LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[painted wolf]

non-religions are not technically religions because they are well... non-religions.

Now, there are those who think that it's OK that's up to them. They have the right to perform any ceremonies that they wish. It doesn't mean that it is legally binding nor does it dictate acceptance of any specific behavior as a standard way of life.

So now you're an expert on what is or is not a valid religion?

I forget... the LDS church is the only valid religion. :sarcastic

So much for freedom of religion eh? Free to be anything so long as you agree with the Mormon leadership. What is legally binding is to be determined by the quorum of the 12 rather than the legal system?

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

I never said that suffering from same-sex attraction is a choice.

Ah, I forgot about the whole "Even if you're attracted to the same sex, you don't have to act on it". They don't "suffer" from same-sex attraction any more than you "suffer" from opposite-sex attraction. There's also no reason for them to not act on it. It's not like it's bad in any real-world way.

We don't get special concessions. This country was founded upon the idea of religious freedom.

Well, sometimes you do get special concessions, but that's not important. The point is you want your group to get special concessions, as evidenced by that link with all of the alleged "trampling" of religious freedoms, when in reality, it was just the religious people not getting special concessions. That's my whole point. It would be a special concession for a professional photographer or psychologist to be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but that's what you want to happen.

They already have the same rights everyone else has. They are asking for extra rights based on a perceived lack of volition when it comes to behaviors.

No, they don't. As has been pointed out, even if you take out the homosexual bit and make it just about genders, a man is allowed to marry a woman, but a woman is not allowed to marry a woman. That's unequal rights for the genders. And if you want to look at it by sexual orientation, a heterosexual person is allowed to marry the person they choose to, while a homosexual person is not.

So, no, they're not asking for extra rights. You've made this claim too many times, and it's been refuted every time. It would be nice when someone refutes your claim for you to acknowledge that, and stop making the claim.

And the perceived lack of volition is the fact that they can't help being attracted to the same sex any more than you can help being attracted to the opposite sex. Sure, they can choose not to act on it, but that's just stupid. There's no reason for them to choose that. That's why people generally ignore that ridiculous argument and forget it's even an option.

 

[Magic Man]

non-religions are not technically religions because they are well... non-religions.

Huh? There are people with religious belief including same-sex marriage. Why do we support one religious view of it over another? You seem to think allowing it to be legal tramples on religious freedoms, but not allowing it would trample on other people's religious freedoms in the same way. So, by your own logic, either way, you're trampling on someone's religious freedom. But that's OK with you as long as it's someone else's religious freedom that's trampled on.

Now, there are those who think that it's OK that's up to them. They have the right to perform any ceremonies that they wish. It doesn't mean that it is legally binding nor does it dictate acceptance of any specific behavior as a standard way of life.

That's right. It's not legally binding. By your logic, that means their religious freedom is being trampled.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

you can do what you want because it's your forum. If i don't like the rules I don't participate

I wasn't talking about the forum; I'm talking about a legal ban. Since everyone would be under the same laws prohibiting everyone from belonging to the LDS Church, it'd be "equal", right?

You and everyone else would have the right to go to whatever Baptist church you want. Because it's one uniform rule for everyone, there's no discrimination, right? Hooray for freedom!

 

[madhatter85]

So now you're an expert on what is or is not a valid religion?

I forget... the LDS church is the only valid religion. :sarcastic

So much for freedom of religion eh? Free to be anything so long as you agree with the Mormon leadership. What is legally binding is to be determined by the quorum of the 12 rather than the legal system?

wa:do

the term non-religion means "non-religion" how is it that you don't know that?

 

[madhatter85]

I wasn't talking about the forum; I'm talking about a legal ban. Since everyone would be under the same laws prohibiting everyone from belonging to the LDS Church, it'd be "equal", right?

You and everyone else would have the right to go to whatever Baptist church you want. Because it's one uniform rule for everyone, there's no discrimination, right? Hooray for freedom!

