As if these people don't have the same right as everyone else to get married! Not allowing Gay Marriage at your church is like having a country club that says "No Coloreds"
Fucking antiquated and ridiculous. Drives me insane.
babyeatingjesus on
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
McCarthy Sez: KEEP FAMILY VALUES IN RED BLOODED AMERICAN FAMILIES
As if these people don't have the same right as everyone else to get married! Not allowing Gay Marriage at your church is like having a country club that says "No Coloreds"
Fucking antiquated and ridiculous. Drives me insane.
I don't give a shit what you allow as a part of your religion
Marathon, whether you like it or not members of a church have every right to vote on something. It's the lying and misleading what prop 8 actually was that should be in question.
Of course they have every right to vote on it. But like I said the church is overstepping its place when it tries to dictate their definition of marriage onto the rest of the public.
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
to the church, being sealed in the temple is so so so different from just being married.
the mormon church has their own ceremonies that gays will never touch, they don't even use normal weddings, why not let homosexuals get married like everyone else.
no worries, gays won't become gods, they cannot be sealed, they won't enter the celestial kingdom, so why deny them marriage.
i mean, the mormon church does not even consider you really truly married unless you are sealed in the temple, so all of this is hot air being blown out their asses.
to marry something means to join it, and giving them a different word is beyond petty. it is telling children who take cues on how to treat people from their parents 'these people are worth less'
Yep. And nope. You're right that there are certain ceremonies most people will never be involved in in this life. BUT, the idea of marriage doesn't only contain temple marriage. The traditional family and the idea of marriage is what is trying to be defended here. That extends to those even not of our faith or of any faith at all. The church would LOVE and not lift a finger to fight (not sure if they would/wouldn't support, but I know ALOT of the members would) any law trying to be passed that gave gays/lesbians/transgender people the same rights found within marriage as long as it isn't considered marriage. The family, is found eternally (we believe there is a Heavenly Father and Mother) and as an eternal principle must be defended on the Earth. Its not hateful or anything against the gay community, its a defense of something we find sacred that we feel is being attacked.
this is pretty amusing actually, i had forgotten how mormons mince words to make them sound pleasing when they are actually telling you you are worth less.
traditional family. how amusing. so, where is all the action against divorce being legal? the idea of marriage, good grief, how is letting two people who love each other vow their love to each other in the same way everyone else does against the idea of marriage? try and explain that to me without sounding like a bigoted asshole.
why does the fact that they have the same genitals make their love any less pure, any less worthy of being defined as marriage.
Belruel on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
They have every right to defend marriage within the Mormon church. They are overstepping their bounds when they try to dictate what a marriage means to everyone else. I could go down to the courthouse and get just as married as I would be if the ceremony is done in a church.
How is that overstepping one's bounds? We live in this country and therefore any laws passed WILL affect us. That's like saying if you aren't 80yrs old then you shouldn't vote on any law that affects social security. Just cuz it doesn't affect us directly doesn't mean that a person should allow something they don't agree with to pass within their own country. What's the point of democracy then if EVERYONE's voice isn't allowed to be heard on every issue?
hey, do you read and study your doctrine and covenants?
i already quoted this earlier in the thread, but you're behind.
D&C 134:9
9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
K, lets break that down:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - K, does that mean religion shouldn't get involved with government or government shouldn't get involved with religion? It could mean both, or either one. Oh wait, the next phrase explains that
"Whereby" - Or in other words in further explanation
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" (means denounced, condemned, forbid. I had to look it up, )
"in its spiritual privileges" - so its expounded that religious societies should not be endorsed or forbidden by governments
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
I don't see it anywhere in that phrase in which religion isn't allowed to get involved with the democratic process unless its restricting a religion from having its own rights to practice their religion. Homosexuality is not a religious society so that doesn't apply.
I'd be more comfortable with the 'Yes to Prop 8' dudes if they just out and said 'we don't want gay people to marry because we just don't like gay people'. At least that would be honest.
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
why do you assume that underlined bit
a religious government typically infringes on more rights than just freedom of religion
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
They have every right to defend marriage within the Mormon church. They are overstepping their bounds when they try to dictate what a marriage means to everyone else. I could go down to the courthouse and get just as married as I would be if the ceremony is done in a church.
