Prop 8. and temple recommends


justaname
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have a question?

- Are homosexuals a newly discovered gender?

- Are homosexuals a newly discovered species?

Isn't homosexuality defined as desire/attraction for the same gender?If g/l marriage is allowed, then why would other "behaviors" or desire/attractions not be allowed?

This is exactly the ripple effect Justice was referring to earlier.

http://www.lds.net/forums/524921-post94.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter you cave into, it's a matter you've suggested the fact more than once as a legal argument.

When did I say it was a legal argument?

I thought I said man, laws, nor courts can never decide truth where marriage is concerned.

Procreation is not a legal requirement for any marriage, therefore it can't be used as a legal argument against same sex marriage. Keep using it as a moral argument, that's what you hold dear, but it has no legal standing.

Yes, legal and moral are very different things. There are many things that are legal that are morally wrong. People fall back to the legal issue when they lose the moral or right and wrong battle.

If it's legal it MUST be right, right?

Logic says that means what is illegal must be wrong.

If so, why are you pushing to legalize same sex marriage when it was voted illegal by a majority? Doesn't that make it illegal, and therefore wrong, according to you?

You're asking to get led around by every foolish imagination if you use legality to determine right and wrong. Man has proven incapable of making those decisions.

God is where definitive truth comes from.

We could have a long discussion about this, but I don't think that's necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are what we are, like it or not most of us believe we were born this way, we know people disagree and you have as much right as we have to believe what we do about you, it hasn't been proven either way.

I believe all people with an attraction for the same sex were born that way.

I don't believe people born with SSA have to have relations with members of the same sex. The behavior is a choice.

Conversations like this would go much smoother if the two terms weren't mixed into "gay" because they are not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I'm seeing the part where the whole system failed.

It failed because the majority spoke, and a judge decided the majority was wrong. The minority didn't like the outcome so they used the courts as a means to overturn what the majority already decided.

Doesn't that give you goosebumps? If this continues we're headed down a slippery path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It failed because the majority spoke, and a judge decided the majority was wrong. The minority didn't like the outcome so they used the courts as a means to overturn what the majority already decided.

Doesn't that give you goosebumps? If this continues we're headed down a slippery path.

I hate stating the obvious, but just in case.

Supreme Court rulings can only be overturned by a newer more recent ruling, and that has its own set of obstacles because of judicial precedent. It's too difficult to overturn to be safe for anyone's freedom to make laws for what they believe to be right. This is in addition to 9 people alone deciding what is right when they shouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thirdly, if you'd like purely secular evidence against gay marriage, take a look at this link:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

I already argued the point that same-sex marriage does nothing to contribute to the state interest in propagating society.

I've not been following this thread for some time now as it is gone far from the substance of the original question and is much to Sophist for my interest. But I did want to point out that this link goes to an article that is fairly dated in terms of research.

The entire argument rests on two assumptions:

1) that it is too costly to the government to provide economic marital benefits to same sex couples

2) same sex couples are incapable of providing the same quality of upbringing that mixed-sex couples can.

The first assumption is made moot by the fact that civil unions provide all the same marital benefits to same sex couples and were available prior to the writing of the article. And even still, these benefits could be arranged through other legal means. The difference was that of a single application and a $50 marriage license, or several applications, months of paperwork, and hundred of dollars of legal fees (that is, a very inefficient use of personnel resources).

The second assumption the author admitted was flawed due to a lack of sufficient research. What he calls "empirically verified common wisdom" is just an overly exaggerated way of saying "anecdotal evidence." This very subject of research has become quite hot, and there are plenty of studies now that demonstrate no significant difference between children raised by same-sex and mixed-sex couples.

In short, the case presented in the article doesn't hold a lot of scrutiny. It's also terrifyingly unreferenced (meaning, no references are given. You're left to assume that the doctoral student is the absolute expert, and that there's no need to verify or follow-up on his claims). While this gets lots of praise from traditional marriage advocates, the academic and legal communities would see this as amateurish work unworthy of peer review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't homosexuality defined as desire/attraction for the same gender?If g/l marriage is allowed, then why would other "behaviors" or desire/attractions not be allowed?

I see where this is headed: If Homosexuals are allowed to marry then pretty soon Heterosexuals will be asking for the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im going to make this short and sweet. A couple of questions:

1. What reasons would an active LDS person have for promoting the strike of Prop. 8?

2. If you find yourself promoting same sex marriage, at what point do you become ineligible or a temple recommend because of this temple recommend question:

"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?"

