Respect for Marriage Act


The Folk Prophet
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I can't allow a statement like this to stand without a response. @Godless you are completely wrong to discount the power and effectiveness of faithful, sincere, humble prayer. Having said that, I do enjoy your posts and often see them as helpful and thought provoking alternative views point on this forum.

I'm not sure what @Godless is saying is even relevant to the power or effectiveness of prayer. Saying "pray about it" isn't supportive of gayness or atheism. What I find confusing is the discussion of "support" without qualifying it. Support of what? Even in @Just_A_Guy's comment that Godless replied to, he says, "Watch their support systems dwindle". But I ask again...support of what? It's not even clear there what's being spoken of. Then Godless replies and mentions how comments about prayer are not supportive...but seems to also disregard that "of what" question again.

It seems like when people are talking about support but not specifying the "of what" question that they're talking past each other. The religious person is interested in being supportive of people's eternal well being, and not their 'sinful' lifestyle. The gay or trans (or atheist, in Godless's case) is interested in having support for their lifestyle, and not support in what they no longer believe. Those two philosophies can't co-mingle. The religious person gets put in a position of having to choose between supporting the one or the other. It's impossible to support what you believe to be requisite to the salvation of one's soul while at the same time being supportive of what you believe is damning to one's soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I can't allow a statement like this to stand without a response. @Godless you are completely wrong to discount the power and effectiveness of faithful, sincere, humble prayer. Having said that, I do enjoy your posts and often see them as helpful and thought provoking alternative views point on this forum.

Telling an irreligious person to pray in times of strife is tantamount to someone telling an LDS person to carry around crystals that have been charged with moon water. Imagine hearing that regularly from loved ones. It gets old.

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What I find confusing is the discussion of "support" without qualifying it. Support of what? Even in @Just_A_Guy's comment that Godless replied to, he says, "Watch their support systems dwindle". But I ask again...support of what? It's not even clear there what's being spoken of. Then Godless replies and mentions how comments about prayer are not supportive...but seems to also disregard that "of what" question again.

It seems like when people are talking about support but not specifying the "of what" question that they're talking past each other. The religious person is interested in being supportive of people's eternal well being, and not their 'sinful' lifestyle. The gay or trans (or atheist, in Godless's case) is interested in having support for their lifestyle, and not support in what they no longer believe. Those two philosophies can't co-mingle. The religious person gets put in a position of having to choose between supporting the one or the other. It's impossible to support what you believe to be requisite to the salvation of one's soul while at the same time being supportive of what you believe is damning to one's soul.

Respect for boundaries is a good start, and it goes both ways. My parents don't send missionaries to my house and I don't cuss or talk bad about religion around them. I have no doubt that they still pray for my spiritual well-being in private, and I take no issue with that. Once these boundaries were established, we eventually found ways to be closer with each other as a family, and I can't stress enough that they've been immensely helpful and supportive during the difficulties that I've gone through recently, and they've done it without invoking religion. 

I think that's all most LGBTQ people want: a family that respects their life choices even if they don't agree with them, and who can be depended upon for love and emotional support without religious strings attached. The catch is that they (the LGBTQ family member) also needs to respect the lifestyles of their religious family members, and sometimes that's just as hard as it is for religious people to not invoke God and church to loved ones who are going through rough times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Godless said:

Respect for boundaries is a good start, and it goes both ways. My parents don't send missionaries to my house and I don't cuss or talk bad about religion around them.

Sure. But, once again, that's not really "supportive". It's just pretending. Which is fine. I'm not saying one can't do that. It's a bit dishonest...but for the sake of civility and whatnot, sure... Don't do things that offend others even if you don't think it shouldn't be offensive.

29 minutes ago, Godless said:

Once these boundaries were established, we eventually found ways to be closer with each other as a family, and I can't stress enough that they've been immensely helpful and supportive during the difficulties that I've gone through recently, and they've done it without invoking religion. 

Sure. And that's great. But..... from a person's perspective who believes in God and salvation, the help and support and closeness as a family and all that is all purposeless if it doesn't lead to salvation. As Christ taught, "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

The objective, for the religious minded, is the salvation of souls. Getting along is only truly meaningful in that it allows for the potential opportunity for redemption, and in that it related to a person's own Christ-like character in how they treat others. It's not to make an atheist comfortable in their atheism -- and definitely not to support them in their atheism.

29 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think that's all most LGBTQ people want: a family that respects their life choices even if they don't agree with them, and who can be depended upon for love and emotional support without religious strings attached.