How is that overstepping one's bounds? We live in this country and therefore any laws passed WILL affect us. That's like saying if you aren't 80yrs old then you shouldn't vote on any law that affects social security. Just cuz it doesn't affect us directly doesn't mean that a person should allow something they don't agree with to pass within their own country. What's the point of democracy then if EVERYONE's voice isn't allowed to be heard on every issue?
hey, do you read and study your doctrine and covenants?
i already quoted this earlier in the thread, but you're behind.
D&C 134:9
9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
K, lets break that down:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - K, does that mean religion shouldn't get involved with government or government shouldn't get involved with religion? It could mean both, or either one. Oh wait, the next phrase explains that
"Whereby" - Or in other words in further explanation
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" (means denounced, condemned, forbid. I had to look it up, )
"in its spiritual privileges" - so its expounded that religious societies should not be endorsed or forbidden by governments
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
I don't see it anywhere in that phrase in which religion isn't allowed to get involved with the democratic process unless its restricting a religion from having its own rights to practice their religion. Homosexuality is not a religious society so that doesn't apply.
So what you're saying is when gays form their own church, THEN it'll be wrong to deny them rights
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional. So hopefully it gets overturned.
Marathon on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
to the church, being sealed in the temple is so so so different from just being married.
the mormon church has their own ceremonies that gays will never touch, they don't even use normal weddings, why not let homosexuals get married like everyone else.
no worries, gays won't become gods, they cannot be sealed, they won't enter the celestial kingdom, so why deny them marriage.
i mean, the mormon church does not even consider you really truly married unless you are sealed in the temple, so all of this is hot air being blown out their asses.
to marry something means to join it, and giving them a different word is beyond petty. it is telling children who take cues on how to treat people from their parents 'these people are worth less'
Yep. And nope. You're right that there are certain ceremonies most people will never be involved in in this life. BUT, the idea of marriage doesn't only contain temple marriage. The traditional family and the idea of marriage is what is trying to be defended here. That extends to those even not of our faith or of any faith at all. The church would LOVE and not lift a finger to fight (not sure if they would/wouldn't support, but I know ALOT of the members would) any law trying to be passed that gave gays/lesbians/transgender people the same rights found within marriage as long as it isn't considered marriage. The family, is found eternally (we believe there is a Heavenly Father and Mother) and as an eternal principle must be defended on the Earth. Its not hateful or anything against the gay community, its a defense of something we find sacred that we feel is being attacked.
this is pretty amusing actually, i had forgotten how mormons mince words to make them sound pleasing when they are actually telling you you are worth less.
traditional family. how amusing. so, where is all the action against divorce being legal? the idea of marriage, good grief, how is letting two people who love each other vow their love to each other in the same way everyone else does against the idea of marriage? try and explain that to me without sounding like a bigoted asshole.
why does the fact that they have the same genitals make their love any less pure, any less worthy of being defined as marriage.
Yay! Giant quote tree! I'm not sure when we need to start trimming this, but whatev.
In answer to the bolded part:
The family, is found eternally (we believe there is a Heavenly Father and Mother) and as an eternal principle must be defended on the Earth. We believe that in the eternities that its "man and woman" (as dictated to Adam and Eve in the garden) that will be partners throughout eternal progression. Since its an eternal principle that God has established and upheld, then it should be defended in order to keep the idea of Marriage in its original form and sacred. If that makes me a bigoted asshole so then so be it.
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional. So hopefully it gets overturned.
Yes exactly! I how is it that two men or two women can't get married but it is perfectly legal for a Klingon to marry a Vulcan?!
What a Country!
babyeatingjesus on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional.
If the state supreme court deems it as so. I would be amazed if it didn't get overturned really. If there is any contradiction at all that shit is going down.
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
They have every right to defend marriage within the Mormon church. They are overstepping their bounds when they try to dictate what a marriage means to everyone else. I could go down to the courthouse and get just as married as I would be if the ceremony is done in a church.
