HEthePrimate

It's different things to different people. I don't mind the expression itself, but if applied the way you describe in the second paragraph, it can be problematic.I suppose it's easier in some ways to take the "checklist approach," as it doesn't require as much thought, but like you say, it can seem pretty mechanical, or even insincere. Personally, I like lists. Not as something to thoughtlessly work my way through, marking each one off as I accomplish it, but more like a toolbox, giving me different options to use as needed. But yeah, one runs the risk of taking things too literally that way. To me, repentance feels more like an opera than a wood shop project, if you know what I mean.

His paintings were like cotton candy for the eyes. But I have nothing against the man himself, and wish him a joyous and restful, well, eternity.

Seriously female. Serious!

Hey, if it works for you, that's great! As long as we recognize that different couples have different ways of being together that are good and valid for them.

Well, if you put it in context by including the rest of the sentence, it becomes more clear: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In other words, all citizens are to enjoy equal status under the law, and as of that amendment, it applied to all the states, as well as to the federal government. Due process comes into play because the government may abridge a person's rights if they commit a crime (by putting him into prison, confiscating property, etc.), and due process needs to be followed to determine if the person is innocent or guilty, and in sentencing.Also, just because a right is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read Amendment IX. Well, among other things, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights. It's a pretty dramatic expression of love, if you ask me!Plus, religions traditionally perform marriages for their adherents. One could argue that the First Amendment protects churches' rights to marry people, as a form of religious practice. Why do you think that? I do. Because we have a secular government, not a theocracy. People of different faiths live in this country, and their rights to worship (or not) as they please need to be respected. Reject away! It's a free country! I'm just glad you're not in charge. Why do you say that? One could easily work up a legal code without reference to morals. For example, the basis of a legal code could be for everybody to be able to coexist and conduct peacefully. In order to coexist peacefully, you can pass laws against murder, assault, theft, and (obviously) disturbing the peace. No moral codes, just everybody looking after their interests by attempting to get along. Laws that uphold common interests need no further justification.Also, morals do not have to be derived from religion. People can, and have, made up moral philosophies and codes without reference to God or religion.

R.I.P Richard Clark.

Huh! I've never heard that, and I've been in the Church all my life.By that definition of "heathen," both of my parents are heathens, because they were both converts to the Church, and therefore not born in the covenant. I was born in the covenant, but I'm not Jewish (though I do have some Jewish blood), and so I must be a heathen, too! Wow! Who woulda thunk? No, that's a bunch of nonsense. Anybody who's a member of the Church is part of the covenant people, and part of the House of Israel. "Gentile" is the word some Mormons (and Jews) use to refer to non-Mormons (or non-Jews). It doesn't have to be derogatory, but simply means "clan, tribe, or nation," referring to the non-Abrahamic-covenant nations of the world. There are modern people who call themselves "heathens," though. They are people who follow certain branches of Neo-Pagan religion, such as Asatru, Odinism, or Theodism. But somehow I don't think that's what you're talking about!

Okay, part of the confusion is my fault. I was sloppy to switch between same-sex marriage and homosexual sex. So for now I’ll stick to same-sex marriage. It was not meant to be a bait-and-switch, and it was not me being dishonest. It was just me being sloppy. Having said that, I’m sticking to my basic argument. Nobody has yet explained to me how same-sex marriage threatens the traditional family. In my opinion, the bumper sticker slogan “Don’t agree with same-sex marriage? Then don’t marry someone of the same sex” is valid. Just because it’s on a bumper sticker doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Heck, I could have “Love thy neighbor as thyself” printed on a bumper sticker, but the words of Jesus would not suddenly become “specious logic” as a result. In an attempt to show how “ridiculous” my bumper sticker slogan was, Vort introduced another one, “Don’t agree with wife beating? Then don’t beat your wife.” Though that superficially resembles my bumper sticker, it is actually quite a different thing, and therefore represents a straw man argument—Vort was not addressing the same argument. Wife beating is different than same-sex marriage for a number of reasons, including having nothing to do with love, being non-consensual, and involving bodily harm. If Vort wants to use his bumper sticker to invalidate mine, then he’ll have to explain how that’s not a straw man argument. Until then, I feel fully justified in calling it a stupid comparison. Instead of addressing the real issues, Vort instead resorted to ad hominem name calling. Just a few examples: Vort, instead of addressing the actual question of the debate, instead repeatedly attacks my character by calling me dishonest, and a liar. I have not lied once throughout this debate, and have argued in good faith. I have already admitted to sloppiness in mixing up same-sex marriage with homosexual sex, but I have never been dishonest, and so I would appreciate it if he would stop making those accusations against me and instead stick to the topic at hand. When it comes right down to it, though, I suspect that the problem people have with same-sex marriage IS homosexual sex, not hospital visiting rights or questions of inheritance. You will notice that I have not called Vort dishonest or stupid. I called the comparison of the two bumper sticker slogans stupid. The former would have been ad hominem, but not the latter. Anyway, stupid arguments with Vort aside, my basic point is that I see no reason that same-sex marriage should be illegal. People like to assert that it somehow undermines the family, but nobody is willing or able to explain how. The LDS religion asserts that it would be sinful. That's fine, assert away. But other religions do not believe the same way, and want to be free to marry homosexual couples. Why should one religion be allowed to use the force of law to impose its standards on people of another religion if the practice in question (same-sex marriage) doesn't infringe on anyone's rights? Just to be clear, I am not arguing in favor of homosexual behavior or same-sex marriage. I am simply questioning our right for force our ways on people of other faiths. A few blocks from where I live is a Methodist church that openly supports gay rights. What gives Mormons the right to deny the Methodists the ability to marry gay couples according to their beliefs?

