posted
I don't consider not changing current marriage laws to be "imposing sanctions" on anyone. Clearly you disagree. *shrug*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that I said the system is one of "might makes right" is not recouching. It's extrapolating. A lot.
For the third time, I didn't say that.
I extrapolated with the assumption that your response to me was at all relevant to the main point I was clearly making, but I did so in such a way to make it clear that this was my impression of what you were saying. I never claimed, depsite your frequent assertions to the contrary, that this is what you actually said. Rather, I gave my impression of what you said, which, given the assumption that you were responding while keeping in mind the things I was trying to say, didn't seem unreasonable.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that I said the system is one of "might makes right" is not recouching. It's extrapolating. A lot.
For the third time, I didn't say that.
I extrapolated with the assumption that your response to me was at all relevant to the main point I was clearly making, but I did so in such a way to make it clear that this was my impression of what you were saying. I never claimed, depsite your frequent assertions to the contrary, that this is what you actually said. Rather, I gave my impression of what you said, which, given the assumption that you were responding while keeping in mind the things I was trying to say, didn't seem unreasonable.
Did you say this?
quote:Thus, we set up a system where correctness makes right as opposed to the very different one of might makes right that you seem to be saying that it really is.
The seem doesn't make it any better. Stop the damn extrapolating. Is that clear enough for you?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrS: When two folks with opposing views live in a democracy, its impossible for both to get what they want. Just like it was impossible for slave holders and abolitionists to both get what they want. Trying to please both parties only made the situation worse.
If you honestly felt that Mormons were causing ill to society, you would be justified in supporting measure to supress them, I can give you that. Whether or not you are in fact right is an entirely different matter.
quote: I can say "You can't say that thse people aren't really happy." without saying that they are really happy.
You could, but your admiting that you have no specific reason to disagree with me.
quote: One other point that I think is important is that the lesbian couple you're breaking up in your example are very, very unlikely to become straight. The efforts in that direction have all been failures. So, it's not like you're setting them up to get into a real celestial marriage. You're breaking them up from a positive, committed relationship, destroying their family, so that they can become celibate.
Thats your opinion, I think its sweepingly hasty in judgement. I seriously doubt you have extensive experience with many or even few programs designed to assist homosexuals into coming to terms with it with heterosexuality as a goal. For me to agree with you I would have to actively disagree with what I honestly believe is true. That human beings can become whatever they choose to be. You can believe that its impossible for any homosexual to cultivate feelings of attraction towards members of the opposite gender, and I would simply disagree with you.
Pix: I don't think our government was founded on that idea at all. The government frequently makes laws that make many people angry and upset as it goes against their definition of what makes mankind happy. Back to slavery, slave holders honestly felt there was nothing but ruin ahead of them were they to give up slavery. Could you have convinced them of the truthes of the industrial revolution before it existed? The government simply ended slavery after the civil war, there was no vote on the matter that the southerners could actively participate in. If they wanted to rejoin the union, slavery had to go.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
You're certainly welcome to your opinion on such things, but it's probably not safe to assume that others share it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I take a pretty strong exception to your description if it is intended to include me. The thing you have the random Hatracker say isn't anything like what I say.
I also want to point out that it's often that type of interaction that bugs me about Dag. A lot of the time, he'll do that to someone like Syn and it comes off as bullying to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
Christians do not gauge a laws importance based on that completely unrelated fact of how often New Testament writers mention it. The New Testament is not anywhere close to being a comprehensive collection of all that God has said to people. The authors are the first to say so "If all that Jesus said and did were written, I suppose there would not be room enough in the world to hold the books that could be written."
Its not right to say "Homosexuality is mentioned thrice in the New Testament while adultery is mentioned 20 times. Therefore homosexuality is only 1/5th as bad as adultery. Simply read the language of the authors in regards to the sin. Most writers of the NT are pretty good at saying how God feels about an offense. You can also do alittle thinking of your own and decide for yourself whether the effects of dishonesty are as bad as the effects of murder.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you honestly felt that Mormons were causing ill to society, you would be justified in supporting measure to supress them, I can give you that.
I don't see how you can think this would be justified. Assuming you truly believe this would be justified, when do civil liberties ever matter?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was an overblown gestalt, a parody of several instances I've observed, and wasn't meant to represent any one person or even just this thread.