How is that overstepping one's bounds? We live in this country and therefore any laws passed WILL affect us. That's like saying if you aren't 80yrs old then you shouldn't vote on any law that affects social security. Just cuz it doesn't affect us directly doesn't mean that a person should allow something they don't agree with to pass within their own country. What's the point of democracy then if EVERYONE's voice isn't allowed to be heard on every issue?
hey, do you read and study your doctrine and covenants?
i already quoted this earlier in the thread, but you're behind.
D&C 134:9
9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
K, lets break that down:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - K, does that mean religion shouldn't get involved with government or government shouldn't get involved with religion? It could mean both, or either one. Oh wait, the next phrase explains that
"Whereby" - Or in other words in further explanation
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" (means denounced, condemned, forbid. I had to look it up, )
"in its spiritual privileges" - so its expounded that religious societies should not be endorsed or forbidden by governments
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
I don't see it anywhere in that phrase in which religion isn't allowed to get involved with the democratic process unless its restricting a religion from having its own rights to practice their religion. Homosexuality is not a religious society so that doesn't apply.
So what you're saying is when gays form their own church, THEN it'll be wrong to deny them rights
Well, thats what that verse is saying specifically.
If you read other verses within our scriptures you would realize that its ALWAYS wrong to deny anyone their rights. BUT its also wrong to screw up the sacredness and original intention behind marriage. SO, where does that leave us? That leaves the members of the church striving for a compromise in which homosexuals will still have rights but the definition of marriage is not touched. What's wrong with civil unions in which they get the same rights?
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional. So hopefully it gets overturned.
Civil rights should never be left up to vote. The minority will always loose.
Discrimination by majority vote doesn't make discrimination right. It's still discrimination.
It's weird how when the Mormons are doing something that had no real impact on anyone else (postmortem baptism), it was an absolutely fine and dandy thing to do and you're crazy to disagree, but then when the gays want to do something that has no effect on the Mormons, the Mormons fight tooth and claw to deny their right to do it.
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
They have every right to defend marriage within the Mormon church. They are overstepping their bounds when they try to dictate what a marriage means to everyone else. I could go down to the courthouse and get just as married as I would be if the ceremony is done in a church.
How is that overstepping one's bounds? We live in this country and therefore any laws passed WILL affect us. That's like saying if you aren't 80yrs old then you shouldn't vote on any law that affects social security. Just cuz it doesn't affect us directly doesn't mean that a person should allow something they don't agree with to pass within their own country. What's the point of democracy then if EVERYONE's voice isn't allowed to be heard on every issue?
hey, do you read and study your doctrine and covenants?
i already quoted this earlier in the thread, but you're behind.
D&C 134:9
9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
K, lets break that down:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - K, does that mean religion shouldn't get involved with government or government shouldn't get involved with religion? Oh wait, the next phrase explains that
"Whereby" - Or in other words in further explanation
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" (means denounced, condemned, forbid. I had to look it up, )
"in its spiritual privileges" - so its expounded that religious societies should not be endorsed or forbidden by governments
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - it is religious influence with civil government, they are mentioning civil government here for a reason, it doesn't just get discarded in the next line
"Whereby" - causing
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" - one set of beliefs to be allowed to flourish and another one truncated
"in its spiritual privileges" - regarding inherent rights
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - this part is clear. allowing all citizens the same rights
so in short, one group's religious beliefs should not be allowed to hinder the privileges of a different group just because they believe it to be of god
"[verses] 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers;"
now when i was a wee lass doing my scripture study, we learned that this bit is generally saying that religious powers should not take an active pushy role in determining civil actions, because the rights of the few will always be trampled by the rights of the many.
mormons have a huge persecution complex, you'd think they would sympathize more with people rather than taking arms to push people away from rights that should be inherently allowed to everyone without petty differences
It's weird how when the Mormons are doing something that had no real impact on anyone else (postmortem baptism), it was an absolutely fine and dandy thing to do and you're crazy to disagree, but then when the gays want to do something that has no effect on the Mormons, the Mormons fight tooth and claw to deny their right to do it.
Yeah and in this case the Mormons are wrong.
Why can't everyone just stay out of everyone else's harmless shit?