I see the thread has taken a turn to reasons why the government or the people in general would want to support Prop 8 or not, which was just stated is not the original question posted. But, since I haven't contributed my "two cents" to the thread yet, I can swing it back to the original question.

I can't find any reason an active LDS person would support Prop. 8, which is different than fighting it. I think we should always be tolerant and helpful and supportive of everyone no matter what their beliefs are, as best we can. As far as promoting same sex marriage, I think if a person does that, they do not have a testimony of covenants. If an LDS member cannot say what the differences between a temple marriage and a non-temple marriage are, then it would be easy to fall into supporting same sex marriage. Because LDS believe that marriage is sacred and should be done through Priesthood authority and bound for eternity, in the temple than that makes every other form of "marriage" inferior in it's significance. That doesn't mean, other types of marriages have no significance. Any LDS member that understands the purpose of the Priesthood and the purpose of being a covenant people, by definition, will have to say that temple marriage, which is a marriage between a worthy priesthood holding man and a worthy priesthood-respecting woman is more effective in even its earthly purpose than any other form of marriage. So, any other form of marriage should not be called equal to it. (Again, I am not saying fighting it, just not supporting same sex marriage.)

This would not happen because there is no need for it from a government view, but what if there was a law suggesting all religions should recognize any form of baptism to be the same. That you wouldn't have to require a person to be baptized again (the correct way, under the correct authority) if they were previously baptized by another religion to become a member of the LDS faith.

I realize that would never happen, but I am just trying to make a point that both Baptism and Marriage are sacred covenants that should be done under the correct authority to have the correct significance and power in our lives. If an LDS member "supports" same sex marriage then, to me, that person either doesn't yet understand the need for covenants or outright rejects the power and need for covenants and therefore, in my mind, would not be considered an active member of the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seminary: Have you never celebrated with someone their baptism of another faith? Even though you may believe in your heart of hearts that that baptism wasn't done in the proper authority, and therefore will have to be redone eventually with the correct authority, don't you still rejoice that they are on the correct path, following as closely to God as they can with the knowledge they have been given?

My entire family is Catholic (besides my immediate LDS family). I've been to plenty of Catholic baptisms. I saw no reason not to celebrate, be there in support, and love my family for the choices they were making to do the best they knew how to do, even if I disagreed in "how" or "where" the baptism took place.

I think members of the church can support same-sex marriage in much the same way. I know many who have, and who do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seminary: Have you never celebrated with someone their baptism of another faith? Even though you may believe in your heart of hearts that that baptism wasn't done in the proper authority, and therefore will have to be redone eventually with the correct authority, don't you still rejoice that they are on the correct path, following as closely to God as they can with the knowledge they have been given?

My entire family is Catholic (besides my immediate LDS family). I've been to plenty of Catholic baptisms. I saw no reason not to celebrate, be there in support, and love my family for the choices they were making to do the best they knew how to do, even if I disagreed in "how" or "where" the baptism took place.

I think members of the church can support same-sex marriage in much the same way. I know many who have, and who do.

Most of my family is Catholic too. cool! ... "Celebrated" - no. Have I gone to their baptisms and shown love to them, yes. If I really love someone in my family, I would do everything I could to show them the proper way and not give up. I don't want to look back at this life regretting that I could have done something more to pull them out of the spacious building and grab a hold of the iron rod. At the same time, I know it has to be done with love and support and by example. "The best" they can do is to obey the commandments, all can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same here. There is no celebration when you see your beloved brothers and sisters take the wrong path that will eventually, shut them out of the eternal kingdom of the FATHER.

What I come to learn lately, those who reject even to live the telestial glory (LAWS) and refuse to give up their sins and acknowledge Jesus Christ, will inherit worlds without any glory at all. This itself is nothing but a tearful moment to see any person to be sent too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemi and Seminary: Are you saying that someone who is baptized in another religion, and lives that religion all their life, will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, is rejecting celestial laws, and is not giving their sins over to Christ?

While the church does teach that eventually everyone will recieve a witness of the truthfulness of the gospel as taught by the LDS church, it certainly doesn't exclude others from other religions. I remember a talk given by Elder Oaks (general conference, or Ensign? I'll look it up), where he said that Mormon's will not be the only ones in heaven (of course, I'm sure he meant that the good people of the earth would convert eventually).

Still, I think it is very disrespectful to go to a family member's baptism into another faith and immediately afterward tell them they are going to have to do it again in the Mormon church if they want it to really count. Who would actually say that?

