Same sex marriage support

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Libertarian-ism is one step removed from anarchy, imho. If the government doesn't exist to control, at some level, the morality of it's people, then what good is government?

A libertarian government would control -- at some level -- the morality of its people.  The brief explanation of the "libertarian morality" is this:

Quote

The golden rule maturely applied to the morality of a child.

A child instinctively knows just a few things that it does not like to happen to him: He doesn't like being physically harmed.  He doesn't like being restrained or restricted.  He doesn't like having his stuff molested, removed, or restricted.

The mature adult understands this and recognized the need to preserve these rights.  And by applying the golden rule, we find that there are natural restrictions that should be enforced.  You don't like being harmed, so don't harm others.  If you do, then there is a punishment...

This is the level of morality that a government is supposed to enforce.

Beyond that, there is a spectrum of libertarians.  Some actually say that anarchy is better than any level of government.  Others say there is a minimum level of government required to protect these rights (to this end, governments are instituted among men).  

The Constitution, however, does give our system just a bit more power than that.  We tried the Articles.  But that failed.  Moses smashed the plates.  We got the Constitution.  It's pretty good.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, Mike said:

My opinion is that you are mistaken when you say that supporting same sex marriage while being an endowed member is breaking the covenant. Want to get real specific and see whether we can agree about what each of us means when we use the word 'support' in the context of gay marriage? Maybe we can come to mutually satisfying place.

 

In my opinion one who supports same sex marriage supports the destruction of the family and mocks God by supporting an immoral practice that is in opposition to everything God stands for. One cannot possibly be a true disciple of Christ who openly support a practice that if left unrepented will lead one to hell. And Im not sorry for being so blunt. Same sex marriage is a gross abomination in the sight of the Lord and those who support or practice this abomination will have to go through hell and repent to be redeemed if they do not repent now.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't always agree with @Rob Osborn, but when I do....well....I think something small and cute dies in outer Mongolia.

[anatess2]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which is why I said one step removed from anarchy, rather than just calling it anarchy.

Okay.

It gives it an unnecessarily negative connotation unless you're talking about Ghandi's anarchy.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, anatess2 said:

It gives it an unnecessarily negative connotation...

That, frankly, would be considered highly offensive to many an anarchist.

And, also...yeah...that was the point. Except the "unnecessarily" thing. I consider the exposing of wrong-headedness (relatively) necessary.

[Mike]

27 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

In my opinion one who supports same sex marriage supports the destruction of the family and mocks God by supporting an immoral practice that is in opposition to everything God stands for. One cannot possibly be a true disciple of Christ who openly support a practice that if left unrepented will lead one to hell. And Im not sorry for being so blunt. Same sex marriage is a gross abomination in the sight of the Lord and those who support or practice this abomination will have to go through hell and repent to be redeemed if they do not repent now.

And I appreciate your opinion. I perceive that putting it out here is your objective, and I think it is probably not productive to ask for what I asked.

 

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That, frankly, would be considered highly offensive to many an anarchist.

And, also...yeah...that was the point. Except the "unnecessarily" thing. I consider the exposing of wrong-headedness (relatively) necessary.

Sigh.

This is the problem with politics in the USA.  They have their own version of what political ideologies mean so that - things like Liberalism becomes bad, Libertarianism becomes bad, Socialism is always bad, even anarchy is always bad.

Each of these ideologies is not necessarily bad.  Each of these ideologies have their own uses in society.  For example, anarchy was GOOD when used by Ghandi to correct the system in India.

In the USA today, Libertarianism is currently NECESSARY to correct the rapid expansion of government on both the Liberal and Conservative sides - the two major political ideologies wrestling in government.  Liberalism is supposed to be for small government, Conservatism is supposed to be for small government but both of those things are using government expansion to win their sides.  Libertarianism - even in social politics - can correct those warring factions.

As proven in any part of society in any era, every single political ideology is flawed.  It needs to be counter-balanced by an opposing ideology to remain viable.  Hence, the beauty of the American Constitution.

Edited August 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

perhaps that idea of Bishop Gator is not really all that far off?

Next person who says "Bishop Gator" in any way, shape or form is going to become Gator bait. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Next person who says "Bishop Gator" in any way, shape or form is going to become Gator bait. 

Stake President Gator

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Stake President Gator

Better stay out of the swamp pal. 

[Guest MormonGator]

44 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

In my opinion one who supports same sex marriage supports the destruction of the family and mocks God by supporting an immoral practice that is in opposition to everything God stands for. One cannot possibly be a true disciple of Christ who openly support a practice that if left unrepented will lead one to hell. And Im not sorry for being so blunt. Same sex marriage is a gross abomination in the sight of the Lord and those who support or practice this abomination will have to go through hell and repent to be redeemed if they do not repent now.