Sure. But it's unrealistic to expect someone to respect something that they don't respect. And it's the same thing here...we can act respectfully without having respect for. And that's really all that's happening. Which is fine I suppose...as long as respectful behavior (per the religious thinking) leads to salvation opportunities that otherwise might be closed off.

29 minutes ago, Godless said:

The catch is that they (the LGBTQ family member) also needs to respect the lifestyles of their religious family members, and sometimes that's just as hard as it is for religious people to not invoke God and church to loved ones who are going through rough times.

But, I'll re-iterate, showing respect is different than having respect for. I allow others to choose to think what they think of swearing, smoking, drinking, sex, God, etc. But that doesn't mean I want them coming into my home and swearing, smoking, drinking, expressing sexuality in an offensive way, criticizing God, etc.

I understand you're point is that needs to go both ways. Though I'd argue there's a difference. If you don't believe in God or heaven then it doesn't hurt your loved ones to believe in such things because we're all just worm food. But if there is a God and heaven then an atheist's refusal to believe does hurt them eternally. That's a tough call to make when it comes to keeping the God talk out of any conversation with a loved one who doesn't believe. A very tough call.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On a semi-topical note, I recently saw the below on Twitter and thought it worth quoting:

1. Convince gays to kick people out of their lives if they’re religiously orthodox

2. Watch their support systems dwindle

[JAG adds] 2.5.  Replace those support systems with an LGBTQ “community” that values the individual, first and foremost, as a vessel for and object of sexual desire

3. Witness them becoming isolated, lonely, and resentful

4. Put full blame on religious people

Oh boy can I see that actually happening in some circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

The catch is that they (the LGBTQ family member) also needs to respect the lifestyles of their religious family members, and sometimes that's just as hard as it is for religious people to not invoke God and church to loved ones who are going through rough times.

My experiences have been that the LGBTQ are unwilling to do this.  None that I have interacted with allow for this, so instead we just don't talk about the topic at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
36 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

My experiences have been that the LGBTQ are unwilling to do this.  None that I have interacted with allow for this, so instead we just don't talk about the topic at all.

It's a mixed bag, and the "Utah effect" may come into play. The Church is so prominent in Utah that a lot of apostates have a hard time letting go. I don't frequent online exmo sites anymore, but when I did it seemed like most of the angriest and most bitter apostates were Utah natives. My IRL experience with the Church, its members, and its former members is almost exclusively outside of Utah, and I just don't see the level of hostility towards the Church that you and JAG are describing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

It's a mixed bag, and the "Utah effect" may come into play. The Church is so prominent in Utah that a lot of apostates have a hard time letting go. I don't frequent online exmo sites anymore, but when I did it seemed like most of the angriest and most bitter apostates were Utah natives. My IRL experience with the Church, its members, and its former members is almost exclusively outside of Utah, and I just don't see the level of hostility towards the Church that you and JAG are describing.

I have lived both in and out of Utah.  You are correct in the hostility levels (in my experience) have been at vastly higher levels here in Utah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Godless said:

Telling an irreligious person to pray in times of strife is tantamount to someone telling an LDS person to carry around crystals that have been charged with moon water. Imagine hearing that regularly from loved ones. It gets old.

Respect for boundaries is a good start, and it goes both ways. My parents don't send missionaries to my house and I don't cuss or talk bad about religion around them. I have no doubt that they still pray for my spiritual well-being in private, and I take no issue with that. Once these boundaries were established, we eventually found ways to be closer with each other as a family, and I can't stress enough that they've been immensely helpful and supportive during the difficulties that I've gone through recently, and they've done it without invoking religion. 

I think that's all most LGBTQ people want: a family that respects their life choices even if they don't agree with them, and who can be depended upon for love and emotional support without religious strings attached. The catch is that they (the LGBTQ family member) also needs to respect the lifestyles of their religious family members, and sometimes that's just as hard as it is for religious people to not invoke God and church to loved ones who are going through rough times.

I’m genuinely curious of it’s common in real life for members of the LBTQ community and religious people to argue at dinner, in workplaces, at hobbies, etc. Don’t we all just mostly get along “offline” or have people here actually argued with their LGBT friends and family? 
 

Speaking from personal experience, a grand total of zero of my LGBT friends have brought up me being LDS. Even when I was posting about it and blogging about it daily. Absolutely no one cared. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
25 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m genuinely curious of it’s common in real life for members of the LBTQ community and religious people to argue at dinner, in workplaces, at hobbies, etc. Don’t we all just mostly get along “offline” or have people here actually argued with their LGBT friends and family? 
 

