What's new
By:

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

One Brow said:
Treating gay relationships as inferior
Click to expand...

do Mormons treat gay relationships as inferior or do they just treat them as different?
 
One Brow said:
gays can not earn the right to have their marriage sealed
Click to expand...

what if they married someone from the opposite sex?

Would that earn them the privilege to have thier marriage sealed?
 
In the Mormon church, smoking or drinking can keep you from getting your marriage sealed. It comes back to the belief that sex between two people of the same gender is a sin. People who do not believe that there is such a thing as sin don't understand that.

The church has never asked its members to persecute anyone, regardless of their sins. Christ's message was one of love. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

One Brows comments in this thread are proof to me that persecution of the church (Those Bigoted Mormons) won't end with the legal recognition of gay marriage.
 
stitches said:
This also reminds me of the SCOTUS decision last year that lifted regulations that aimed at limiting states from implementing election laws that discriminated against minorities because SCOTUS deemed that this problem has been solved and there's no discrimination anymore. Just several days after, 5-6 states had filed for passing discriminatory laws to prohibit huge chunks of their citizenry from voting.

The belief that we don't need those laws anymore is demonstrably false on other levels as well. Even in current society blacks are being discriminated against, both from government officials and from private businesses and it has resulted in huge discrepancies in the way they are treated and the end results of it - less job opportunities, higher poverty levels, less education, higher crime rates, higher incarceration rates, etc. All of those are traceable back to discrimination by businesses and by officials. It fuels the vicious circle. I will give you an example - there was a study that was made in Chicago and Boston areas(I don't have it right now, if you demand to check it out, I'd have to search for it). The researcher sent resumes to thousands of companies that have announced job openings. The key was she sent resumes with equivalent qualifications and skills, but with different names(black sounding names vs white sounding names). The result was that the fictitious people with black sounding names got 50% less calls for interviews. Interestingly enough the study showed no statistical difference of significance between the number of calls men and women got. There was another similar research showing that black people with criminal record have less chance of getting a job than white people with criminal record. The fact that this discrimination is to a huge degree hidden doesn't mean that it's not happening and it's not problematic.

This libertarian idea is one of the few that has actually been tested and has been demonstrated to not work time and time again. Whenever discrimination has been allowed, it has been implemented and it has lead to horrible problems and results both to the society and to the people discriminated against.
Click to expand...

I think there is a tremendously huge difference between laws that affect the administration of government and laws that affect business. Government is driven by who gets the votes, business by who gets the dollars. It is in no business' bottom-line interest to alienate large sections of the population, it is absolutely in any politicians interest to restrict voting rights to those who would reasonably be expected to vote for them. Apples and elephants in this comparison imo.
 
One Brow said:
Driving is a privilege instead of a right, but if we had laws that Mormons were not allowed to get driver's licenses under any circumstances, I think you would find that bigoted. Anyone can earn the right to drive, gays can not earn the right to have their marriage sealed, no matter how qualified they are as Mormons otherwise.
Click to expand...

You can get married in the temple, the same as you can be allowed to drive. You just have to follow the rules, same as driving. I can't say that since I disagree with red lights then having a law that I have to stop at red lights is bigoted. Well I can say that but it isn't accurate. But I can simply choose not to get a license or I can choose to follow that rule and get my license. Same for termple marriage. One of the rules to get married in the temple is it has to be between man and woman. If you disagree with that rule then don't get married in the temple. Or you can choose to marry a member of the opposite sex and check that requirement off the list.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think there is a tremendously huge difference between laws that affect the administration of government and laws that affect business. Government is driven by who gets the votes, business by who gets the dollars. It is in no business' bottom-line interest to alienate large sections of the population, it is absolutely in any politicians interest to restrict voting rights to those who would reasonably be expected to vote for them. Apples and elephants in this comparison imo.
Click to expand...

Not really. It is in business' interest to profit as much as possible, even if that happens by alienating large sections of the population. For example - reportedly, the bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake, received a huge bump in their sales from people who agreed with their decision.
The same goes for politician - it is in their best interest to profit(get most votes) even if that happens by alienating large sections of the population. That's the very reason why a lot of republican politicians out-republican each other and go to extremes, even if it means that this would alienate huge portion of the population. They make their analysis - what would serve me best - would this win me more votes than it would cost me. In a perfect situation the fact that they are trying to limit voting by certain minorities would result in a backlash from everybody and they'd lose more by trying to limit one of the pillars of democracy. This doesn't happen though... Just like it doesn't happen in the private business sector.
 
stitches said:
Not really. It is in business' interest to profit as much as possible, even if that happens by alienating large sections of the population. For example - reportedly, the bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake, received a huge bump in their sales from people who agreed with their decision.
Click to expand...

Those are market forces in action, and nothing of the kind is guaranteed in any way shape or form. If they did get a boost to their business it was a fortunate unintended consequence. If I as a politician can restrict all the voters except those that will vote for me I am guaranteed the win. Funny you can't see that difference.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Those are market forces in action, and nothing of the kind is guaranteed in any way shape or form. If they did get a boost to their business it was a fortunate unintended consequence. If I as a politician can restrict all the voters except those that will vote for me I am guaranteed the win. Funny you can't see that difference.
Click to expand...

added more to my previous post. To me they are very similar in nature and result.
 
stitches said:
added more to my previous post. To me they are very similar in nature and result.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. To me it is a huge difference. One of them can lead to Hitler, the other can lead to Chik-Fil-A.



Oh yeah, I Godwined this thing.

:)
 
LogGrad98 said:
Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. To me it is a huge difference. One of them can lead to Hitler, the other can lead to Chik-Fil-A.



Oh yeah, I Godwined this thing.

:)
Click to expand...

I haven't read that whole thread, but I doubt you are the first one to do it in 38 pages :D If you are... then... damn, this forum must hold some kind of record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top