Guess that does me in. Eh, it's been a good run. 

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Libertarian-ism is one step removed from anarchy, imho. If the government doesn't exist to control, at some level, the morality of it's people, then what good is government?

The government shouldn't control the morality of its people.  It exists to protect individual liberty.   God gave us free agency.

[The Folk Prophet]

53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is the problem with politics in the USA. 

I don't do politics.

53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

things like Liberalism becomes bad,

I don't believe this.

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Libertarianism becomes bad

I said "wrong-headed", not bad.

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Socialism is always bad

Well...yes.

55 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

even anarchy is always bad.

I don't believe this.

55 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

In the USA today, Libertarianism is currently NECESSARY to correct the rapid expansion of government on both the Liberal and Conservative sides - the two major political ideologies wrestling in government.  Liberalism is supposed to be for small government, Conservatism is supposed to be for small government but both of those things are using government expansion to win their sides.  Libertarianism - even in social politics - can correct those warring factions.

You're the one using the wrong terms to mean the wrong things now. "The left" is not liberal and "the right" is not conservative -- not any more.

But a third wrong doesn't make a right either.

My honest political philosophy -- we're doomed.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

The government shouldn't control the morality of its people.  It exists to protect individual liberty.  

Encroaching upon individual liberty is a moral issue.

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

God gave us free agency.

And......?

[Grunt]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Encroaching upon individual liberty is a moral issue.

And......?

 

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Encroaching upon individual liberty is a moral issue.

And......?

Is it a moral issue?  Maybe I'm just unsure what your definition of moral is.

 

And what?  God gave us free agency but you're going to take it away?  

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

The government shouldn't control the morality of its people.  It exists to protect individual liberty.   God gave us free agency.

Exactly. If you think the government can force you to be virtuous you don't really understand how governments work.  

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Is it a moral issue?  Maybe I'm just unsure what your definition of moral is.

Taking away liberties -- as in thievery, assault, and murder etc.,.... How can you not see these as moral issues?

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

And what?  God gave us free agency but you're going to take it away?  

Yes. I am going to take away your right to murder me.

[Grunt]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Taking away liberties -- as in thievery, assault, and murder etc.,.... How can you not see these as moral issues?

Those all offend the individual liberty of another.  That is what the government is there to protect me from.  Your ability to harm me.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Grunt

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Those all offend the individual liberty of another.  That is what the government is there to protect me from.  Your ability to harm me.

Remember, the government can't "protect" you either. It can only punish the evil doer after the incident. Speeding is the best example. It's illegal, and the government forbids it. However, that alone can't stop you from speeding. 

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Remember, the government can't "protect" you either. It can only punish the evil doer after the incident. Speeding is the best example. It's illegal, and the government forbids it. However, that alone can't stop you from speeding. 

Correct.  By "protect" I better mean enslavement, confiscation of property, and the general civil liberties that are actually far fewer than people think.  Other than that, I'd like them to not prevent me from protecting myself.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Correct.  By "protect" I better mean enslavement, confiscation of property, and the general civil liberties that are actually far fewer than people think.  Other than that, I'd like them to not prevent me from protecting myself.

That inherent flaw in conservatism is that conservatives dislike government power and government telling people what to do-unless government tells people who they can marry, what they can consume, what they can watch on television...so conservatives are actually very much in favor of government.  

[Grunt]

Just now, MormonGator said:

That inherent flaw in conservatism is that conservatives dislike government power and government telling people what to do-unless government tells people who they can marry, what they can consume, what they can watch on television...so conservatives are actually very much in favor of government.  

Conservatives love big government.  Just different branches of it.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Grunt said:

Conservatives love big government.  Just different branches of it.

Yup. I was so naive in my younger days. I actually thought conservatives were in favor of small government and liberals were actually tolerant!

[MrShorty]

38 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Is it a moral issue?

I think, as some of TFP's examples show, it is less about the yes/no "is X a moral issue?" question, and more about which moral issues should government enforce by legislation.

Perhaps a completely different example. I think most of us would agree that scripture imposes a moral imperative to help the poor. I also expect that most of us in this community would agree that government should NOT be the institution that enforces that moral imperative.

This is part of why I think the answer to the OP -- if "support" is a political kind of support -- is yes. The Church is not here to tell us how to do government. It is here to tell us what is morally right and wrong and then we mold our government as we see fit (assuming we are in some kind of western democracy where we the people can influence government).

Perhaps a different example. I liked the example given of a Hawaiian ward in this piece (http://religionnews.com/2017/06/13/married-gay-mormons-try-to-stay-lds-part-1/ ) about a gay couple on their last Sunday in Hawaii before moving to the mainland. Is it appropriate to give lei and well wishes and such to a gay couple at church, or is that "supporting" same sex marriage?