I'll tell you why,
internet forum administrator conspiracy.
babyeatingjesus on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
They have every right to defend marriage within the Mormon church. They are overstepping their bounds when they try to dictate what a marriage means to everyone else. I could go down to the courthouse and get just as married as I would be if the ceremony is done in a church.
How is that overstepping one's bounds? We live in this country and therefore any laws passed WILL affect us. That's like saying if you aren't 80yrs old then you shouldn't vote on any law that affects social security. Just cuz it doesn't affect us directly doesn't mean that a person should allow something they don't agree with to pass within their own country. What's the point of democracy then if EVERYONE's voice isn't allowed to be heard on every issue?
hey, do you read and study your doctrine and covenants?
i already quoted this earlier in the thread, but you're behind.
D&C 134:9
9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
K, lets break that down:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - K, does that mean religion shouldn't get involved with government or government shouldn't get involved with religion? It could mean both, or either one. Oh wait, the next phrase explains that
"Whereby" - Or in other words in further explanation
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" (means denounced, condemned, forbid. I had to look it up, )
"in its spiritual privileges" - so its expounded that religious societies should not be endorsed or forbidden by governments
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
I don't see it anywhere in that phrase in which religion isn't allowed to get involved with the democratic process unless its restricting a religion from having its own rights to practice their religion. Homosexuality is not a religious society so that doesn't apply.
So what you're saying is when gays form their own church, THEN it'll be wrong to deny them rights
Well, thats what that verse is saying specifically.
If you read other verses within our scriptures you would realize that its ALWAYS wrong to deny anyone their rights. BUT its also wrong to screw up the sacredness and original intention behind marriage. SO, where does that leave us? That leaves the members of the church striving for a compromise in which homosexuals will still have rights but the definition of marriage is not touched. What's wrong with civil unions in which they get the same rights?
so why not continue to hold to your ideals of marriage in your religion, and allow people who are not in your religion to have the same rights as everyone should have
and man, what is wrong with having a 'coloreds' and a 'whites' drinking fountain, they spout the same water.
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional.
If the state supreme court deems it as so. I would be amazed if it didn't get overturned really. If there is any contradiction at all that shit is going down.
Very doubtful. The people who put this together didn't just wing it, they knew what they were doing and knew what could happen if they made just one mistake. They also had the experience of looking at the 20 other some odd states with similar amendments and statutes. It's in all likely hood airtight and the people that don't like it are going to have to put it back on the ballot for repeal.
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
to the church, being sealed in the temple is so so so different from just being married.
the mormon church has their own ceremonies that gays will never touch, they don't even use normal weddings, why not let homosexuals get married like everyone else.
no worries, gays won't become gods, they cannot be sealed, they won't enter the celestial kingdom, so why deny them marriage.
i mean, the mormon church does not even consider you really truly married unless you are sealed in the temple, so all of this is hot air being blown out their asses.
to marry something means to join it, and giving them a different word is beyond petty. it is telling children who take cues on how to treat people from their parents 'these people are worth less'
Yep. And nope. You're right that there are certain ceremonies most people will never be involved in in this life. BUT, the idea of marriage doesn't only contain temple marriage. The traditional family and the idea of marriage is what is trying to be defended here. That extends to those even not of our faith or of any faith at all. The church would LOVE and not lift a finger to fight (not sure if they would/wouldn't support, but I know ALOT of the members would) any law trying to be passed that gave gays/lesbians/transgender people the same rights found within marriage as long as it isn't considered marriage. The family, is found eternally (we believe there is a Heavenly Father and Mother) and as an eternal principle must be defended on the Earth. Its not hateful or anything against the gay community, its a defense of something we find sacred that we feel is being attacked.
this is pretty amusing actually, i had forgotten how mormons mince words to make them sound pleasing when they are actually telling you you are worth less.
traditional family. how amusing. so, where is all the action against divorce being legal? the idea of marriage, good grief, how is letting two people who love each other vow their love to each other in the same way everyone else does against the idea of marriage? try and explain that to me without sounding like a bigoted asshole.
why does the fact that they have the same genitals make their love any less pure, any less worthy of being defined as marriage.
Yay! Giant quote tree! I'm not sure when we need to start trimming this, but whatev.