I don't have any LGBTQ family members, but if I did I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it from my MAGA grandfather. He's been quite vocal to my parents about his disapproval of my son's long hair, and you should have seen his face the last time I saw him when I told him my son was the only white kid in his kindergarten class. Luckily, and quite ironically, he lives in the southern tip of Texas and we don't have to see him in-person much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Godless said:

I don't have any LGBTQ family members, but if I did I'm sure we'd never hear the end of it from my MAGA grandfather. He's been quite vocal to my parents about his disapproval of my son's long hair, and you should have seen his face the last time I saw him when I told him my son was the only white kid in his kindergarten class. Luckily, and quite ironically, he lives in the southern tip of Texas and we don't have to see him in-person much.

I guess it’s just not my world. Sure, my family has people of all political stripes. Ironically I’m viewed as “hard right wing” because I believe in God and don’t think owning a gun makes you a psychopath-but in the end no one lets it get to a level of an argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me one of the biggest problems with the LGBTQ community as a whole is they have tied their sexuality in with their identity, indeed for many it has become their identity. And so you can't show them respect them as individuals with respecting their decisions and lifestyle. To members of the Church this is wholly incompatible to our view of who we are. So unless an individual is willing to separate their sexuality from their identity you are going to have some very strained relationships because communication will largely be misinterpreted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we're in the mood to pay attention to anecdotes right now, I have two to share:

- There's a transgender kid in my ward.  I don't really know this person, have no clue about story or pronouns or whatever.  But this person is always at sacrament meeting, sometimes studying scriptures.

- I have a gay BIL in Utah who is active and happy in the church.  Temple recommend and everything.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

- I have a gay Brother in law in Utah who is active and happy in the church.  Temple recommend and everything.

If your brother in law is not practicing homosexuality then he is not gay.  He likely has a same sex attraction that he controls and he lives his life like a saint if he is worthy to get a temple recommend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

If your brother in law is not practicing homosexuality then he is not gay.  He likely has a same sex attraction that he controls and he lives his life like a saint if he is worthy to get a temple recommend.

I would caution against assigning identity labels to people.  From the Church's Gospel Topics section on Same Sex Attraction

Quote

Same-sex attraction (SSA) refers to emotional, physical, romantic, or sexual attraction to a person of the same gender. If you experience same-sex attraction, you may or may not choose to use a sexual orientation label to describe yourself. Either way, same-sex attraction is a technical term describing the experience without imposing a label. This website uses this term to be inclusive of people who are not comfortable using a label, not to deny the existence of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity.  (emphasis mine, source)

And in the same topic under the section for individuals:

Quote

If one experiences same-sex attraction, he or she can choose whether to use a sexual identity label. Identifying oneself as gay or lesbian is not against Church policy or doctrine; however, it may have undesired consequences in the way one is treated. No true follower of Christ is justified in withholding love because you decide to identify in this way. (source)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2022 at 7:15 AM, laronius said:

I don't know if faith is the word I'd use, maybe political capital. Though I guess that does require some faith that the other side would honor it in the future.

But yeah, there's a time to stand on principle and there's a time to face reality. The Church has done about everything it could to put the brakes on gay marriage but in the end the courts overturned the voice of the people. Now with even the voice of the people on board same sex marriage isn't going away anytime soon. And the Church has decided to change the focus of their efforts from stopping it to learning to coexist with it. 

 

They said the same thing about Abortion.

I would support limited Abortion (not the free range it had become, but more of a medical doctor's provision to use as a tool as needed for the health of the mother...etc) far more than the Gay Marriage push and Transgender indoctrination on young children that we have today. 

I would have thought that the righteous in the nation would have fought far harder and quicker against that attack against our children than they have, instead they choose to go after abortion in it's totality. 

I believe in America and that it is a Republic built on freedom.  It is a nation where no one religion is the law, and where religion and government are separated.  Thus, one can have the beliefs they want without fear of persecution. 

Because of this...

I support the idea that those who believe in a manner can act in that manner as long as it does not harm others.  If one wants to practice polyandry and it does not hurt others in that relationship, I do not think they should be persecuted.  I felt the same way towards those that wanted to have homosexual relationships. 

However, when they started pushing indoctrination into children's films and such (and just recently Disney just released a children's film with a main factor of it being a child/teen/young adult pursuing a Gay relationship from what I understand) that IS NOT OKAY by me.  This is how you turn those who would support your freedoms to be those who are against allowing you to keep doing these things. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

They said the same thing about Abortion.

