Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

[Guest]

From now on we should just suggest that people not speed, ask them nicely to abide by traffic rules, and if they don't mind our business. Nevermind how society may suffer for it.

[PrinceofLight2000]

From now on we should just suggest that people not speed, ask them nicely to abide by traffic rules, and if they don't mind our business. Nevermind how society may suffer for it.

You just blatantly ignored pretty much everything I've said so far. Laws that protect us from each other ought to be enforced by the government. All other spiritual laws ought to be enforced by God.

[Dravin]

The point there was to illustrate the abject lack of necessity of the former when the latter can be accomplished whether the former takes place or not, not to declare the two mutually exclusive.

Asking which is better, A or B, is a curious way to point out that B can occur without A. I'll take your word for it, but I'd reconsider using that particular way of making that particular point in the future.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Asking which is better, A or B, is a curious way to point out that B can occur without A.

You missed my edit.

[Guest]

You just blatantly ignored pretty much everything I've said so far. Laws that protect us from each other ought to be enforced by the government. All other spiritual laws ought to be enforced by God.

You're operating on the assumption that none of us will be affected by the change of the definition of marriage. I disagree. So no, I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not agreeing with you. There are many reasons that we should protect marriage, which have been laid out in detail in any of a million threads on the topic. The primary one for me being that I believe in the authority of modern prophets. You clearly don't, so you'll find that your idealistic arguments which ignore their counsel and warnings won't get you far here.

[Dravin]

You missed my edit.

It doesn't change my response as you maintain the point of your phrasing. I responded because of how I perceived you were going about making your point, not out of particular interest in your overall point. In short, while skimming my logical fallacy-dar pinged. I take you at your word that you weren't meaning to present a false dichotomy. *shrug*

[PrinceofLight2000]

You're operating on the assumption that none of us will be affected by the change of the definition of marriage.

Does the definition of marriage actually change just because the government says so?

I disagree. So no, I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not agreeing with you. There are many reasons that we should protect marriage, which have been laid out in detail in any of a million threads on the topic. The primary one for me being that I believe in the authority of modern prophets. You clearly don't, so you'll find that your idealistic arguments which ignore their counsel and warnings won't get you far here.

Well, if this isn't incredibly offensive then I don't know what is. The idea that making a sin criminally punishable will somehow make others understand the spiritual significance of the sin is a joke. If that actually happened, prisons everywhere would be cranking out fresh converts, but instead we have to teach the truth to them just as much. Your ideas, while well intended, are completely misdirected and futile. I place my trust in the prophets, but not in your methods. And we can agree to disagree on that note. Edited December 29, 2013 by PrinceofLight2000

[Just_A_Guy]

Then nothing more can be done, whether the former is included or not. This is how agency works.

I'm a little confused with all the "formers" and "latters", but if you're saying that as a general principle penal sanction doesn't prepare a person to be taught the error of their ways--I heartily disagree; and I suspect Prisonchaplain may have a bit more to contribute in that regard. Rehabilitation is one of the major philosophical rationales for incarceration.

I'm not responsible for other people's motivations.

I submit that a person who hops onto a bandwagon, deceiving him/herself into thinking "I will only go so far and no further", knowing very well that the driver of the wagon in fact does intend to go further and that the driver is using that person's support to move towards that goal, is very much responsible for what happens.

But that's probably a bit of a threadjack at this point, so I'll let it lie unless you want to open a separate thread on that issue.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I'm a little confused with all the "formers" and "latters", but if you're saying that as a general principle penal sanction doesn't prepare a person to be taught the error of their ways--I heartily disagree; and I suspect Prisonchaplain may have a bit more to contribute in that regard. Rehabilitation is one of the major philosophical rationales for incarceration.

I think it can, but it doesn't do so by its own merit. Either way they'll still have to be rehabilitated, behind bars or otherwise. Putting someone behind bars is only really appropriate if they're a threat to the safety of others or their property, anyway, in which case they would need to be tangibly confined away from others.