In answer to the bolded part:
The family, is found eternally (we believe there is a Heavenly Father and Mother) and as an eternal principle must be defended on the Earth. We believe that in the eternities that its "man and woman" (as dictated to Adam and Eve in the garden) that will be partners throughout eternal progression. Since its an eternal principle that God has established and upheld, then it should be defended in order to keep the idea of Marriage in its original form and sacred. If that makes me a bigoted asshole so then so be it.
yeah but in the doctrine and covenants it says that the couples who are just normal-married won't become gods either, why not go hating after every couple not sealed? why just gay marriage? and calling it 'civil unions' won't change the fact that they have no effect on your religion, so why not allow them the same rights, under the same names, as everyone else
Belruel on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
They have every right to defend marriage within the Mormon church. They are overstepping their bounds when they try to dictate what a marriage means to everyone else. I could go down to the courthouse and get just as married as I would be if the ceremony is done in a church.
How is that overstepping one's bounds? We live in this country and therefore any laws passed WILL affect us. That's like saying if you aren't 80yrs old then you shouldn't vote on any law that affects social security. Just cuz it doesn't affect us directly doesn't mean that a person should allow something they don't agree with to pass within their own country. What's the point of democracy then if EVERYONE's voice isn't allowed to be heard on every issue?
hey, do you read and study your doctrine and covenants?
i already quoted this earlier in the thread, but you're behind.
D&C 134:9
9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
K, lets break that down:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - K, does that mean religion shouldn't get involved with government or government shouldn't get involved with religion? It could mean both, or either one. Oh wait, the next phrase explains that
"Whereby" - Or in other words in further explanation
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" (means denounced, condemned, forbid. I had to look it up, )
"in its spiritual privileges" - so its expounded that religious societies should not be endorsed or forbidden by governments
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
I don't see it anywhere in that phrase in which religion isn't allowed to get involved with the democratic process unless its restricting a religion from having its own rights to practice their religion. Homosexuality is not a religious society so that doesn't apply.
So what you're saying is when gays form their own church, THEN it'll be wrong to deny them rights
Well, thats what that verse is saying specifically.
If you read other verses within our scriptures you would realize that its ALWAYS wrong to deny anyone their rights. BUT its also wrong to screw up the sacredness and original intention behind marriage. SO, where does that leave us? That leaves the members of the church striving for a compromise in which homosexuals will still have rights but the definition of marriage is not touched. What's wrong with civil unions in which they get the same rights?
so why not continue to hold to your ideals of marriage in your religion, and allow people who are not in your religion to have the same rights as everyone should have
and man, what is wrong with having a 'coloreds' and a 'whites' drinking fountain, they spout the same water.
that last bit is extreme sarcasm by the way
Giving people different drinking fountains is on a whole 'nother level from something that a LARGE majority of Americans find sacred and are trying to defend. No one ever found drinking fountains as a sacred religious thing. Many Christian organizations find marriage sacred and are just defending it. They want homosexuals to have rights.
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional. So hopefully it gets overturned.
Civil rights should never be left up to vote. The minority will always loose.
Discrimination by majority vote doesn't make discrimination right. It's still discrimination.
Prop 8 should have never ever exsisted.
Except marriage isn't a civil right. You need state approval and a license for it.
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
They have every right to defend marriage within the Mormon church. They are overstepping their bounds when they try to dictate what a marriage means to everyone else. I could go down to the courthouse and get just as married as I would be if the ceremony is done in a church.
How is that overstepping one's bounds? We live in this country and therefore any laws passed WILL affect us. That's like saying if you aren't 80yrs old then you shouldn't vote on any law that affects social security. Just cuz it doesn't affect us directly doesn't mean that a person should allow something they don't agree with to pass within their own country. What's the point of democracy then if EVERYONE's voice isn't allowed to be heard on every issue?
hey, do you read and study your doctrine and covenants?
i already quoted this earlier in the thread, but you're behind.