I am not talking about banning them from practicing their homosexuality. As i said before they can have all the gay fun-times they want it doesn't matter. But marriage as an institution does not need redefined.

Since you are using that as an example. How about polygamy? the LDS church practiced that and because of it there was a law enacted to prevent them from worshiping how they felt the Lord commanded them to.

The government said no, so they stopped the practice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not talking about banning them from practicing their homosexuality. As i said before they can have all the gay fun-times they want it doesn't matter. But marriage as an institution does not need redefined.

Okay... so how about we not out-and-out ban the LDS Church, just not officially recognize it? You can be Mormon if you want, but don't expect the government to subsidize it with special tax breaks for your church.

Since you are using that as an example. How about polygamy? the LDS church practiced that and because of it there was a law enacted to prevent them from worshiping how they felt the Lord commanded them to.

The government said no, so they stopped the practice.

So the whole same-sex marriage issue is just sour grapes? "If we can't marry the way we want, then they can't marry the way they want!"

But I thought they stopped the practice because their prophet announced that God told them to stop... no?

I've personally got no objection to the legalization of polygamy in principle. I think there are bigger legal hurdles to jump through because suddenly you have the potential for what one person does to affect someone else without his consent (e.g. what happens when your wife's other husband files for bankruptcy? Can the bank take your stuff, too? What about what you and your wife own jointly? If your wife dies, do you and her other husband still have a legal connection?). Polygamy isn't the simple cut-and-dry matter that same-sex marriage is. You don't need to redefine the legal definition of marriage or re-write any laws to enact same-sex marriage; all you need to do is just remove the gender qualification and boom - same-sex marriage is legal, no muss, no fuss.

I'm not going to go out of my way to fight for polygamy, but I'm not opposed to it in principle. I also recognize that it's legally problematic, because many of our laws are written based on the assumption that a person will be married to no more than one spouse. Changing this will mean decisions have to be made about how things will work. This doesn't mean that this can't be done, but it does mean that it's not directly parallel to the issue of same-sex marriage.

But I think there's another important distinction: in the case of 19th-Century Mormon polygamy, people were breaking the law. In the case of 20th & 21st-Century same-sex marriage, same-sex couples aren't breaking the law; they're looking to change the law through legal means (or in some cases, to have existing law that allows for same-sex marriage upheld).

 

[madhatter85]

Okay... so how about we not out-and-out ban the LDS Church, just not officially recognize it? You can be Mormon if you want, but don't expect the government to subsidize it with special tax breaks for your church.

Then it would have to go for every other religious (and apparently "non-religious") organizations to be completely fair.

So the whole same-sex marriage issue is just sour grapes? "If we can't marry the way we want, then they can't marry the way they want!"

Absolutely not, now you are just throwing out red herrings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then it would have to go for every other religious (and apparently "non-religious") organizations to be completely fair.

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

In the same way that it would be unfair to treat different religions unequally even though everyone would be under the same set of laws, treating one class of marriage differently from another class of marriage is unfair, even if everyone is under the same set of laws.

Absolutely not, now you are just throwing out red herrings.

Hey - you were the one who brought up the Mormon history of polygamy. Was it wrong for me to assume that it was relevant somehow?

Okay... if you didn't mean that by it, what did you mean?

 

[happyhummingbird]

In the LDS church, simply suffering from same-sex attraction is not a sin of itself. It is only when you act on those misplaced feelings that we consider it to be a sin.

Some LDS are confused on that point.

Unless someone is forced to suffer by other people, GBLT people aren't suffering from anything. That is a horrible and dehumanizing label to stick on them.

 

[happyhummingbird]

The government said no, so they stopped the practice.

Have you done ANY research on polygamy, at all? There is so much more that you don't even know or understand. It's sad to see someone speak about it without doing any research.

