Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Nightmare
Active Member
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
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.
Impressive.
Hint to Dutch - that's not sarcasm.
DutchJazzer
Banned
It would be more effective if you could illustrate why you think it is appropriate.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
GVC
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
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.
scootsy
Well-Known Member
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.
Just curious.