I submit that a person who hops onto a bandwagon, deceiving him/herself into thinking "I will only go so far and no further", knowing very well that the driver of the wagon in fact does intend to go further and that the driver is using that person's support to move towards that goal, is very much responsible for what happens.

But that's probably a bit of a threadjack at this point, so I'll let it lie unless you want to open a separate thread on that issue.

With that contrast then perhaps I am in a faction that is neither here nor there, since I have my own motivations that apparently go by separate reasoning.

Food for thought: If I'm getting a ride in a wagon free of charge and not pushing it, what support am I giving to the driver? Mooching is GREAT!

Edited December 29, 2013 by PrinceofLight2000

[Guest]

The idea that making a sin criminally punishable will somehow make others understand the spiritual significance of the sin is a joke.

Well good thing I never said anything even resembling that.

[Just_A_Guy]

Food for thought: If I'm getting a ride in a wagon free of charge and not pushing it, what support am I giving to the driver? Mooching is GREAT!

Dude, I'm biting my tongue to avoid making the "even-Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time" argument. Don't MAKE me go all Godwin on you!

[PrinceofLight2000]

dude, i'm biting my tongue to avoid making the "even-mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time" argument. Don't make me go all godwin on you!

do it do it do it

[Guest]

Prince, could you tell me how you interpret these paragraphs, and how you believe they should be applied?

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

[Vort]

Can you think of any time in the scriptures that God took away agency and forced people to live righteously?

Can you think of any time throughout all recorded history when any government took away agency and forced people to live righteously?

Even once?

Nope. Not possible. God gave each of us his/her agency, and only God (or each of us individually) can destroy it.

So why do you keep bringing up agency?

[Swiper]

Dude, I'm biting my tongue to avoid making the "even-Mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time" argument. Don't MAKE me go all Godwin on you!

Godwin's Law only applies to Hitler and the Nazis, not Mussolini and the Fascists.

[Still_Small_Voice]

These are my thoughts on the possible future and I hope they never come to pass. I think in the future if homosexuals are demanding entrance to the churches and temples to marry that the church will simply stop all marriages being performed in the temples and churches in the United States. If a couple wishes to be sealed or married in the temple they will have to go to another country to have the ordinance work done. I think the baptisms and endowment and other ordinances will continue in the House of the LORD uninterrupted.

May what I have said above never come to pass but unless these laws are overturned I think we will see it within ten years.

[LittleWyvern]

These are my thoughts on the possible future and I hope they never come to pass. I think in the future if homosexuals are demanding entrance to the churches and temples to marry that the church will simply stop all marriages being performed in the temples and churches in the United States. If a couple wishes to be sealed or married in the temple they will have to go to another country to have the ordinance work done. I think the baptisms and endowment and other ordinances will continue in the House of the LORD uninterrupted.

This would really only happen if our temple marriages are also civil marriages. If we simply made our temple marriages only sealings and not legitimized by the state, they would be completely immune to the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process per the religious exemptions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (plus, the idea of trying to apply non-discrimination laws to purely religious ceremonies is just silly).

Another interesting thing about the way the courts are using the "civil marriage as a state service" philosophy is that the difference between same-sex civil unions (which the Church generally supports) and same-sex civil marriages (which the Church generally does not support) is becoming smaller by the minute.

Edited December 31, 2013 by LittleWyvern
bbcode fix

[carlimac]

These are my thoughts on the possible future and I hope they never come to pass. I think in the future if homosexuals are demanding entrance to the churches and temples to marry that the church will simply stop all marriages being performed in the temples and churches in the United States. If a couple wishes to be sealed or married in the temple they will have to go to another country to have the ordinance work done. I think the baptisms and endowment and other ordinances will continue in the House of the LORD uninterrupted.

May what I have said above never come to pass but unless these laws are overturned I think we will see it within ten years.

Just wondering why swiper finds this funny?

[Still_Small_Voice]

This would really only happen if our temple marriages are also civil marriages. If we simply made our temple marriages only sealings and not legitimized by the state, they would be completely immune to the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process per the religious exemptions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (plus, the idea of trying to apply non-discrimination laws to purely religious ceremonies is just silly).