I would support limited Abortion (not the free range it had become, but more of a medical doctor's provision to use as a tool as needed for the health of the mother...etc) far more than the Gay Marriage push and Transgender indoctrination on young children that we have today. 

I would have thought that the righteous in the nation would have fought far harder and quicker against that attack against our children than they have, instead they choose to go after abortion in it's totality. 

I believe in America and that it is a Republic built on freedom.  It is a nation where no one religion is the law, and where religion and government are separated.  Thus, one can have the beliefs they want without fear of persecution. 

Because of this...

I support the idea that those who believe in a manner can act in that manner as long as it does not harm others.  If one wants to practice polyandry and it does not hurt others in that relationship, I do not think they should be persecuted.  I felt the same way towards those that wanted to have homosexual relationships. 

However, when they started pushing indoctrination into children's films and such (and just recently Disney just released a children's film with a main factor of it being a child/teen/young adult pursuing a Gay relationship from what I understand) that IS NOT OKAY by me.  This is how you turn those who would support your freedoms to be those who are against allowing you to keep doing these things. 

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

Alexander Pope

This is why as John Adams stated:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, laronius said:

This is why as John Adams stated:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Read up on the Alien and Sedition Acts, also the work of John Adams. I think most people here would agree that the Sedition Act in particular was unconstitutional and tyrannical.

Additionally, I would caution against treating the words of the Founders as absolute and infallible. Thomas Jefferson believed that debts and laws (including the Constitution) should be given a 19-year expiration date, upon which debts would be erased and the Constitution would be re-written, every 19 years. He believed that extending laws and debts any further than that would pass the debts and laws of one generation onto the next, something he considered a form of tyranny.

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Read up on the Alien and Sedition Acts, also the work of John Adams. I think most people here would agree that the Sedition Act in particular was unconstitutional and tyrannical.

Agree. It amazes me that someone who defended the British troops in the Boston massacre could be so wrong with that one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Godless said:

Read up on the Alien and Sedition Acts, also the work of John Adams. I think most people here would agree that the Sedition Act in particular was unconstitutional and tyrannical.

Additionally, I would caution against treating the words of the Founders as absolute and infallible. Thomas Jefferson believed that debts and laws (including the Constitution) should be given a 19-year expiration date, upon which debts would be erased and the Constitution would be re-written, every 19 years. He believed that extending laws and debts any further than that would pass the debts and laws of one generation onto the next, something he considered a form of tyranny.

Source

Just because I agree with something someone once said does not mean I agree with everything they ever said or did.

In this instance I agree because personal liberty puts the burden on us to exercise self control. Nowadays it seems that people equate legal with right and that is not always the case. A strong sense of personal morality is required to maintain freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laronius said:

Just because I agree with something someone once said does not mean I agree with everything they ever said or did.

In this instance I agree because personal liberty puts the burden on us to exercise self control. Nowadays it seems that people equate legal with right and that is not always the case. A strong sense of personal morality is required to maintain freedom.

Even if we presuppose agreement with Madison's statement ("Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."), what do you propose to do when religions disagree on points of faith?

Consider two religions--the first holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is an affront to God; the second holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is of equal morality to heterosexual marriage.  Is the Constitution adequate to the government of adherents of those two religions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Even if we presuppose agreement with Madison's statement ("Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."), what do you propose to do when religions disagree on points of faith?

Consider two religions--the first holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is an affront to God; the second holds a sincere belief that gay marriage is of equal morality to heterosexual marriage.  Is the Constitution adequate to the government of adherents of those two religions?

If we made the presupposition you suggest, then we must recognize mindset in which Madison made the statement.

Recognizing gay marriage as a "moral ideal" would have been so far beyond the pale that he would think the morality and religion of the people were so corrupt that we were beyond hope of the Constitution pulling us back from such corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If we made the presupposition you suggest, then we must recognize mindset in which Madison made the statement.

Recognizing gay marriage as a "moral ideal" would have been so far beyond the pale that he would think the morality and religion of the people were so corrupt that we were beyond hope of the Constitution pulling us back from such corruption.

This line of argument, to me, betrays the very premise of the Constitution to begin with.  The Constitution as we know it was written because the Articles of Confederation were too rigid and destined to fail. The Constitution incorporates massive compromises that, had they not been made, likely would have prevented any form of governance between the disparate parties.

Furthermore, I would argue that upholding the right own and sell human beings as property as a "moral ideal" ought to have been so far beyond the pale that we could assume the morality and religion of the people were so corrupt that they were beyond hope of the Constitution pulling them back from such corruption.

Yet, here we are.

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