But it has to be understood that Dag is a lawyer, and he tends to approach these things like he's preparing to argue them before a court. Arguments that ignore or strawman the opposition's actual positions are weak, ineffectual, good only for rousing the people who already agree. Arguments that bite, that understand the other position and skillfully pinpoint the weaknesses there (if there are any) while acknowledging the valid points that might exist are much trickier to do and make lousy sound bites but they had the advantage of maybe actually convincing someone, and he's trying to demonstrate how to do just that.
And now I'll stop cheerleading him, and stress that this is my interpretation of his posts and not necessarily his own position about them.
To the tone of the thread:
Many people have, to them, excellent reasons why homosexual relationships should not be recognized by the state. Rather than assuming those reasons are all prejudicial or based on archaic religious references without any further reasoning involved and then dismissing them, why not dig into why so many people believe this and then marshall your arguments to counter it?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
Christians do not gauge a laws importance based on that completely unrelated fact of how often New Testament writers mention it. The New Testament is not anywhere close to being a comprehensive collection of all that God has said to people. The authors are the first to say so "If all that Jesus said and did were written, I suppose there would not be room enough in the world to hold the books that could be written."
Its not right to say "Homosexuality is mentioned thrice in the New Testament while adultery is mentioned 20 times. Therefore homosexuality is only 1/5th as bad as adultery. Simply read the language of the authors in regards to the sin. Most writers of the NT are pretty good at saying how God feels about an offense. You can also do alittle thinking of your own and decide for yourself whether the effects of dishonesty are as bad as the effects of murder.
It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you honestly felt that Mormons were causing ill to society, you would be justified in supporting measure to supress them, I can give you that.
I don't see how you can think this would be justified. Assuming you truly believe this would be justified, when do civil liberties ever matter?
In a democracy? So far as the ballet box agrees. Principles that discourage the tyranny of the majority do not altogether prevent it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
Christians do not gauge a laws importance based on that completely unrelated fact of how often New Testament writers mention it. The New Testament is not anywhere close to being a comprehensive collection of all that God has said to people. The authors are the first to say so "If all that Jesus said and did were written, I suppose there would not be room enough in the world to hold the books that could be written."
Its not right to say "Homosexuality is mentioned thrice in the New Testament while adultery is mentioned 20 times. Therefore homosexuality is only 1/5th as bad as adultery. Simply read the language of the authors in regards to the sin. Most writers of the NT are pretty good at saying how God feels about an offense. You can also do alittle thinking of your own and decide for yourself whether the effects of dishonesty are as bad as the effects of murder.
It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
Thats completely your opinion of Paul's feelings. Don't forget you are arguing with a Mormon. We believe God himself did not assemble Bible. Its a product of what men deemed as authentic, therefore we believe it so far as it is translated correctly. The men who put it together did a really good job, but not a good enough job that disagreement is not widespread. Add the Book of Mormon and modern day revelation and for Mormons the question of homosexuality is pretty easy to understand. Though that might be an over simplification; there are self described Mormons who believe the prophet is out of touch with God specifically on the gay issue.
I could throw Paul right back at you with a slant on pro marriage. There would not be much point. People have debated the NT's message for centuries.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
When you're discussing this with a bunch of Mormons, you have to take into account that we don't piece our beliefs together by exclusively reading the New Testament. We believe in modern prophecy, which to us is every bit as valid a source of doctrine as ancient scripture
quote:So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
So are you upset that in a thread about gay marriage, the participants in the discussion are talking exclusively about gay marriage? How would we maintain our focus in the conversation if we had to continually change the subject to prove we cared about other things?
If you listen to an LDS General Conference, aimed at members of the Church, I guarantee you'll find way more exhortations to keep the Sabbath holy than condemnations of gay marriage. If you start a thread about it, you'll be shocked to learn that we all have opinions about that, too.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
Thats completely your opinion of Paul's feelings. Don't forget you are arguing with a Mormon. We believe God himself did not assemble Bible. Its a product of what men deemed as authentic, therefore we believe it so far as it is translated correctly. The men who put it together did a really good job, but not a good enough job that disagreement is not widespread. Add the Book of Mormon and modern day revelation and for Mormons the question of homosexuality is pretty easy to understand. Though that might be an over simplification; there are self described Mormons who believe the prophet is out of touch with God specifically on the gay issue.