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now for a full response, and will have to get back to you later. Suffice it to say, Vort, that your bumper sticker thing was a straw man argument. Your bumper sticker bore a superficial resemblance to my bumper sticker, which resemblance you attempted to use to discount what I was saying. But in reality it wasn't relevant, which is why I was talking about it. Apologies for this short answer, but I've got to go for now.

You would think that LDS people, in light of their history with polygamy--and society's condemnation of that practice--would understand this. It is supremely ironic that the arguments non-Mormons made to make polygamy illegal are the very same arguments that Mormons are now using against same-sex marriage.

You're right, I am talking about secular legality. Nowhere in this conversation have I argued that homosexual sex is not a sin. But there is a difference between sin and crime, unless you live in a theocracy.I live in a secular nation that separates church and state. That allows people of different religious faiths to believe and practice their different religions, or lack thereof, as they will, and peacefully coexist. Some religions do not consider homosexual sex to be a sin, and allow same-sex marriage. Do we have a right to prevent them from practicing their religion by legally disallowing same-sex marriage? The state can forbid certain religious practices if those practices infringe on the rights of others. If you can demonstrate to me how a homosexual couple getting married infringes on other people's rights, then you may have a case for a legal proscription against gay marriage. However, all you folks are telling me is that "God says gay people shouldn't get married." Well, Jews and Muslims say "God says you shouldn't eat pork," but I enjoy a nice porkchop every once in a while, so they're just going to have to deal with it. If I eat a ham sandwich, that doesn't force a Jew to eat a ham sandwich. So, ONCE AGAIN I ask, how does a gay couple getting married infringe on my rights, or on anybody else's? HOW does it threaten traditional marriage? As far as I know, straight couples are still free to get traditionally married and live happy lives all they want.

You're the one who started comparing apples and oranges (homosexual sex to wife beating), not me. Presumably because you don't have a logical argument. What the heck are you talking about? Had I called YOU stupid, that would have been an ad hominem. However, I did not call you stupid--I called your comparison of homosexual sex to wife beating stupid. That was not an ad hominem. Look it up.

No offense, Brian, but I think your list is a little too legalistic. There's a place for caution, to be sure, but if two spouses exhibit that level of distrust, maybe they shouldn't be married in the first place. All I know is that if I had demanded the password to all of my late wife's email accounts, she would have been royally ticked off with me, and accused me of being controlling, and I wouldn't have blamed her! I would have felt the same way had she asked me. We did have a joint email account for family communications, but we each had our own private accounts, too, and that was never a source of distrust between us. We just took a certain level of privacy for granted. I don't believe for a second she was sending love letters to other guys. I knew some of her friends, and she knew some of mine, but neither of us knew all of the other's friends, or coworkers. And that was okay. I would've had no problem introducing her any or all of my friends and coworkers, but the occasion simply never arose. Complete and total transparency and access sounds nice in theory, but in reality I think most people need a little privacy, a "room of their own," so to speak, and to feel that their spouse trusts them, and that it's okay to have a life outside of their spouse.

I thought Jesus was the eldest son. And I've never heard that Lucifer conducted official meetings. Lucifer may have held a position of authority, but not necessarily the only position of authority, or the highest. In any case, though the parallels are interesting, I wouldn't read too much into it. Isaac's life was spared, after all, and Jesus' life was not spared. There are types, and symbols, and parallels, and parables, and shadows, and reflections, all through the scriptures. They serve a useful purpose, but if you push the similarities too hard, and try to pile too much meaning on them, they'll fall apart and you may mislead yourself.

