What's new
By:
Filters

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

This may be slightly off topic but I was going through reddit and came across something called the CES letter. It appears to be some questions a 6th generation Mormon has to a CES director of the church. It appears to be well researched. If a Mormon is able to answer these questions than they have good defense against their faith as I believe it really hits on the hard questions.

https://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf
 
Wow, I've never seen a brain that's been washed as clean as Dutch's!

Impressive.


Hint to Dutch - that's not sarcasm.
 
E.J. Wells said:
Didn't take long for me to bust it out:
Click to expand...

It would be more effective if you could illustrate why you think it is appropriate.

E.J. Wells said:
Those same "honors" are not available to people who drink beer or smoke. If you're a pedophile, you can't have them either. If you don't pay your tithes? No soup for you. Love them or hate them, those are the rules.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of any particular claim that smoking, drinking, and not paying tithes are considered unalterable personal traits, and active pedophiles commit immoral acts (you probably have more inactive pedophiles in good standing than either of us realizes). Certainly, none of these activities are considered the positive force that love usually is described to be. "It's the rules" is certainly one way to turn your back on bigotry, and probably less painful personally than saying to yourself that you are endorsing bigotry by silence.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the LDS owes anyone a change in the rules; it's their party, their rules. I'm just noting that the rules fit into a particular category of rules that are discriminatory.

E.J. Wells said:
Do you think that I think any less of Gameface because he brews his own (Award Winning) beer? Or of franklin because he gets off on midget porn? Or fishonjazz because he snorts Ambian? Or Dala because he practices Islam? (PBUH)
Click to expand...

When did this become what I think about you? Are you iin charge of the LDS in some significant way, such that you can change their policy? I've been very clear in calling this institutionalized bigotry, not personal bigotry.

E.J. Wells said:
It is possible, and believe it or not, idiotically probable, to hate the sin, but love the sinner. I do it everyday, and so do you. Stop being such an easily offended bitch. (Now feel free to call me a sexist, misogynist, pig and then cry harder.)
Click to expand...

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" is one thing when you are talking about alcohol and smoking, and an entirely different things when you are talking about reject people in their basic nature. With the former, you can make clear the separation between person and sin; with the latter, the sin is entwined inseparably into the person. The former comes across as rebuke; the latter as rejection.

E.J. Wells said:
Your argument against Mormons and/or religion in general is the same, tired, loathsome ********* that you spew regarding racism.
Click to expand...

Why do you think I'm making an argument against Mormons? Aren't Mormons supposed to reject homosexuality? Aren't they supposed to consider the behavior deviant? If you indeed hate the sin, what is it that I have said that is inaccurate?

E.J. Wells said:
You're not black, Mormon, or gay, yet you are the end-all be-all when it comes to those subjects. Even when people are agreeing with you, you find a way to tell them they're wrong. It's awesome.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to be the end-all-be-all; I actively encourage people to find the research that proves me wrong, if they feel such research exists.

Agreeing for the wrong reasons is not helpful.
 
DutchJazzer said:
so you are saying the government did not take a religous concept and applied laws/rights concering it.
thereby governing a religious concept?
Click to expand...

Government and religion were highly intertwined throughout human history, with limited exceptions. Religion controlling marriage was government controlling marriage, and vice-versa. When we finally began to distinguish between them, marriage went to government as part of the divorce settlement.
 
DutchJazzer said:
freedom of religion in my humble opinion also means their religious concept and terms must not be mocked and imposed upon.
Click to expand...

No, it does not. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from ridicule. You are using the same logic people use to persecute cartoonists who draw Mohammed.
 
I think I'll chime in.

1. On Mormon discrimination/bigotry: Temple marriages are largely about procreation both in this life and the next. As such, given biological realities, I don't think a compelling case can be made that they constitute bigotry. With that said, sexuality is central to our identities; institutionalized discrimination based on sexual expression/behavior for no other reason than "because God says so" passes the bigotry test for me.

2. What is the purpose of state sanctioned/licensed marriage according to those in this thread?

If it's broadly about helping/protecting the children of couples, it should be noted that people in same sex relationships can and sometimes do procreate (with other people, obviously). They can also adopt (don't really care to get into a discussion about adoption...focus on the first sentence). Why would the help marriage provides to children of "traditional" couples not also apply to children of same sex couples? Or do these children simply not deserve the same rights and privileges of children with both mom and dad?

If it's about legal/financial rights/benefits of the adults involved, why should those who choose to live with people of the same sex be excluded? These people exist, they have relationships just as meaningful as anyone else, and absent strong evidence that these relationships are detrimental to society deserve (and are constitutionally guaranteed) equal protection under the law.

If it's about regulating sexuality/procreation, it's outdated, ineffective and repressive in general. Further, without provision for same sex marriage, it would symbolically deny sexual fulfillment to homosexuals for life. Yikes.
 
GVC said:
If it's broadly about helping/protecting the children of couples, it should be noted that people in same sex relationships can and sometimes do procreate (with other people, obviously). They can also adopt (don't really care to get into a discussion about adoption...focus on the first sentence). Why would the help marriage provides to children of "traditional" couples not also apply to children of same sex couples? Or do these children simply not deserve the same rights and privileges of children with both mom and dad?
Click to expand...