I could throw Paul right back at you with a slant on pro marriage. There would not be much point. People have debated the NT's message for centuries. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Don't forget you are talking to a Catholic. We don't believe that God assembled the Bible either. We do still think that, understood within it's context, it has some authority. Is it not that important for Mormons? Is it superseded by the BoM and personal revelation?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First and foremost, let me put this concept into th mix -
"That which is immoral does not necessarily have to be illegal, and that which is illegal does not necessarily have to be immoral."
It is possible to commit a legal crime yet break no moral law, just as it is eqully possible to break a moral law without commiting a legal crime.
That is why there needs to be a separation of church and state. That is why the government is forbidden from any oppressive or controlling regulation of religion, and that is equally why religion should not force it's veiw on the majority EVEN IF that particular religion is itself a majority.
For example, I think abortion is immoral, but I also think it should be legal within reasonable context. It is not my duty to choose for you, that is between you and your conscience. But it is even more so your duty to accept responsibility for your actions, and I believe that beyond a certain point, regardless of your desire in the moment, you have made a long term choice that can't be rescinded.
So, morality and legality do overlap, but only when the legality (or lack there of) reaches a level where an innocent third party is so clearly and egregiously harmed that no person of clear religious or non-religious conscience can stand by and allow it.
I don't think gay marriage meets this test. I don't think some vague self-preceived unspecific implication that society might be harmed, or that some abstract social institution might be harm is enough.
Now we jump way back to the beginning of this thread to the comments by Samarkand on Civil Unions.
I now point out that all marriages are civil union, or at least all LEGAL marriages are nothing but civil unions. What you do in church is irrelevant to whether you are legally married on not. To become legally married you must file and register at the court house, you must purchase a license, that license must be certified and validated by a legally authorizing party and place on file in the public records. Then and only then does any married couple gain the legal benefits AND RESPONSIBILITIES of marriage.
It is just that in our mostly Christian society, we have opted to allow clergy (among others) to be the legal authority that certifies and validates a marriage, but that is a purely optional arrangement.
It stems back to the time when most public records for remote frontier communities were kept by the church. It recorded births, death, and marriages, and the law considered those private recording to stand as public records since no other record or validation was available. Yet, that is really just a matter of convenience, that records were there so why not use them.
So, legal marriage as a matter of law, rights, and responsibilities is completely divorced from religion. In fact, you don't even need a wedding; get a judge or other authorized official to sign your documents, and you are married.
Now it is certainly possible to have a purely spiritual non-legal marriage. That is, to be married in a church without government sanction, documentation, or certification. In which case, you gain no legal rights or responsibility as a result of such a marriage.
Though if the marriage last long enough and only in certain states, the concept of 'common law marriage' does come into play but only for hetrosexual couples.
So, my point is that all legal marriages are nothing but civil unions, which most people choose to further have sanctified by their church, but legally, that action of the church has no authority to legitimise the marriage unless all other legal governmental aspect are also met.
It is by choice of society and societal convention that we accept the signature of a priest (or rabbi or minister) as a certifying and legally binding authority. I suspect this is based on the preceived moral character of the minister rather than any legally binding power or authority.
So, simply put, all legal marriages are civil unions, and it is the civil union aspect that grants the right and demands the responsibilities that come with marriage.
Legally, religion and gender are irrelevant, or at least should be so. It is the willingness of the parties to accept the rights and even more so accept the responsibilities that come with legally registering their coupling.
At to whether gay unions will undermine the foundation of 'marriage', I think today statistics prove the the greatest threat to marriage and family in not the desire of same sex couples to seek out those rights and responsibilities, but the casual and uncommited attitude of opposite sex couples who are happy to have the rights, but shun the responsibilities, and don't take the commitment aspect seriously. In short, hetrosexuals are the greatest threat to marriage and family that I see in the world today.
You would do a lot more to prop up the institutions of marriage and family by confronting the failings of hetrosexual couples rather than worrying about the social complexities of same sex couples.
This really is a matter of law and civil rights; this is one area where preceived morality should not dictate law because there is no clear or imminent pending implication of true harm.
quote:Don't forget you are talking to a Catholic. We don't believe that God assembled the Bible either. We do still think that, understood within it's context, it has some authority. Is it not that important for Mormons? Is it superseded by the BoM and personal revelation?
