rameumptom Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 For centuries, traditional marriage was solely a religious institution. Government got into the picture, because it just cannot stand to have something being awesome without them regulating it. Anyone required to have a blood test before getting married? I did. I still wonder why the government should force me to get a blood test, just so I can make eternal vows to the woman I love. Marital contracts were done for a long time prior to government involvement. The only part government had was to log the marriage and contract into their log books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Expecting an external source to force a mandate upon its citizens - no matter how righteous or good was intended, to "compel righteousness"... wouldn't that look a lot like Satan's plan?No, we cannot rely on Satan's methods to make other people good. They must have their own change of heart. Erm . . . Satan's plan was to save everyone by "destroying agency". The scriptures are silent as to exactly how this could work. There is no scriptural reason why Satan couldn't have been proposing to eliminate law (or save all men regardless of their compliance thereto), as opposed to the more traditional notion of somehow "forcing people to do good". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy740 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 What "right to life" is that? Whence does it derive? If it derives from statute, it is subject to change at the next legislative session. If it derives from the needs of society, it is subject to change as social needs change. If it derives because it is philosophically immoral to arbitrarily end someone else's life--oops! Well, hang on a second. Those contracts exist to achieve a particular purpose. Government does not have to offer a contract to a party on nondiscrimination grounds, if offering that contract would undermine the purposes for which the contract is being offered. For example, the Army can refuse to hire a soldier whose religious beliefs require pacifism at all costs--even though such refusal is pretty blatant religious discrimination (fighting wars). The CIA does not have to hire an intelligence agent who is a loyal subject of Kim Jong Un, even though such a refusal would be otherwise-illegal national origin discrimination--again, because doing so would undermine the purposes for which that employment is being offered (national security). The million-dollar question is, what is government trying to accomplish by paying people who claim they are in a monogamous sexual relationship? Last I checked, it's been a long time since there was a draft. Therefore, in order for the Army to hire a soldier, that person has to APPLY to join the Army. There is no force here. The CIA would not hire someone who has allegiances to another country. You are talking about contracts where there is a considerable and material conflict of interest against the employer. This does not apply.The contract that marriage is (regardless of hetero or same-sex) are for two people who wish to willingly enter into that contract. Who are we to interfere with such a contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy740 Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Erm . . . Satan's plan was to save everyone by "destroying agency". The scriptures are silent as to exactly how this could work. There is no scriptural reason why Satan couldn't have been proposing to eliminate law (or save all men regardless of their compliance thereto), as opposed to the more traditional notion of somehow "forcing people to do good". True. I once heard one idea where Satan's plan would simply remove all of our logic and reasoning... and all our decisions would be made by instinct alone... just like animals, and avoiding the idea of learning anything. In either case, either decisions are made FOR man... or man becomes INCAPABLE of making such decision. In either case, free agency does not exist. Just_A_Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Last I checked, it's been a long time since there was a draft. Therefore, in order for the Army to hire a soldier, that person has to APPLY to join the Army. There is no force here. The CIA would not hire someone who has allegiances to another country. Right . . . and a person has to APPLY to get married. In the Army's case--they are free to refuse to offer an employment contract to a person who wants the pay and the travel and the VA bennies but is unwilling to help the army attain its goals in wartime. There's no force in denying gay marriage, either--it's simply a matter of "thanks, but we don't need your participation to obtain the objectives we were trying to achieve when we made the contract available". You are talking about contracts where there is a considerable and material conflict of interest against the employer. This does not apply. They are extreme examples, yes; but the principle still holds true at any level. If the National Park Service wants to hire some tree surgeons to prune out some old growth, and I apply for one of those positions even though I am a quadruple amputee and can't get out of bed (let alone up a tree), the NPS is free to say "JAG, we appreciate your enthusiasm; but the simple fact is you can't do what we need done. So, no, we're not going to give you this employment contract." If the purpose of marriage is that the state wants to create a framework whereunder children can be raised in a stable environment--by their biological