix to marriage ideals, are incredibly ignorant to how that structure was stifling to both men and women. I would rather see marriage suffer because society can adapt to our new sense of gender freedom. *Progress*. The key word is *progress.*
"His belief is that a homosexual union cannot inspire the same degree of spiritual one-ness as a heterosexual one."
Because being gay is a sin. That's what it boils down to, and it's an argument that does not hold up. The problem I have with people who use their religion as part of of political agenda is that a.) their religious beliefs are not rooted in factual evidence (ie. men and women become bound together spiritually), so there is a chance they could be wrong and b.) those faith-based opinions *do not apply to others.* Now, if your viewpoints were a mix of both faith and fact-based evidence, then I would sympathize.
And a little FYI to the author- not every heterosexual couple who gets married feels a deep, spiritual feeling with their spouse. There are, ya know, atheiests who marry one another, who manage to live happily for the rest of their lives. *The arguments don't add up.*
Furthermore, with the author's logic we should prohibit the un-spiritual to marry. Since they clearly defy the traditional ideals of marriage.
As for what makes a religious fundamentalist- I use it according to dictionary definition.
"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."
The majority of anti-gay advocates are people who use the Bible as a reason for intolerance. So yes, I do mean "fundamentalists."
"There's no fessing up for him to do."
Of course there is. Instead of writing essays he should just get straight to the point- "It's a sin against God." But that isn't always taken seriously is it (and for good reason)- so he has to come up with other reasons why it simply would not work (social reprucussions). Reasons that are not well-thought out, I might add.
"Have the courtesy to try to understand that people can disagree with you without them being stupid, ignorant fundamentalists."
The problem I have is simple. My mother is against gay marriages because she believes it's a sin. But at least she's being honest with herself, and not putting a spin on her beliefs. I feel that is what the author has done, and it disgusts me not that he has those opinions- but that he is twisting it to make it sound more acceptable than just "I read that it's bad in the Bible, so I oppose it." That is what is most upsetting to me.
posted
Mariann, I stated on page one of this thread:
quote:Mormon's view marriage as a "saving" ordinance, like baptism. To get saved, you have to get married. And we believe God was the one who taught humans to get married, starting with Adam. Well, 2 people of the same sex getting "married" is about the biggest insult to the ordinance that I can think of.
Since then, I have refined that thought to be:
Religious and many non-religious people view marriage as sacred and godly/goodly. Many religious annd non-religious people view being gay as ungodly/ungoodly (a sin/unnatural).
So, gay people getting married demeans marriage and is an indication of more ungodliness/unnatraulness in our society.
More and more ungodliness/unnatraulness in our society means it is getting closer to going the way of all great nations before: it will die.
So I'm not afraid of saying I'm against it because I believe it is a sin. But I also don't believe in forcing anyone to do anything. If the people running the government decides to make it legal for gays to get married, fine. We live in a democracy where the most votes (sorta) wins. To me it will just mean the nation is chosing to be more sinful if it chooses to legalize gay marriage.
I can live with that. I wont be happy, but gay people are people too. And I like a few of them inspite of them being gay. Do I think they are the most sinful people on the planet? Not in the very least. I think many CEO's are much worse than gays. The whole food industry is run by greedy indiferennt people who could care less about anyone. I bring up the Nestle murderers:
quote: More and more ungodliness/unnatraulness in our society means it is getting closer to going the way of all great nations before: it will die.
I've got to admit that I find the LDS position that America's current standing in the world is a consequence of its godliness to be absolutely fascinating.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I imagine you'll find through your degree (as I did) that you must be *very* careful asserting "my professor said x" unless you are sure that it was exactly x that they said. Because people will jump on you. Lawyers - like to prove everyone wrong. Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:my mission is not to discover and learn from others,
I don't know if you are still reading, Occasional, but this is so very much the opposite of how I feel. And yet, it would seem that our end goal is the same--to build Zion. To build unity and peace among people.