 

[madhatter85]

In the same way that it would be unfair to treat different religions unequally even though everyone would be under the same set of laws, treating one class of marriage differently from another class of marriage is unfair, even if everyone is under the same set of laws.

But as I have said before they are already treated equally regardless of their ideas of what marriage should be.

 

[madhatter85]

Unless someone is forced to suffer by other people, GBLT people aren't suffering from anything. That is a horrible and dehumanizing label to stick on them.

how is it dehumanizing? people suffer from all sorts of ailments be it physical or mental. same-sex attraction is no different.

 

[happyhummingbird]

how is it dehumanizing? people suffer from all sorts of ailments be it physical or mental. same-sex attraction is no different.

Being GBLT is INCREDIBLY different. It isn't a mental nor a physical ailment. That you can think that is absolutley disgusting. Is you being heterosexual a mental or physical ailment? No, then neither is being GBLT.

You have absolutley no scientific basis to back up your "theory" nor will you. It's just religious mumbo-jumbo to make you feel better about denying them the same rights that other people have.

 

[no-body]

how is it dehumanizing? people suffer from all sorts of ailments be it physical or mental. same-sex attraction is no different.

Here we go with the double-speak again. Freaks me out. The LDS seem like such nice people, except when their discussing this topic.

I freely admit this is a totally unfair, biased comparison but I can't help but wonder if this is how the Nazis looked to the outside world before their atrocities where discovered.

 

[Apex]

Here we go with the double-speak again. Freaks me out. The LDS seem like such nice people, except when their discussing this topic.

I freely admit this is a totally unfair, biased comparison but I can't help but wonder if this is how the Nazis looked to the outside world before their atrocities where discovered.

And how many LDS here are against same-sex marriage?

 

[happyhummingbird]

how is it dehumanizing? people suffer from all sorts of ailments be it physical or mental. same-sex attraction is no different.

Seeing as you are not a doctor of any sort nor a psychologist, psychiatrist or therapist, I don't really expect you to have an fact-based opinion.

From the APA (American Psychological Association); which has much more training, education and experience on this subject then you do.

"Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."


"Can therapy change sexual orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals."


"Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.
For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation"


Seeing as they have much more experience and actual knowledge then you, I'd have to go with them. I don't think ANY of the members of the Twelve were psychologists, so they don't have a foot to stand on except "god".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Now, there are those who think that it's OK that's up to them. They have the right to perform any ceremonies that they wish. It doesn't mean that it is legally binding nor does it dictate acceptance of any specific behavior as a standard way of life.

Well then perhaps Mormon marriage should not be legally binding either, since this is a non-standard way of life for most Americans. This would not be an infringement of religious freedom because Mormons would still be free to have their strange, legally meaningless ceremonies, if they wanted to.

 

[happyhummingbird]

Well then perhaps Mormon marriage should not be legally binding either, since this is a non-standard way of life for most Americans. This would not be an infringement of religious freedom because Mormons would still be free to have their strange, legally meaningless ceremonies, if they wanted to.

What is rather interesting, is that in other countries, they do not consider Mormon sealing in the temple valid, the couple first has to have a civil ceremony, then they can go to the temple and have their sealing.

 

[madhatter85]

Being GBLT is INCREDIBLY different. It isn't a mental nor a physical ailment. That you can think that is absolutley disgusting. Is you being heterosexual a mental or physical ailment? No, then neither is being GBLT.

You have absolutley no scientific basis to back up your "theory" nor will you. It's just religious mumbo-jumbo to make you feel better about denying them the same rights that other people have.

Like I have said before, they aren't denied any rights that we have. And I have already shown how it is an abnormal trait that reduces mating success which would eventually have caused extinction of any species if it were more prolific. Seeing as a relatively few number of the population is affected by same-sex attraction, logic dictates that since it is found in many different natural settings (i.e. not regional or isolated to a specific ethnic group) it must be some form of either malformed genetic code, unfortunate trauma, conditions of development, or any combination of those.