Picketting of Religious Structures

[jonny]

I don't see marriage as a right. Maybe he feels the same way. Marriage is just a way for the government to get an extra buck by collecting fees from people. I could care less about what the government says about marriage.

 

[Smoke]

I don't see marriage as a right. Maybe he feels the same way. Marriage is just a way for the government to get an extra buck by collecting fees from people. I could care less about what the government says about marriage.

You might feel differently about it if you didn't have the right, and especially if you didn't have the right because you were LDS. If, say, your wife were dying and her brother was allowed into intensive care to see her, but you weren't, or if you had to pay inheritance taxes on the house you owned together.

Call it a privilege, if you like; the fact is that heterosexuals have rights or privileges under the law that homosexuals do not have, and the First Presidency has instructed Mormons to lobby their representatives to keep it that way.

 

[jonny]

You might feel differently about it if you didn't have the right, and especially if you didn't have the right because you were LDS. If, say, your wife were dying and her brother was allowed into intensive care to see her, but you weren't, or if you had to pay inheritance taxes on the house you owned together.

Call it a privilege, if you like; the fact is that heterosexuals have rights or privileges under the law that homosexuals do not have, and the First Presidency has instructed Mormons to lobby their representatives to keep it that way.

I don't like giving the government control over people's personal relationships. The government shouldn't give out tax breaks and "special rights" because someone is married. The government shouldn't be involved in validating relationships. It isn't its role.

In the past, the government has proven that it makes decisions on marriage based on the will of the churches and not on what is right. Look at this history of marriage legislation and decide for yourself if the US government can be trusted to be an impartial defender of human and religious rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Civil_Marriage_in_the_U.S.

This is my favorite one:

1887 - Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which allowed prosecutors to force polygamist wives to testify against their husbands, and abolished the right of women in Utah to vote.

When it comes to marriage, there is no seperation of church and state. This is dangerous. The religions of our country have set the standard of governing who can and cannot get married. I say, get religion out of government and get government out of our bedrooms.

 

[Squirt]

Yes, Nutshell; while it's commendable that your organization condemns verbal abuse on this premise, what they say instead can be more offensive than honest and forthright abuse. And, before this discussion becomes completely derailed, I think that the Mormons here would do well to get a nice, close look at ignorant prejudice as seen from the other side before speaking again. It would be hilariously comical if you didn't know they actually believed what they were saying, but, as it is, it's a bit saddening. Does that come pretty close to your feelings? Welcome to our world.

Flappycat,

Please provide me with some quotes. I'm not denying anything you've said, but all you have really done is generalize. I would just like to see some actual evidence, if that's not too much to ask.

 

[Smoke]

When it comes to marriage, there is no seperation of church and state. This is dangerous. The religions of our country have set the standard of governing who can and cannot get married. I say, get religion out of government and get government out of our bedrooms.

:highfive: Frubals to you, Jonny.

I wish the leadership of the LDS Church felt the same way.

 

[Squirt]

Squirt, I know you haven't been around here long, but this isn't a discussion that you want to get into with Flappycat. His irrational hate for Mormons is stronger than any feelings that Mormons have for homosexuals. If you're lucky, he might accuse you of being a murderer.

Thanks for the heads up, jonny. I'll keep that in mind. Too bad I didn't see this post before I asked him for some examples -- for the second time.

Personally, I am all for civil rights for same-sex couples. But to me, marriage is a religious institution, not a civil right. If Flappycat and his partner want to enter into a legally binding agreement describing their rights (power of attorney, etc.), I have no problem with it. He doesn't seem to want to talk to me, though, and from what you're telling me, I guess I should just be grateful that he doesn't.

 

[jonny]

:highfive: Frubals to you, Jonny.

I wish the leadership of the LDS Church felt the same way.

I believe that as long as the US government is involved in defining marriage that the LDS church will support its definition of marriage. I don't know how the church would react if the US government reformed its policies to quit trying to define marriage. I think it might support something like that, but I can't speak for the church.

 

[Smoke]

But to me, marriage is a religious institution, not a civil right.

That may be how you think it should be, but the fact remains that the government registers marriages -- those marriages it chooses to register -- and bestows rights and privileges on the parties to those registered marriages.

Are you prepared to see married heterosexuals lose those rights and privileges, just to keep homosexuals from gaining them?

 

[jonny]

Are you prepared to see married heterosexuals lose those rights and privileges, just to keep homosexuals from gaining them?