D&C 134:9
9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
K, lets break that down:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - K, does that mean religion shouldn't get involved with government or government shouldn't get involved with religion? It could mean both, or either one. Oh wait, the next phrase explains that
"Whereby" - Or in other words in further explanation
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" (means denounced, condemned, forbid. I had to look it up, )
"in its spiritual privileges" - so its expounded that religious societies should not be endorsed or forbidden by governments
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
I don't see it anywhere in that phrase in which religion isn't allowed to get involved with the democratic process unless its restricting a religion from having its own rights to practice their religion. Homosexuality is not a religious society so that doesn't apply.
So what you're saying is when gays form their own church, THEN it'll be wrong to deny them rights
Well, thats what that verse is saying specifically.
If you read other verses within our scriptures you would realize that its ALWAYS wrong to deny anyone their rights. BUT its also wrong to screw up the sacredness and original intention behind marriage. SO, where does that leave us? That leaves the members of the church striving for a compromise in which homosexuals will still have rights but the definition of marriage is not touched. What's wrong with civil unions in which they get the same rights?
so why not continue to hold to your ideals of marriage in your religion, and allow people who are not in your religion to have the same rights as everyone should have
and man, what is wrong with having a 'coloreds' and a 'whites' drinking fountain, they spout the same water.
that last bit is extreme sarcasm by the way
Giving people different drinking fountains is on a whole 'nother level from something that a LARGE majority of Americans find sacred and are trying to defend. No one ever found drinking fountains as a sacred religious thing. Many Christian organizations find marriage sacred and are just defending it. They want homosexuals to have rights.
no, but they found blacks not drinking from their water a very important 'sacred' thing
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
to the church, being sealed in the temple is so so so different from just being married.
the mormon church has their own ceremonies that gays will never touch, they don't even use normal weddings, why not let homosexuals get married like everyone else.
no worries, gays won't become gods, they cannot be sealed, they won't enter the celestial kingdom, so why deny them marriage.
i mean, the mormon church does not even consider you really truly married unless you are sealed in the temple, so all of this is hot air being blown out their asses.
to marry something means to join it, and giving them a different word is beyond petty. it is telling children who take cues on how to treat people from their parents 'these people are worth less'
Yep. And nope. You're right that there are certain ceremonies most people will never be involved in in this life. BUT, the idea of marriage doesn't only contain temple marriage. The traditional family and the idea of marriage is what is trying to be defended here. That extends to those even not of our faith or of any faith at all. The church would LOVE and not lift a finger to fight (not sure if they would/wouldn't support, but I know ALOT of the members would) any law trying to be passed that gave gays/lesbians/transgender people the same rights found within marriage as long as it isn't considered marriage. The family, is found eternally (we believe there is a Heavenly Father and Mother) and as an eternal principle must be defended on the Earth. Its not hateful or anything against the gay community, its a defense of something we find sacred that we feel is being attacked.
this is pretty amusing actually, i had forgotten how mormons mince words to make them sound pleasing when they are actually telling you you are worth less.
traditional family. how amusing. so, where is all the action against divorce being legal? the idea of marriage, good grief, how is letting two people who love each other vow their love to each other in the same way everyone else does against the idea of marriage? try and explain that to me without sounding like a bigoted asshole.
why does the fact that they have the same genitals make their love any less pure, any less worthy of being defined as marriage.
Yay! Giant quote tree! I'm not sure when we need to start trimming this, but whatev.
In answer to the bolded part:
The family, is found eternally (we believe there is a Heavenly Father and Mother) and as an eternal principle must be defended on the Earth. We believe that in the eternities that its "man and woman" (as dictated to Adam and Eve in the garden) that will be partners throughout eternal progression. Since its an eternal principle that God has established and upheld, then it should be defended in order to keep the idea of Marriage in its original form and sacred. If that makes me a bigoted asshole so then so be it.
yeah but in the doctrine and covenants it says that the couples who are just normal-married won't become gods either, why not go hating after every couple not sealed? why just gay marriage? and calling it 'civil unions' won't change the fact that they have no effect on your religion, so why not allow them the same rights, under the same names, as everyone else
But... but... Bel. It ain't natural. :P
Doobh on
Miss me? Find me on:
Twitch (I stream most days of the week) Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
but the whole "separate but equal" thing is still insulting.
Marriage isn't yours, religion! it was around before you and will be around after you! give it back!