My response to that desire is to learn all I can about people who think differently from me, to see if the gaps can be bridged, to see if understanding and peace can be reached. Sometimes it is not possible at all and I, too, retreat in disappointment. But I really feel that understanding where other people are "coming from" is crucial to changing minds and hearts and learning to see eye to eye.
How often do people adamantly disagree with each other only to discuss and find that they actually fundamentally agree? It seems to me that it happens a lot. I like to think that people are more alike than different when you uncover all the superficial layers.
I have watched you (with sadness) as time and time again you have made it clear that you only want to associate with people who think like you. Isn't that what nauvoo is for? I actually dislike being there because I find the similarity stifling. I have other reasons for disliking it as well that are more poignant, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. (It has to do with the passive-aggressive behavior that rears its ugly head when open conflict is discouraged. I much prefer direct, but tactful assertiveness to passive-aggressive nonsense. Alas, it seems to come with Mormon Culture.)
I also am really glad that the LDS church has so many converts because it refreshes us when we get so "set in our ways". It challanges us to question what is Mormon Culture and what is Mormon Doctrine. It reminds us what the gospel is *really* about. I am far less interested in assimilating new converts into our "customs" and far more interested in learning a fresh, new point of view.
Being surrounded by people who think like us leads to stagnation. I have no problem in associating with like-minded people often or even more of the time for strength and support, but if it is all that we do or even all that we want, I think we lose out on so much.
I agree that it is disheartening and exhausting to verbally grapple with people who believe so differently about something you hold dear. I have to pull away from the fora at times when I feel exhausted. But I think that if we truly listen to what the other side is saying, try to understand where they are coming from, we will better be able to help them understand where we are coming from as well. Two sides can have opposing viewpoints and still understand why the other side believes as they do. Mutual understanding is a good thing. Even if you don't respect the viewpoint, you can still respect the person.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: We all know that being gay is a sin according to Christians.
Arrgghh. Not all Christians! Not all Christians! Not all Christians! I tell you three times.
Otherwise, you go Mariann.
You're right, I should have said "most." I actually consider myself a Christian, and I'm not anti-gay. Sometimes I get caught up in the moment and speak of all Christians, when what I mean to say is "the majority."
posted
Warning, you are about to enter a Mormon Speak zone:
Beverly, I think it has to do with our perception of how things are according to what we both believe about the End Days. You see this as a time to "get converts" and continue to grow from the people around us. Not there aren't a few who have converted from coversations here to bolster your position.
I submit that Hatrack represents for me the kind of people that are "past feeling" and Spiritually unrecoverable. The majority of voices here sound too much like Korihor and his followers. It represents for me the very society that the Book of Mormon warned would lead to the destruction of Nations. In other words, if I want proof that the Earth's Days are close to finalized, all I have to do is come here. That OSC allows such people to continually and in great numbers openly write is grevious. It amounts, I believe, to openly supporting those who go against the Church, and not in the usual sense of that statement. That is not a light thing to say.
I am no prophet, in authority, but I sense something VERY wrong at Hatrack as equally damning as not helping the poor and the sick. The time for sharing is coming to an end, especially for the Gentiles, and the time for building up a wall of defense is coming close behind. In more pop culture parlance; its time to circle the wagons or die like the rest.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That OSC allows such people to continually and in great numbers openly write is grevious. It amounts, I believe, to openly supporting those who go against the Church, and not in the usual sense of that statement. That is not a light thing to say.
It's called freedom of speech. I am not referring to the civil right, I am referring to the fact that being free to say what you honestly think is a *good* thing. To force people to only speak like-minded things sounds... evil--to me.
quote:I am no prophet, in authority, but I sense something VERY wrong at Hatrack as equally damning as not helping the poor and the sick. The time for sharing is coming to an end, especially for the Gentiles, and the time for building up a wall of defense is coming close behind. In more pop culture parlance; its time to circle the wagons or die like the rest.
I honestly don't understand this statement. The people here at Hatrack are not inherently hostile, as you have so often stated. I know, I know, they have shown you hostility. I have seen it. But I know why they do it. The fact that you are not interested in listening to their side and understanding where they are coming from comes through in your words. It is offensive to talk to someone who isn't interested in understanding you. I certainly get offended when I talk to people who clearly aren't interested in understanding me--and yes, there are a few of those on Hatrack. But they truly are few.