I'm not married so I don't have any "rights and privileges" associated with marriage, but I'm prepared for the government to extend these rights to EVERYONE, regardless of whether or not they are married. I want a tax break, too!

 

[Squirt]

That may be how you think it should be, but the fact remains that the government registers marriages -- those marriages it chooses to register -- and bestows rights and privileges on the parties to those registered marriages.

Yes, I agree. The government does register marriages. To me, it makes no sense.

Are you prepared to see married heterosexuals lose those rights and privileges, just to keep homosexuals from gaining them?

No, and that's not what I meant to imply. I believe that homosexuals should have all the civil rights married heterosexual couples have. This would include hospital visitation rights, the right to make important legal decisions on behalf of one's partner, etc. I guess what I'm saying (and evidently I'm not saying it very well) is that to me, marriage should be strictly a religious union between a man and a woman, but the "rights" that go along with it should be offered equally to all people.

 

[lilithu]

That may be how you think it should be, but the fact remains that the government registers marriages -- those marriages it chooses to register -- and bestows rights and privileges on the parties to those registered marriages.

Are you prepared to see married heterosexuals lose those rights and privileges, just to keep homosexuals from gaining them?

There are two separate rights butting up against each other here. There's the rights of homosexual couples to be granted the same rights and privileges by their government and society as are granted to heterosexual couples. That includes the right to health insurance, custody of children without having to petition to adopt, recognition as closest kin in times of injury and death. There is no legitmate reason why homosexual couples should not be granted these same rights and privileges.

Otoh, the first amendment of our constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion. If someone's religion teaches that marriage is only between a man and a woman, the government cannot force a different definition of marriage upon them. It violates their freedom of conscience and imposes someone else's morality upon them. To try to violate their freedom undermines your own claim. And vice versa. We need to recognize that we are mutually dependent upon each other to preserve our rights.

Therefore, the only fair solution is to make a distinction between the religious rite of marriage and the civic rite of civil union. Under the law, homosexual couples would be given the same rights as heterosexual couples. But within each religion, they reserve the right to define the holy sacrament of marriage however they define it. Thus, a couple could be considered married in the eyes of one religion and not married in the eyes of another religion, but society and government would recognize the legal privileges that come with making a commitment to a partner.

There is already precedence for this distinction. In New York, there is the case of the Orthodox Jewish woman who is legally divorced but her religion still considers her married. And the Catholic church often does not recognize divorces. So if a person can become unmarried legally but not religiously, then (s)he should be able to become married legally but not religiously too.

 

[Flappycat]

Now, now. This isn't a discussion about marriage rights. Johnny, Squirt, it's a bit immature to label all disagreement with the views of your religious affiliation as irrational hatred. Basically, I just wanted to stress the importance of us all participating in fostering religious tolerance, and, if you're lucky, you'll listen long enough to learn something that could help your organization to dissolve some of the negativity it has been confronted with, which was the original object of discussion.

I think that it can be accepted that the religious beliefs upon which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is founded deviate in some respects from those of other factions of Christianity. Each faction and denomination of Christianity has its own particular cultural heritage and follows its own unique interpretation of the Bible, some excluding or including various books or passages.

Now, a Baptist, for example, has a very specific set of religious beliefs and follows a very specific set of religious practices. To be a good Baptist, you have to follow the creed and practices of the Baptist church. You don't necessarily have to be a good Baptist to be a good person or, for that matter, a good Christian, but, if you want to be accepted as a good Baptist, you're going to be very disappointed if you don't follow the beliefs and practices ordained by the Baptist church.

A fictional faction of Christianity also has a very specific set of beliefs and practices. Among them might be a very strict ritual for marriage. According to the creed of this church, you cannot be married in the eyes of God without this ritual. You don't necessarily have to be married in the eyes of this church to be a good person, and you certainly don't need it to have a healthy marriage; however, if you want to be considered a wedded couple in the eyes of this church, you're going to be very disappointed if you haven't gone through their particular rites.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a very specific definition of marriage. Specifically excluded from their definition of marriage are unions between members of the same gender. According to the C/JC/LDS, a couple cannot be considered wedded in the eyes of God if they are members of the same sex. You don't necessarily have to be considered a wedded couple by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to be a nice couple, and you certainly don't need for them to consider you wedded to have a healthy relationship. However, you're going to be very disappointed if you are a same-sex couple who wants the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to consider you married in the eyes of God.