Not superceded. Equal to. But that means that the lack of something in the New Testament doesn't mean that Mormons shouldn't take it seriously. There are a lot of other sources we can also turn to that may very well say a whole lot about a given subject.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
Thats completely your opinion of Paul's feelings. Don't forget you are arguing with a Mormon. We believe God himself did not assemble Bible. Its a product of what men deemed as authentic, therefore we believe it so far as it is translated correctly. The men who put it together did a really good job, but not a good enough job that disagreement is not widespread. Add the Book of Mormon and modern day revelation and for Mormons the question of homosexuality is pretty easy to understand. Though that might be an over simplification; there are self described Mormons who believe the prophet is out of touch with God specifically on the gay issue.
I could throw Paul right back at you with a slant on pro marriage. There would not be much point. People have debated the NT's message for centuries.
quote:Don't forget you are talking to a Catholic. We don't believe that God assembled the Bible either. We do still think that, understood within it's context, it has some authority. Is it not that important for Mormons? Is it superseded by the BoM and personal revelation?
Certainly not. We ignore the mistakes in the Bible that have been perpetrated by translators and scribes with an agenda, modern revelation has points many of these mistakes out.
We consider the BOM more reliable purely for this reason alone:
It was written by prophets, translated by a prophet, and given to people to read. Much less room for error. By cross referencing it with the Bible, both books make far more sense.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: In a democracy? So far as the ballet box agrees. Principles that discourage the tyranny of the majority do not altogether prevent it.
I'm not asking about in a democracy, I'm asking about when do civil liberties matter to you since you said it would be perfectly justified for somebody to try to oppress you if they thought you were bad for society.
Further, we do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a Constitutional Democracy. There are limits on the tyranny of the majority. When the majority goes too far, as dictated by the Constitution, the Courts can intervene. In the case of legally trying to supress Mormons, I think the Courts would instantly intervene. I find it shocking that you seem to be saying people that don't like you should be able to oppress you. If I am mischaracterizing you, please let me know.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Our government was founded on the principle of Liberty as described by Mill and Locke and interpreted by Jefferson (and our other founding fathers) into our Declaration of Independance and Constitution.
Here's an excessively long (sorry) passage from Mill's On Liberty. One of the seeds of thought that grew into our nation.
quote: SUCH being the reasons which make it imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition; let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions—to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost. That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.
posted
BTW, although I agree that the separation of church and state is an important principle to be analyzed in this debate, I just want to clarify something: there is almost zero chance that the First Amendment would actually be used in the legal analysis by a court reviewing restrictions on same sex marriage. I don't know that anyone here thinks that, but some people do, so I thought I'd mention it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. Looks like I've hit the "personal revelation" wall. Not much to do about that.
Other Christians? Any anti-civil union who aren't basing their arguments on the BoM or the personal revelation of th Mormon leadership?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its not right to say "Homosexuality is mentioned thrice in the New Testament while adultery is mentioned 20 times. Therefore homosexuality is only 1/5th as bad as adultery.
Without taking any position on the actual point you are making, let me just mention that 1/5 is a really bad approximation to 3/20. 1/7 is a much better one.
quote:Simply read the language of the authors in regards to the sin. Most writers of the NT are pretty good at saying how God feels about an offense. You can also do alittle thinking of your own and decide for yourself whether the effects of dishonesty are as bad as the effects of murder.
Aren't you the one who found that thinking for yourself led to Bad Things, while following the precepts of the BoM led to Good Things? You can't have it both ways.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
I believe if you go back to the first page, Scott detailed why Mormons believe what they do. It had little to do with NT doctrine. If you carefully read what Mormons believe their eternal purpose is, then you may see why Sabbath breaking might not carry as much weight than marriage issues- whether they be adultury, homosexual marriage, or whatever. Remember, Scott was not trying to argue theology with a Catholic, rather he was simply trying to explain his beliefs.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay. Looks like I've hit the "personal revelation" wall. Not much to do about that.
Coming from someone who routinely puts up a 'personal choice' wall, I find this supremely ironic.