I find that if you offer understanding to people, you will get it back. I think it's just part of the Golden Rule. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not referring to the civil right, I am referring to the fact that being free to say what you honestly think is a *good* thing. To force people to only speak like-minded things sounds... evil--to me.
And my statements aren't about civil rights. I tried not to be blunt, but you seemed to misunderstand my slightly subtle meaning. Lets just say it has to do with the Temple recommend and see if you understand.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't care about the hostility. Its not about hostility to me or my words. I could care less about that. Rather, it is about the kinds of opinions that get top billing here. To paraphrase Jesus, "I have not come with peace, but with a sword." That I, and others like me, are crucified just comes with the territory. Call if self-rightiousness if you will, but that is just another way of saying I disagree with your passion.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it surprise you that non-Mormons would think and believe differently than Mormons? Would you have them remain silent? Or not permit them access to this forum? All people here are already required to be respectful of others, if anyone crosses that line--no matter their viewpoint--they are called on it.
Again, is nauvoo exactly what you are wanting?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently a Mormon running an establishment where non-Mormons are allowed to freely come in and talk with Mormons who have freely come in, and even disagree with them, is "openly supporting those who go against the church", in Occasional's view.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I drink tea, so yes. Even coffee on occasion.
(You said "practices contrary to").
Heck, I'm even relatively likely to have sex outside of marriage at some point in my life! (haven't yet, though, so I suppose that doesn't count).
I also know and am friends with some people who have used and continue to use assorted drugs on occasion, though I don't so much sympathize with that as not care, at least as far as marijuana is concerned, I'm against pretty much anything harder.
And lets see, I have a good number of Catholic friends (their teachings are definitely counter to those of the LDS church), and could even be said to "sympathize" with some of their precepts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nauvoo is NOT exactly what I want. Rather, I am looking for a group that is overwhelmingly Conservative in viewpoints and positions, regardless of disagreements. In other words, a place where 1 and out 5 posters were vehemently anti-gay (just as an example) rather than here where it is the opposite.
I have asked time and time again if anyone knows of Conservative Forums and not eve ONE has been listed. I promise you all that if I found at least one of them to my liking I would leave this place and NEVER come back. You can take that as a blood oath.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I love and support my Aunt Kathy and Aunt Amy, who have been living together in a loving, productive, societally valuable relationship for years .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I said was an official statement, and not my own words. Admittedly, it could be interpreted to exist for different reasons than why I put it here.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. From didn't Tom state awhile ago that there are tons more Conservative blogs and grassroots on the net than Liberal? You'd think that there'd be a Conservative forum somewhere. [/aside]
Occasional, to me there is a world of difference between trying to understand where someone is coming from and supporting their viewpoint. You can understand and still disagree. Trust me, I do it all the time.
But unless you try to understand where someone else is coming from, you are not likely to get them to *want* to understand where you are coming from. I think understanding accomplishes far more than shutting people out.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still specified it in this instance, and you're the one with the extant, unsupported statement:
quote:That OSC allows such people to continually and in great numbers openly write is grevious. It amounts, I believe, to openly supporting those who go against the Church, and not in the usual sense of that statement. That is not a light thing to say.
If its not a light thing to say, where's your evidence?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The time for sharing is coming to an end, especially for the Gentiles...
What I find sad, Occasional, is this sense I get from you that you think the "time for sharing" was a mistake in the first place, and just delayed the onset of the good stuff.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, knock it off. Occasional's statement *only* applies to Temple-recommend-carrying Mormons. I am sorry that wasn't clear. It wasn't meant for you.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, beverly, read my above post. Its great you have such faith and hope in people still. However, I have lost such and consider it close to the time when Missionaries will be commanded to come back home.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and he's applying it to OSC, absent the decency of a single example. The mentions wrt myself were mere asides.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I concede you might be right TomD. Then again, what religious people (as a whole) haven't prayed for the Kingdom of God right here and right now?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