This is very true, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for finding the institution of Marriage sacred and therefore finding it necessary to defend it. Within the LDS church, the act of being married in the temple is the highest and most important ordinance you will ever perform in the church. Finding your eternal companion and being "sealed" (aka married but with eternal implications) is the last ordinance you need on this earth to ensure your progression in the next. Why shouldn't the church defend the institution of marriage?
They have every right to defend marriage within the Mormon church. They are overstepping their bounds when they try to dictate what a marriage means to everyone else. I could go down to the courthouse and get just as married as I would be if the ceremony is done in a church.
How is that overstepping one's bounds? We live in this country and therefore any laws passed WILL affect us. That's like saying if you aren't 80yrs old then you shouldn't vote on any law that affects social security. Just cuz it doesn't affect us directly doesn't mean that a person should allow something they don't agree with to pass within their own country. What's the point of democracy then if EVERYONE's voice isn't allowed to be heard on every issue?
hey, do you read and study your doctrine and covenants?
i already quoted this earlier in the thread, but you're behind.
D&C 134:9
9. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
K, lets break that down:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - K, does that mean religion shouldn't get involved with government or government shouldn't get involved with religion? It could mean both, or either one. Oh wait, the next phrase explains that
"Whereby" - Or in other words in further explanation
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" (means denounced, condemned, forbid. I had to look it up, )
"in its spiritual privileges" - so its expounded that religious societies should not be endorsed or forbidden by governments
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
I don't see it anywhere in that phrase in which religion isn't allowed to get involved with the democratic process unless its restricting a religion from having its own rights to practice their religion. Homosexuality is not a religious society so that doesn't apply.
So what you're saying is when gays form their own church, THEN it'll be wrong to deny them rights
Well, thats what that verse is saying specifically.
If you read other verses within our scriptures you would realize that its ALWAYS wrong to deny anyone their rights. BUT its also wrong to screw up the sacredness and original intention behind marriage. SO, where does that leave us? That leaves the members of the church striving for a compromise in which homosexuals will still have rights but the definition of marriage is not touched. What's wrong with civil unions in which they get the same rights?
so why not continue to hold to your ideals of marriage in your religion, and allow people who are not in your religion to have the same rights as everyone should have
and man, what is wrong with having a 'coloreds' and a 'whites' drinking fountain, they spout the same water.
that last bit is extreme sarcasm by the way
Giving people different drinking fountains is on a whole 'nother level from something that a LARGE majority of Americans find sacred and are trying to defend. No one ever found drinking fountains as a sacred religious thing. Many Christian organizations find marriage sacred and are just defending it. They want homosexuals to have rights.
no, but they found blacks not drinking from their water a very important 'sacred' thing
you just don't want gays drinking from your water
to be fair I'm not willing to share my water with anybody. What if we run out?!
Posts
As if these people don't have the same right as everyone else to get married! Not allowing Gay Marriage at your church is like having a country club that says "No Coloreds"
Fucking antiquated and ridiculous. Drives me insane.
McCarthy Sez: KEEP FAMILY VALUES IN RED BLOODED AMERICAN FAMILIES
I don't give a shit what you allow as a part of your religion
But to force that on everyone else is dumb
Aren't civil rights grand?!
They aren't dictating they're voting.
traditional family. how amusing. so, where is all the action against divorce being legal? the idea of marriage, good grief, how is letting two people who love each other vow their love to each other in the same way everyone else does against the idea of marriage? try and explain that to me without sounding like a bigoted asshole.
why does the fact that they have the same genitals make their love any less pure, any less worthy of being defined as marriage.
Seriously let's do a little Henry Clay compromise here. You gays can marry but you have to stop being gay. Deal?
K, lets break that down:
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - K, does that mean religion shouldn't get involved with government or government shouldn't get involved with religion? It could mean both, or either one. Oh wait, the next phrase explains that
"Whereby" - Or in other words in further explanation
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" (means denounced, condemned, forbid. I had to look it up,
"in its spiritual privileges" - so its expounded that religious societies should not be endorsed or forbidden by governments
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - meaning that if a religious society is proscribed by government it would be infringing on the rights of their own citizens to practice freedom of religion.