Another interesting thing about the way the courts are using the "civil marriage as a state service" philosophy is that the difference between same-sex civil unions (which the Church generally supports) and same-sex civil marriages (which the Church generally does not support) is becoming smaller by the minute.

I hope this is one way we can keep what is left of our religious liberties in the future. But in my opinion I see some authorities bent on forcing their beliefs on marriage upon everyone and calling those that disagree bigots.

We need to pray for what is left of our liberties and that the LORD will uphold our freedom of speech and religion.

[Swiper]

Just wondering why swiper finds this funny?

Because the whole scenario is not a reasonable fear.

[Still_Small_Voice]

Have you read the below stories Swiper? These people are in a vice because they simply do not wish to take pictures, bake a wedding cake or host a reception for homosexual weddings. There are other stories as well I have seen of people having their First Amendment rights violated regarding their beliefs with homosexual weddings.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. He is under a court order to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding.

Denver's Masterpiece Cakeshop Turns Down Gay Couple Because of Religious Beliefs

Vermont inn that was sued when it refused to host a lesbian couple's wedding reception

Vermont Inn Settles Lawsuit over Lesbian Marriage

Elaine Huguenin sued for not taking pictures of a wedding

Photographer Elaine Huguenin Takes Religious Freedom Fight To Supreme Court After Being Sued For Refusing To Take Photos Of Gay Commitment Ceremony

[Just_A_Guy]

This would really only happen if our temple marriages are also civil marriages. If we simply made our temple marriages only sealings and not legitimized by the state, they would be completely immune to the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process per the religious exemptions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (plus, the idea of trying to apply non-discrimination laws to purely religious ceremonies is just silly).

Bob Jones University would beg to differ.

Another interesting thing about the way the courts are using the "civil marriage as a state service" philosophy is that the difference between same-sex civil unions (which the Church generally supports) and same-sex civil marriages (which the Church generally does not support) is becoming smaller by the minute.

Well, and the fact that we are rapidly moving towards a regimen where religions that take a traditional view of marriage can be prevented from having those marriages be recognized by the state; whereas religions that take a non traditional view keep their state-sanctioned perks.

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

[bytor2112]

Another interesting thing about the way the courts are using the "civil marriage as a state service" philosophy is that the difference between same-sex civil unions (which the Church generally supports) and same-sex civil marriages (which the Church generally does not support) is becoming smaller by the minute.

Very misleading and dishonest comment LW. The church may not seek to stop ss civil unions, stating that they generally support them is a huge stretch. There is no support of any type of same sex union as it is all a sin whether it is called a civil union or a marriage. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact that it is still a pig....

Edited December 31, 2013 by bytor2112

[LittleWyvern]

Bob Jones University would beg to differ.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. The most relevant thing I could find was a supreme court case where Bob Jones University argued that they were allowed to discriminate in college admissions and not allow unmarried black students or those in an interracial marriage to apply because it was their religious belief (or something like that, I'm not even sure if I'm on the right track). If you don't see a difference between religious ceremonies and college admissions, then I have nothing more to say.

Very misleading and dishonest comment LW. The church may not seek to stop ss civil unions, stating that they generally support them is a huge stretch. There is no support of any type of same sex union as it is all a sin whether it is called a civil union or a marriage. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change the fact that it is still a pig....

I was referring to this statement:

the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

...which is generally what civil unions are, but I suppose I should have said "not object" instead of "support."

(insert non-relevant Sarah Palin joke here)

[Swiper]

Have you read the below stories Swiper? These people are in a vice because they simply do not wish to take pictures, bake a wedding cake or host a reception for homosexual weddings.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Those stories are from businesses and not religious organizations. Businesses does not have the same right as churches to discriminate against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

A more relevant question would be: Has any church in the United States ever been forced to perform an interracial marriage ceremony? As far as I know the answer is: No. Same thing will happen to gay marriage. The LDS church will not be forced by law to perform same-sex marriages in its chapels and temples.