Edit : No, wait a minute, I've got you confused with katharina, haven't I? People shouldn't have nicks starting with the same letter, it's confusing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I try not to let my personal faith choice limit the freedoms of others to marry who they will.
And why ironic? Acknowledging that there is no point in arguing someone out of it is something I routinely try to tell you.
Ah...I see your edit. Less confusing than it would be if we used our actual names. And despite the initial initial, I rarely confuse you with katherina. Almost never.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We consider the BOM more reliable purely for this reason alone:
It was written by prophets, translated by a prophet, and given to people to read. Much less room for error. By cross referencing it with the Bible, both books make far more sense.
I'm not sure what the word "purely" means in this context, but there are other reasons the Book of Mormon is more reliable.
One is that most of the Book of Mormon was written primarily with the intention of being read by people today, as opposed to the books of the New Testament, which were written primarily for the people back then.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmb, just for reference, Mormons tend to think of the phrase "personal revelation" as applying to individual answers to prayers, which are private, and are not binding on other people. A Mormon arguing a position in a thread like this based on his own "personal revelation" would not be taken seriously even on a Mormon-only bulletin board, because no one else would feel the slightest inclination to change their opinion based on a revelation claimed by some random other Mormon.
The authority of the prophets to receive revelation that is equal to scripture, and direct the church accordingly, is a different, and more powerful part of our faith. We usually refer to that as "modern prophecy" or other, similar terms.
Just a point of clarification, not a disagreement Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Mill Pix. I've read the entirety of On Liberty and I CAN see how it has influenced our government. But the government makes decisions that are against popular opinion quite often. Even one instance demonstrates that the will of the people does not always reign supreme in the short run.
Amanecer: Whats the point of dicussing a civil liberty if we are not doing so within the context of the world we live in? If we lived in a theocracy where God himself ruled personally and literally did everything right, we wouldnt NEED civil liberties, though we could always articulate the perfect logic behind a decision God made, we for all intents and purposes would always be content to do things as He saw fit to do them, hence no liberties. The only reason you would insist on liberties in that scenario is if you wanted to plot a course contrary to God's perfect way, in which case you would be wrong by definition and would cease to live in that society.
But we live in a democracy and so the ballet box prevails. Mormons got booted out of Missouri and Illinois because they were seen as a menace that needed expulsion, the government did nothing to stop it, and at some levels assisted the folks who insisted the Mormons be kicked out.
Not saying who was right in this instance only that if enough people want something it will be done.
Enough people think the bill of rights is a good thing, and thats why it will isnt' being ammended. If enough people thought it had mistakes, eventually leaders with that opinion would be elected and judges with that opinion would sit on the supreme court, and the document would be corrected.
The ballot box really does reign supreme.
quote: Further, we do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a Constitutional Democracy. There are limmits on the tyranny of the majority. When the majority goes too far, as dictated by the Constitution, the Courts can intervene. In the case of legally trying to supress Mormons, I think the Courts would instantly intervene. I find it shocking that you seem to be saying people that don't like you should be able to oppress you. If I am mischaracterizing you, please let me know.
There are retardents to the tyranny of the majority, but there is NOT a true inpenetrable barrier. As stated above I might not think it was right for folks to kick the Mormons out of their house and home, to kill their men, rape their women, molest their children, but in a democracy the will of the people if strong enough WILL prevail. Its not a question of moral truth, its a question of how things work in a democracy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, what do you think would come into a legal analysis of same sex marriage? Just curious.
No time to answer fully now, but the equal protection clause would clearly come in. The substantive due process clause might also come in.
Very briefly, substantive due process analysis focuses on whether the government has a good enoug reason for restricting liberty. The equal protection analysis focuses on whether the government has a good enough reason for treating people differently.
The states that have ruled in favor of civil unions or gay marriage have relied on state constitutional clauses. VT relied on a common or equal benefits clause, which is subtly different than equal protection.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the clarification, Puppy. But the revelations of your prophets hold no more (or less) weight with me than the revelations of anybody else.
Same goes for the Pope, in case you ask (since I have to go now.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: I'm pretty mad at myself for botching up that math. As much as I dislike mathematics, thats just pathetic.