Okay, assume you're talking to a four-year-old.Explain to me how having sex with someone you love is the moral equivalent of beating somebody up. Look, Vort, I get that you consider homosexual sex to be a sin. But there's a difference between a sin and a crime. That you're resorting to ad hominems is a signal that you don't have a good argument.

I don't think we know enough about the situation to make accusations like that. What if it's just a matter of her conscience eating away at her until she finally seeks relief through confession and repentance? That happens, you know.

How?

No, it's not valid. If you don't understand the difference between physical assault and two lovers having consensual sex, then you have serious issues.

I don't know what "really special" means to you, and haven't read your blessing, so I'm not sure what to say. If you were hoping it would tell you you'll be a general in the armies of God at the Second Coming, chances are you were disappointed--most people do not get stuff like that in their patriarchal blessings! At least you're not alone. For the most part, patriarchal blessings don't make a lot of super-specific predictions about the future. They are meant as general guidance for your life, and to tell you some blessings you may receive if you are faithful. And of course, your lineage. Like a lot of people in the Church, I am from the tribe of Ephraim. My brother's from Judah. Ephraim is a great tribe to be from, but I don't care all that much. What's important is the covenants we make with God, and striving to live accordingly. In any case, don't worry too much. Give it some time, and read it again later. Maybe it'll have more meaning for you then. Take care! :) HEP

Chances are he will be sent home from his mission. If you get pregnant, your bishop may recommend you get married. If not, there will be a period of repentance, and they may encourage your boyfriend to go on a mission later. It's going to be rough, but it's not hopeless. Please know that we support you, and that in the long run things will be okay again. Peace. HEP

That comparison is stupid.In a case of domestic abuse, the victim does not voluntarily participate or consent to being beaten. A crime has been committed by one person against another. Two consenting adults having homosexual relations is an entirely different matter. I keep asking people to explain to me exactly how homosexuals having sex affects anybody else, and how it threatens traditional marriage. Nobody's ever answered that question. If you can, please, enlighten me!

I think most people who let their children partake of the sacrament would be shocked to hear it described as mockery, as that is the furthest thing from their mind. There are probably two main reasons that parents let their children take the sacrament: (1) To train them and get them in the habit of partaking of the sacrament. They may not fully understand the sacrament right now, but with time they'll learn. (2) To avoid the hassle of trying to prevent their children from taking the sacrament. When trays filled with pieces of bread are being passed around the room and everybody else is taking a piece and eating it, of course your child is going to want to take a piece, too, and woe to the person who tries to stop him! I get where you're coming from, and if you'd rather train your kids differently, that's perfectly okay. But I don't think it would do to criticize other parents for making a different choice.

Okay, so I'm reeeaaallly late to this thread. But honestly, my advice is to heed what the bumper sticker says: "If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex." You believe homosexual behavior is sinful, so don't do it. Other people have their free agency, and it's okay if you want to try to convince them to change their ways, but be prepared for them not to accept what you say. Maybe you'll get lucky and convince someone, or maybe not. But if it distresses you that they don't all suddenly convert, then maybe you'd better not get involved with debates.In any case, whether or not same-sex marriage is right or wrong is not central to the Gospel. IMHO, you would do better to focus on what the gospel is really about, rather than fretting so much about what other people might be doing in the privacy of their own homes.

Ah yes, "money answereth all things." So, in your opinion it's unethical to refuse treatment to someone who can pay, but ethical to refuse treatment to someone who can't? This kind of attitude explains a lot about our society.

Well, yes, the Church certainly teaches us to worship God the Father and Jesus, and to be disciples if Jesus Christ and follow his example, at least in theory. That's the official teaching, but if you pay close attention in sacrament meeting and actually count how many times people mention Jesus in their talks, as opposed to, say, Joseph Smith or Thomas Monson, J.S. and T.S.M. might actually get more mentions. I have a friend who was called to be a bishop a couple of years ago, and that's something he's tried to change in his ward. He's made a concerted effort to make sure that sacrament meeting focuses on Jesus Christ EVERY week, not just for special occasions. He instructs people called to give talks to talk about Jesus, and has introduced more scripture readings and music, as well. In theory, Mormons have always worshipped Jesus and the Father, but in practice, you wouldn't always be able to tell from the emphasis in our meetings. But I do think things are getting better. Peace, HEP