Attacs thowards LDS Temples

[john doe]

Oh, come on now. Logic left the building long ago. Now it's just rhetoric and bashing those who disagree.

[FunkyTown]

I can't see any logic being applied here. lol

Anyway, go for it. Get gay married, then get divorce banned, then you can be happy.

Ah. I understand - It sounds like you might not be familiar with the term 'logic' as I used it here. I used the American Heritage Dictionary's 4th definition for Logic:

The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events:

I was pointing out that if Kristoffer's logic that gay marriage must be banned because it's viewed as fornication, we must accept that -anything- that is shown as being fornication must be forbidden by law.

This includes Divorce. Also, it involves dirty thoughts - Look at Matthew 5:28 for an example of this:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Just imagine If we can outlaw every bad thing that the bible is against, including thoughts, we could police the whole world! Then, not one soul would be lost. Wouldn't that be -fantastic-?

[KristofferUmfrey]

Ah. I understand - It sounds like you might not be familiar with the term 'logic' as I used it here. I used the American Heritage Dictionary's 4th definition for Logic:

The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events:

I was pointing out that if Kristoffer's logic that gay marriage must be banned because it's viewed as fornication, we must accept that -anything- that is shown as being fornication must be forbidden by law.

This includes Divorce. Also, it involves dirty thoughts - Look at Matthew 5:28 for an example of this:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Just imagine If we can outlaw every bad thing that the bible is against, including thoughts, we could police the whole world! Then, not one soul would be lost. Wouldn't that be -fantastic-?

Oh, but young man you didn't carefully read must post or what I was responding to. The statement was made "If gay marriage was made legal, it wouldn't be fornication." THAT is what I was responding to, I said nothing about legally banning fornication. Or do you agree with the young lady that once it is the legal law, God's spiritual laws no longer apply to the situation.

That was a valiant attempt to take my post out of context though!

[FunkyTown]

Oh, but young man you didn't carefully read must post or what I was responding to. The statement was made "If gay marriage was made legal, it wouldn't be fornication." THAT is what I was responding to, I said nothing about legally banning fornication. Or do you agree with the young lady that once it is the legal law, God's spiritual laws no longer apply to the situation.

That was a valiant attempt to take my post out of context though!

No, no. You're right, Kristoffer. It wasn't intended as a slight against you. The truth is that I've seen a lot of sly remarks with a wink and a nod from people on these chat boards that suggest we should pass laws such as this because it's outlawed in the bible.

The truth is, I know people make different choices than me. I disagree with those choices, but I -also- think a lot of people here choose sins that they themselves aren't tempted by and are filled with righteous indignation over that particular sin. It lends itself to Phariseeism and hatred of the object of your scorn and is something the bible warns extensively about. "Do not look to the mote in your brothers eye when you have a beam in your own."

It bothers me, because the point of the bible is that we're -all- sinners and we -all- fall short of the glory of God. When people act like the foregone conclusion was that Prop 8 was passed because of anger about a -sin-, it suggests that they know the will of God. That's dangerous and certainly -not- what President Monson suggested. When people discuss this sin as being terrible, they forget the terrible weight of their own and I remind them of what the Bible says.

I've gotten messages about this: "You're taking the bible to extremes." and such, but the truth is I've just directly quoted Jesus at his most plain. You're right that it wasn't that post in particular, and I apologize. I'm just frustrated that so many are coming across as condemning the sinner when, in fact, that would cause us to condemn ourselves as well.

[urb0123]

I didn't vote for proposition 8 since I don't live in CA. I would have voted for it if I had lived in CA because I would want to protect my rights, not because I was angry about homosexuality.

I think we have a duty to vote our conscience though. If we believe fornication is wrong, we should support laws against it. If we believe divorce is wrong, we should support laws against it. Imagine what society would be like in forty years or so if those laws were passed today? People wouldn't be having sex outside of marriage (as often). The spread of AIDS might decline as well as many other STDs. The number of unwed mothers might drop reducing the welfare burden on the rest of us. Of course, other things could happen, I'm no prophet. I would say be very suspicious of people who cry against "pushing your religion on me". I think what they are really saying is "Don't tell me what I can and can't do!"

[MarginOfError]

I didn't vote for proposition 8 since I don't live in CA. I would have voted for it if I had lived in CA because I would want to protect my rights, not because I was angry about homosexuality.

I think we have a duty to vote our conscience though. If we believe fornication is wrong, we should support laws against it. If we believe divorce is wrong, we should support laws against it. Imagine what society would be like in forty years or so if those laws were passed today? People wouldn't be having sex outside of marriage (as often). The spread of AIDS might decline as well as many other STDs. The number of unwed mothers might drop reducing the welfare burden on the rest of us. Of course, other things could happen, I'm no prophet. I would say be very suspicious of people who cry against "pushing your religion on me". I think what they are really saying is "Don't tell me what I can and can't do!"

As opposed to saying, "Don't tell me I can't push my religion on you"

[urb0123]

LOL! Yes, that is the other perspective.

I view it this way.

Part of religion is a set of moral beliefs.

Laws are based on the morals of the majority.

Does it lead to oppression of minorities sometimes? Yes it does. The morals of the majority of the USA have oppressed the LDS church at least once to my knowledge, and many other groups as well.

There are other options to the system we have. The oligarchy of the court system is one way. It isn't much different from a monarchy. The few tell the many what to do. This is supposed to be a democracy though.

We could do away with laws that are subjective morally. By that I mean we make sure the laws don't restrict anyone's actions. But where does that end? There are those who believe they should be allowed to have sex with children eight and up. If they both consent(the child and the pedophile) who does that hurt? You can argue that children don't understand all the consequences of their actions and therefore can't give a reasoned consent. However I can argue that people having sex outside of marriage aren't taking into account all the consequences of their actions. (Tax money required to support single moms, abortion, STDs). Who gets to decide what is right and wrong in those two situations? The only fair way is by the voice of the majority.

Don't let anyone tell you you can't vote for your morals/religious belief. You can and you should.

[applepansy]

This is supposed to be a democracy though.

A very sad and common misconception today. The United States in NOT a democracy. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPULBLIC. A constitutional replublic reduces Mobocracy.

applepansy

[urb0123]

I think you are right, we were supposed to be a republic.

What we are and what we are supposed to be can be debated for eternity, as can whether we are capitalist or socialist. I believe are a mix of a republic and a democracy, in the same way we are a mix of socialist and capitalist.

We use representatives, which makes us a republic.

We control those representatives through elections, which makes us a democracy.