And so it should be with marriage. We celebrate marriages all the time that take place outside of the temple (even if secretly wishing they were inside of the temple). If you have no respect for the institution of marriage outside of the temple, just as you have said you don't for baptisms outside of the church, then why does it matter if gay people are able to participate in a lower, dissaproved, unsaving, non-ordinance anyway?

Dravin put a lot of effort discussing with me the reasons why a marriage outside of the temple is still important, but if that ordinance is compared to the ordinance of baptism as outlined here, you both just undid everything he tried to prove to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemi and Seminary: Are you saying that someone who is baptized in another religion, and lives that religion all their life, will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, is rejecting celestial laws, and is not giving their sins over to Christ?

While the church does teach that eventually everyone will recieve a witness of the truthfulness of the gospel as taught by the LDS church, it certainly doesn't exclude others from other religions. I remember a talk given by Elder Oaks (general conference, or Ensign? I'll look it up), where he said that Mormon's will not be the only ones in heaven (of course, I'm sure he meant that the good people of the earth would convert eventually).

Still, I think it is very disrespectful to go to a family member's baptism into another faith and immediately afterward tell them they are going to have to do it again in the Mormon church if they want it to really count. Who would actually say that?

And so it should be with marriage. We celebrate marriages all the time that take place outside of the temple (even if secretly wishing they were inside of the temple). If you have no respect for the institution of marriage outside of the temple, just as you have said you don't for baptisms outside of the church, then why does it matter if gay people are able to participate in a lower, dissaproved, unsaving, non-ordinance anyway?

Dravin put a lot of effort discussing with me the reasons why a marriage outside of the temple is still important, but if that ordinance is compared to the ordinance of baptism as outlined here, you both just undid everything he tried to prove to me.

I think this is a topic worthy of its own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemi and Seminary: Are you saying that someone who is baptized in another religion, and lives that religion all their life, will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, is rejecting celestial laws, and is not giving their sins over to Christ?

While the church does teach that eventually everyone will recieve a witness of the truthfulness of the gospel as taught by the LDS church, it certainly doesn't exclude others from other religions. I remember a talk given by Elder Oaks (general conference, or Ensign? I'll look it up), where he said that Mormon's will not be the only ones in heaven (of course, I'm sure he meant that the good people of the earth would convert eventually).

Still, I think it is very disrespectful to go to a family member's baptism into another faith and immediately afterward tell them they are going to have to do it again in the Mormon church if they want it to really count. Who would actually say that?

And so it should be with marriage. We celebrate marriages all the time that take place outside of the temple (even if secretly wishing they were inside of the temple). If you have no respect for the institution of marriage outside of the temple, just as you have said you don't for baptisms outside of the church, then why does it matter if gay people are able to participate in a lower, dissaproved, unsaving, non-ordinance anyway?

Dravin put a lot of effort discussing with me the reasons why a marriage outside of the temple is still important, but if that ordinance is compared to the ordinance of baptism as outlined here, you both just undid everything he tried to prove to me.

It's not my place to judge anyone and I wouldn't attempt to do so because I can't possibly know what that individual has learned in their life and what opportunities have been passed by, God will sort all that out afterward. Likewise, you also cannot judge whether a person who has chosen a lesser course has done so out of ignorance or specific decision, rejecting the higher law. All we can speak about is the fact that there are differences in the temporal and eternal value of temple marriage versus marriage outside the temple. Or, do you disagree with that? Also, there are differences in the value of being baptized through Priesthood authority versus a baptism without Priesthood authority. I have never said there is no value to ceremonies that are not part of covenants made through Priesthood power. I have only said that the value is less than those covenants made through Priesthood authority.

To try to equate them, in other words to support them as if they are equal, is not something an active LDS member should do. Because it goes against our belief that there is something of value in making covenants with God through Priesthood power.

We are in the business of lifting people up. Lifting people up is not done by lowering ourselves and our standards or minimizing our beliefs but by helping others to come to a higher understanding, even if it takes a few steps to get there, that is okay. I also would not help lift someone up by agreeing that that is as far as they can possibly go when they haven't gone far enough. As I have stated before, it has to be done through patience and love but to simply settle for something less is not love in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seminary: Thank you very much. I think your response was very good. But now my question to you is this: Even if you disagree and believe they are not equal, just as you would place "something of value" making covenants outside of the priesthood authority, do you see the same value to gay people in regards to gay marriage? Not that you would change your defense of marriage, or your beliefs regarding marriage...

If you at least SEE why this is important to us, then that is all I can really ask :). I started a new thread on this subject, so we should probably get back to the OP...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share