That is what baffled me about Utah's defense of its anti-gay marriage law. That it was for the kids because the best situation for kids is to be in a family with their biological parents. Yeah...so? What does that have to do with anything? How many straight people are going to abandon their heterosexual one man one woman marriages in favor of a gay marriage? None, that's how many.

How will my marriage and family structure be affected by gay marriage? Not at all.

There is no limit placed on heterosexual marriages due to the inclusion of gay marriages in our society. There are plenty of marriages to go around.
 
Do gay men typically find the same features attractive that straight women do? Is it still about facial symmetry, masculine features and a low shoulder to hip ratio? Also, size "doesn't matter" to most females, do gay males also utter that same complete bs?


Just curious.
 
GVC said:
I think I'll chime in.

1. On Mormon discrimination/bigotry: Temple marriages are largely about procreation both in this life and the next. As such, given biological realities, I don't think a compelling case can be made that they constitute bigotry. With that said, sexuality is central to our identities; institutionalized discrimination based on sexual expression/behavior for no other reason than "because God says so" passes the bigotry test for me.

2. What is the purpose of state sanctioned/licensed marriage according to those in this thread?

If it's broadly about helping/protecting the children of couples, it should be noted that people in same sex relationships can and sometimes do procreate (with other people, obviously). They can also adopt (don't really care to get into a discussion about adoption...focus on the first sentence). Why would the help marriage provides to children of "traditional" couples not also apply to children of same sex couples? Or do these children simply not deserve the same rights and privileges of children with both mom and dad?

If it's about legal/financial rights/benefits of the adults involved, why should those who choose to live with people of the same sex be excluded? These people exist, they have relationships just as meaningful as anyone else, and absent strong evidence that these relationships are detrimental to society deserve (and are constitutionally guaranteed) equal protection under the law.

If it's about regulating sexuality/procreation, it's outdated, ineffective and repressive in general. Further, without provision for same sex marriage, it would symbolically deny sexual fulfillment to homosexuals for life. Yikes.
Click to expand...



^

What he said.



In spades.

And clubs, diamonds and hearts.

There's no trumping it.
 
scootsy said:
Do gay men typically find the same features attractive that straight women do? Is it still about facial symmetry, masculine features and a low shoulder to hip ratio? Also, size "doesn't matter" to most females, do gay males also utter that same complete bs?


Just curious.
Click to expand...

LOL, is that what she tells you?
 
She keeps trying to tell me she chose me over him because of x, y, and z... But let's face it. The dude is a ballin' finance bro with fat stacks and Robert Pattinson looks.

There's only one thing I'm certain I got him beat on... Which is how I learned first hand size DOES matter!

2d54ec209764628cda07069a225194bb.png
 
Anyhow, just read in the NYT that the Vatican is softening it's stance against homosexuality

Will try to link ...
 
https://nytimes.com/2014/10/14/worl...ore-tolerance-toward-gays-and-remarriage.html

VATICAN CITY — In a marked shift in tone likely to be discussed in parishes around the world, an assembly of Roman Catholic bishops convened by Pope Francis at the Vatican released a preliminary document on Monday calling for the church to welcome and accept gay people, unmarried couples and those who have divorced, as well as the children of these less traditional families.

The bishops’ report, issued midway through a landmark two-week meeting, does not change church doctrine or teaching, and will now be subjected to fierce debate and revision at the assembly.

But it is the first signal that the institutional church may follow the direction Francis has set in the first 18 months of his papacy, away from condemnation of unconventional family situations and toward understanding, openness and mercy.
Click to expand...
 
moevillini said:
Anyhow, just read in the NYT that the Vatican is softening it's stance against homosexuality

Will try to link ...
Click to expand...
Probably hoping that if they soften thier stance on homosexuality that everyone else with soften thier stance on molesting young boys.

:^O
 
Turkish Nightmare said:
This may be slightly off topic but I was going through reddit and came across something called the CES letter. It appears to be some questions a 6th generation Mormon has to a CES director of the church. It appears to be well researched. If a Mormon is able to answer these questions than they have good defense against their faith as I believe it really hits on the hard questions.

https://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf
Click to expand...

I just read through the bulk of it, and it doesn't contain much that I haven't seen before. I have answered all of those questions for myself, to my own satisfaction. If you'd like to discuss things, I'm willing to give my answers. This isn't the right thread, though. Feel free to revive my "Ask a Mormon" thread, https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?15752, or even take the questions to me in PM if you'd prefer. Due to the sheer size of the document, however, it would probably be best for you to indicate which ones you'd most like to discuss first rather than expect me to write a full response all at once.
 
colton said:
I just read through the bulk of it, and it doesn't contain much that I haven't seen before. I have answered all of those questions for myself, to my own satisfaction. If you'd like to discuss things, I'm willing to give my answers. This isn't the right thread, though. Feel free to revive my "Ask a Mormon" thread, https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?15752, or even take the questions to me in PM if you'd prefer. Due to the sheer size of the document, however, it would probably be best for you to indicate which ones you'd most like to discuss first rather than expect me to write a full response all at once.
Click to expand...

Hey I already revived that wanted a question answered and only got crickets!!!!

:angryface:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top