My statement about doing some thinking of your own was not a means to establish ACTUAL docterine, just a way for you yourself to form an opinion. Obviously if your view of situation directly contradicts the scriptures, you figure out who is in the wrong.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah...I see your edit. Less confusing than it would be if we used our actual names. And despite the initial initial, I rarely confuse you with katherina. Almost never.
'K' is clearly different from 'k', so why would you? I mean, if you considered them to be the same, then the number of unique-first-letter nicks would be reduced by a factor of two! Can't have that!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We consider the BOM more reliable purely for this reason alone:
It was written by prophets, translated by a prophet, and given to people to read. Much less room for error. By cross referencing it with the Bible, both books make far more sense.
I'm not sure what the word "purely" means in this context, but there are other reasons the Book of Mormon is more reliable.
One is that most of the Book of Mormon was written primarily with the intention of being read by people today, as opposed to the books of the New Testament, which were written primarily for the people back then.
Sorry for the double post. You are probably right "Purely" does not really fit as there is more then one reason the BOM exists.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
But then, any sin makes you imperfect and unfit for the Kingdom of God. Only through Jesus Christ's perfect sacrifice may you enter.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whats the point of dicussing a civil liberty if we are not doing so within the context of the world we live in?
I was asking about your personal opinion about what limits we should try to place on majority rule, which you seem to not be responding to.
You seem to be seeking out extreme cases such as the Mormons in Missouri and asserting that is the norm and there's nothing we can do about it. I think this is a wrong way to approach it. What happened in Missouri was NOT justified. Nobody now feels that it was. Missouri even apologized. That extremes happen does not mean that we should stop trying to moderate them.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whats the point of dicussing a civil liberty if we are not doing so within the context of the world we live in?
I was asking about your personal opinion about what limits we should try to place on majority rule, which you seem to not be responding to.
You seem to be seeking out extreme cases such as the Mormons in Missouri and asserting that is the norm and there's nothing we can do about it. I think this is a wrong way to approach it. What happened in Missouri was NOT justified. Nobody now feels that it was. Missouri even apologized. That extremes happen does not mean that we should stop trying to moderate them.
Extreme cases? If you wanted to look around for situations of injustice where the government backed down because of popular opinion you would find oogles.
If you want to argue that the logic behind my rationale for voting a certain way is flawed, I am willing to discuss that possibility. But when people are arguing "Our country is built on sound moral principles, and the people do not control those principles" I will just have to disagree.
Ditto for telling people who base the opinions partially within religion or even mostly on religion that they do not have the right to vote for those opinions.
I think the laws we live under today are an extension of just how strong the population feels about each point.
I think the retardants that we have built to supress tyranny of the majority are adequate as is.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Call me high and mighty for believing I know better then others what constitutes happiness, but surely by disagreeing with me you are in fact doing the same thing.
A point on this. The difference, I think, is that in your case you are telling others what will make them happy. Whereas, in the case at hand, proponents of SSM aren't trying to tell you how you would be happy.
posted
I think that's an excellent point, Bokonon.
To me, consensual adult sex, regardless of the gender, number, age (as long as legal) etc. is not something to be legislated. For many people who object to SSM, it seems that the sexual act is what they object to. I think that it's perfectly ok for religions or individuals to oppose consensual sexual acts of any kind, but it's not ok to legislate against them. No substantial (if any) harm is being done anyone beyond those choosing to engage in the act, assuming even they are being harmed.
Please note that I believe extramarital sex is different - in that case both parties have entered into a contract, one of the stipulations of which is fidelity. Consensual sex between one member of that pair and someone outside that pair is therefore a breach of contract.
Beyond an objection to the act itself, then, the principal objection is to same sex couples acting in other ways as couples - that is, taking care of each other, making commitments, pooling finances, raising children togther, etc. Again, if this isn't something you like the idea or reality of, then by all means exclude these people from your places or worship, homes, etc. However, in a democracy that permits an 18 year old girl and a 94 year old man to marry, as well as cross-religious couples, trans-racial couples, people who are trying to get citizenship, etc., it baffles me that anyone would say that same sex couples are not being discriminated against as a special group when they are denied basic rights which other couples can enjoy.
Feel free to convert people to your set of beliefs, or try to get them to join Exodus or whatever, but don't deny people rights.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But we live in a democracy and so the ballet box prevails. Mormons got booted out of Missouri and Illinois because they were seen as a menace that needed expulsion, the government did nothing to stop it, and at some levels assisted the folks who insisted the Mormons be kicked out.