I don't see it anywhere in that phrase in which religion isn't allowed to get involved with the democratic process unless its restricting a religion from having its own rights to practice their religion. Homosexuality is not a religious society so that doesn't apply.
a religious government typically infringes on more rights than just freedom of religion
Yeah, they are voting to deny equal rights to a minority. Which is wrong.
So what you're saying is when gays form their own church, THEN it'll be wrong to deny them rights
Morally wrong to you but not illegal. Look I think it sucks too but prop 8 passed democratically so unless it contradicts Cali's constitution no "dictating" took place here.
Not illegal, just unconstitutional. So hopefully it gets overturned.
Yay! Giant quote tree! I'm not sure when we need to start trimming this, but whatev.
In answer to the bolded part:
The family, is found eternally (we believe there is a Heavenly Father and Mother) and as an eternal principle must be defended on the Earth. We believe that in the eternities that its "man and woman" (as dictated to Adam and Eve in the garden) that will be partners throughout eternal progression. Since its an eternal principle that God has established and upheld, then it should be defended in order to keep the idea of Marriage in its original form and sacred. If that makes me a bigoted asshole so then so be it.
What a Country!
If the state supreme court deems it as so. I would be amazed if it didn't get overturned really. If there is any contradiction at all that shit is going down.
Well, thats what that verse is saying specifically.
If you read other verses within our scriptures you would realize that its ALWAYS wrong to deny anyone their rights. BUT its also wrong to screw up the sacredness and original intention behind marriage. SO, where does that leave us? That leaves the members of the church striving for a compromise in which homosexuals will still have rights but the definition of marriage is not touched. What's wrong with civil unions in which they get the same rights?
Civil rights should never be left up to vote. The minority will always loose.
Discrimination by majority vote doesn't make discrimination right. It's still discrimination.
Prop 8 should have never ever exsisted.
"We do not believe it just to mingle religous influence with civil government" - it is religious influence with civil government, they are mentioning civil government here for a reason, it doesn't just get discarded in the next line
"Whereby" - causing
"one religious society is fostered and another proscribed" - one set of beliefs to be allowed to flourish and another one truncated
"in its spiritual privileges" - regarding inherent rights
", and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied" - this part is clear. allowing all citizens the same rights
so in short, one group's religious beliefs should not be allowed to hinder the privileges of a different group just because they believe it to be of god
and i am grabbing this bit from the top of the site i am pulling the scripture from
"[verses] 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers;"
now when i was a wee lass doing my scripture study, we learned that this bit is generally saying that religious powers should not take an active pushy role in determining civil actions, because the rights of the few will always be trampled by the rights of the many.
mormons have a huge persecution complex, you'd think they would sympathize more with people rather than taking arms to push people away from rights that should be inherently allowed to everyone without petty differences
Why can't everyone just stay out of everyone else's harmless shit?
I'll tell you why,
internet forum administrator conspiracy.
Fair enough.
What's an ideal that's important to you?
so why not continue to hold to your ideals of marriage in your religion, and allow people who are not in your religion to have the same rights as everyone should have
and man, what is wrong with having a 'coloreds' and a 'whites' drinking fountain, they spout the same water.
that last bit is extreme sarcasm by the way
equality
Ice burn
A moromon is not a type of cop.
Very doubtful. The people who put this together didn't just wing it, they knew what they were doing and knew what could happen if they made just one mistake. They also had the experience of looking at the 20 other some odd states with similar amendments and statutes. It's in all likely hood airtight and the people that don't like it are going to have to put it back on the ballot for repeal.
i hope it did not offend
Giving people different drinking fountains is on a whole 'nother level from something that a LARGE majority of Americans find sacred and are trying to defend. No one ever found drinking fountains as a sacred religious thing. Many Christian organizations find marriage sacred and are just defending it. They want homosexuals to have rights.
oh i totally did, and not at all, gave me warm fuzzies actually, i just got distracted
Except marriage isn't a civil right. You need state approval and a license for it.
oh okay
good luck with your argument, then
well we weren't sure if the average mormon would call the po-lice on us for having reefers around
no, but they found blacks not drinking from their water a very important 'sacred' thing
you just don't want gays drinking from your water
But... but... Bel. It ain't natural. :P
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)