parents, wherever possible--then gay couples (who cannot have a child, except by ripping that child from its biologcal mother or father) simply aren't going to accomplish what the government seeks to accomplish by making marriage available. If the purpose of marriage has nothing to do with children, and is merely to make people feel good about their choice of a sexual partner and believe they have a better than 50/50 chance of spending the rest of their lives with that person--why the #$% should government be involved in that at all, let alone subsidizing it with tax dollars? If the purpose of marriage is that the state wants to create a framework whereunder children can be raised in a stable environment--but the state doesn't really give three straws whether those kids are actually growing up with their biological parents or not: Well, I suggest you read Brave New World (or, Plato's Republic), and then do some research about what happened to four-hundred-odd FLDS kids a couple years ago because their parents were just a little too conservative to be socially acceptable. And, be afraid. Be very, very afraid. The contract that marriage is (regardless of hetero or same-sex) are for two people who wish to willingly enter into that contract. Who are we to interfere with such a contract? This statement seems to want to have its cake and eat it, too--marriage is public enough that government has to offer it to everybody; but private enough that it's none of our business whether government offers it or not. But that's not how things work in a government that pretends to be answerable to the people--we do get to look at government policies occasionally and ask whether those policies are advancing the causes we think should be advanced. If we want to privatize marriage--let's privatize marriage. But until then, it seems incongruous to play the "nonya bizness" card. Edited July 2, 2015 by Just_A_Guy Syme 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 Seen on Twitter: Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 False. This SCOTUS decision tells us that marriage is not an issue for ANY government. It could be seen as the deregulation of civil marriage.If this were the case they would have told states to get out of the marriage business (which I would support); they did not do that. This isn't deregulation of marriage, it is re-regulation of marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 A tad off subject...sort of... Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churches (in SLC of all places) "Among the changes to church laws on marriage, gender-specific language will be dropped. "Husband" and "wife" will be replaced with "the couple."" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) A tad off subject...sort of...Episcopalians vote to allow gay marriage in churches (in SLC of all places) "Among the changes to church laws on marriage, gender-specific language will be dropped. "Husband" and "wife" will be replaced with "the couple."" Wow. The Episcopal bishop up in New Hampshire is homosexual, he was elected way back in the early 2000s. I don't know if he still is the current bishop Edited July 2, 2015 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 True. I once heard one idea where Satan's plan would simply remove all of our logic and reasoning... and all our decisions would be made by instinct alone... just like animals, and avoiding the idea of learning anything. In either case, either decisions are made FOR man... or man becomes INCAPABLE of making such decision. In either case, free agency does not exist. But these two options ignore the other half of what agency is. Accountability. You don't have to remove choice to remove agency. You can also remove accountability. Now, doesn't that sound more appealing than the two options you mention? Is there any reason to suppose that 1/3 part of heaven followed Satan based on the promise of being made either slaves or stupid? Particularly as compared to a promise that whatever they chose they would simply not be accountable? Josiah and Just_A_Guy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finrock Posted July 2, 2015 Report Share Posted July 2, 2015 But these two options ignore the other half of what agency is. Accountability. You don't have to remove choice to remove agency. You can also remove accountability. Now, doesn't that sound more appealing than the two options you mention? Is there any reason to suppose that 1/3 part of heaven followed Satan based on the promise of being made either slaves or stupid? Particularly as compared to a promise that whatever they chose they would simply not be accountable? Hi The Folk Prophet! I hope you've been well. :) You make a good point. I think that Satan's desire was to be a "savior" that would save people in their sins as opposed to saving people from their sins. This is certainly appealing to the carnal man. Ultimately the decision to legalize same-sex marriage is related and connected to the law of chastity. It is also related and connected to the idea of whether there is a God. Take away the rhetoric and what you have is a situation where the government is being used to take away the shame and guilt of something that is against the principles of happiness. People suppose that if they can get the crowd to normalize their sexually deviant behavior that this will take away the accountability. To commit sin and to not be bothered by it requires abandoning God's laws and you must ignore reality. -Finrock skippy740 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.