First, I doubt there was a democratic vote to boot the Mormon's out of Missouri (I could be wrong though). Second, we are a democracy with a set of semi-permanent "rules" that allow the courts to rightfully prevail over the ballot box, where one conflicts with the other. Now, that doesn't mean it always works as intended, but that doesn't mean we should ignore its intention.
-- That's what gets me about the tactic of some saying that the court's ruling usurps democratic power. To that I say, "Duh." That's been one of the foundational points of our systems of appeal and judicial review. To argue against them is treacherous, and likely leads to unintended side effects one wouldn't want or expect. Echoes of The Magician's Apprentice, no?
Something you (Pixiest) said earlier bugged me a bit-- about how it was useless arguing with me, because I wouldn't change my mind. You were right.
I didn't enter this debate to change anyone's mind. (Except maybe Rabbit's) I'm interested in standing up for what I believe-- not necessarily converting anyone to those beliefs.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I feel like we're talking past each other. You responded to Squicky's comment about oppressing Mormons by saying it would be justified. This is the issue that concerns me. I do not think it is justified to oppress a group of people period. I would even venture to guess that most people on the no SSM side would agree with this, but they don’t feel that not letting a gay couple get married is oppression. I can understand that reasoning. What I don’t understand is you saying that it’s ok to oppress a group of people, your own group of people specifically, if the majority thinks they’re harmful to society. This sounds like might is right. I understand that sometimes it happens that way despite our efforts to not make it so. The comment that threw me was you describing the action as “justified.” Could you explain how that would be just by your way of thinking?
Scott, I think me and one or two other people asked questions of you within a few posts of each other, making it possibly seem like a dogpile.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please note that I believe extramarital sex is different - in that case both parties have entered into a contract, one of the stipulations of which is fidelity.
Small correction. Extramarital sex is all sex that is not within the confines of marriage. You don't have to be married to have extramarital sex.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would call that premarital, but the correction stands if that is common (or even occasional) usage.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, consensual adult sex, regardless of the gender, number, age (as long as legal) etc. is not something to be legislated
That struck me as amusing.
Anyway, dear goodness this thread exploded a heck of a lot faster than I would've thought. Much of it seems a mirror of a similar thread that was posted on, on the other side for a week or two before falling by the wayside. I read most of this thread but breezed over some of it for the sake of speed, so if I step on any toes let me know, but:
Scott R -
I totally respect your point of view, and though I think your wrong, and though it makes me feel a little sick to say, I even respect your right to vote what I believe to be Anti-American and Anti-Constitutional beliefs into law, as your democratic American right (how's that for a hodgepodge of possibly oxymorons?).
But I get antsy when you start talking about turning "God's Law" into "US Law." That has been used to justify far too many atrocities in the world before. I believe laws should be set forth to protect society, to ensure the success of the society and to ensure as many personal freedoms as possibly (ironically something Republicans USED TO subscribe to). While I personally would never get up in arms over this specific subject, I wouldn't blame homosexuals for doing it.
The idea of a religious majority changing the constitution of a secular nation to make into almost unchangeable law their religious views, and to effectively relegate the lifestyle of a minority to second class status is wrong to me. The allusions between this and what goes on in hardcore Islamic countires is very easy to draw, and it's a slippery slope once the first step is taken.
Aside from Scott, one of my biggest problem with outlawing same sex marriage is that most of the things that same sex couples from want civil unions were created originally by a secular state, they are things guaranteed by the secular state, and they are things the secular state alone has control over. God in the Bible never said anything about social security benefits, He never said anything about hospital visitation rights, or tax law, or about making medical decisions for loved ones in peril.
So why is this very recent version of what a marriage involves treated as though it were prescribed by God? Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and God. That's it. You take vows that are prescribed for you from your religion, and the secular state gives you the rest. Trying to fold those secular rights into religious rights seems utterly silly to me, and I have no idea where it comes from that it needs to be defended as such.
Since I haven't seen much else used as an attack on SSM, I'll leave my other arguments out, but I am curious about the things I've mentioned, and I'm curious about previous questions asked to opponents of SSM marriage on religious grounds about how they feel about Sharia law in Islamic states.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