The government of Massachusets has a very simple definition of marriage. To be considered a married couple by the government of Massachusets, you must be two people of legal age who have, through some channel or other, attained a marriage license. If you are married in the eyes of some religious affiliation, the government will not consider you married unless you have received a license from the state. You don't need a marriage license to be a good person, and you certainly don't require it to have been married to someone in the eyes of God. However, if you do not have a marriage license, you will be very disappointed if you are looking for the state of Massachusets to recognize you as a married couple.

Each institution has its own unique set of beliefs and practices, and each institution has its own unique definition of marriage. You can be a Mormon, a Baptist, a member of the fictional church, or a citizen of Massachusets. You have to do very specific things to be considered particularly good at either. Also, you have to do certain things or meet a specific set of criteria to be considered married by either institution. The idea of religious tolerance is for each institution to seperate being a good member of their institution from being a good person or having a healthy romantic relationship with another person. This is the WHOLE idea behind religious tolerance. There is nothing else to it.

Take my homosexuality, for example. I would make a horrible Mormon because I am a completely unrepentant homosexual man. I don't have to be a Mormon to be a good person, and I don't have to be a good Mormon to be a good spouse for a man. If we can get along with the idea that I am not out to make a good Mormon, we can all be friends and get along.

If you want to have the understanding of members of other religious groups, the trick of it is to get them to understand the difference between being a good person and being a good Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, or whatever their affiliation. If you can get them to understand this, you can all be friends and get along. Tolerance is a good thing. It is a very good thing.

 

[nutshell]

I wish a mod would show up. This thread has been shoved off track and it's time to bring it back.

This thread is about picketing religious structures, NOT the LDS/homosexual debate. If you guys and girls wanna talk about the LDS position on homosexuality, start your own thread.

 

[Flappycat]

I wish a mod would show up. This thread has been shoved off track and it's time to bring it back.

This thread is about picketing religious structures, NOT the LDS/homosexual debate. If you guys and girls wanna talk about the LDS position on homosexuality, start your own thread.

I was thinking the same thing, which is why I was trying to tie the derailment in with the main discussion in my above post. Do you think I made a good try at it?

 

[lilithu]

I wish a mod would show up. This thread has been shoved off track and it's time to bring it back.

This thread is about picketing religious structures, NOT the LDS/homosexual debate. If you guys and girls wanna talk about the LDS position on homosexuality, start your own thread.

True, and I apologize for participating in the OT debate. The bigotry shown towards Mormons in these "protests" is unacceptable in any context. Whatever issues one may personally have with LDS doctrine it does not justify the behavior of the picketers. And to use this thread to say "now you know how it feels" is utterly ungracious and motivated by hate, not love.

 

[Flappycat]

And to use this thread to say "now you know how it feels" is utterly ungracious and motivated by hate, not love.

I think that it is a very legitimate thing to point out. Other groups have also had bad confronations with the ignorant or hopelessly bigoted, and the only way for such behavior to be rejected from society is for all groups to 1) understand that the behavior of their harrassers is no more hurtful than that experienced by other minorities and 2) realize that nobody is safe or immune when ignorance and prejudice are allowed to prevail. Do you contest the truth of this? Do you contest its relevance to the OP?

 

[Flappycat]

You are a jerk and this is the only way I could tell you without you knwoing who i was. ****-off

I know exactly who you are. You are a disgraceful person. If I ever think about this again, I will know you as a disgraceful and rather cowardly person who uses the frubal system for "anonymous" abuse. We're all using aliases here. Well, that will be your alias. I know exactly who you are.

 

[nutshell]

I think that it is a very legitimate thing to point out. Other groups have also had bad confronations with the ignorant or hopelessly bigoted, and the only way for such behavior to be rejected from society is for all groups to 1) understand that the behavior of their harrassers is no more hurtful than that experienced by other minorities

I like your first point, flappy. I read a book a few months ago, it was actually a series of essays by a black man in the 18 or early 19 century. He said black slaves had been treated worse than any other group ever in world history. Whether or not this is true is beside the point. Slavery was wrong, no question, but his claim seemed too extreme and alienated me as an audience. I began counting all the other groups in world history who had suffered at the hands of the majority.

 

[Bishka]

I like your first point, flappy. I read a book a few months ago, it was actually a series of essays by a black man in the 18 or early 19 century. He said black slaves had been treated worse than any other group ever in world history. Whether or not this is true is beside the point. Slavery was wrong, no question, but his claim seemed too extreme and alienated me as an audience. I began counting all the other groups in world history who had suffered at the hands of the majority.

I agree that is a good point, by both Flappy and Nutshell. I believe this thread was the intent of picketting religious structures, and yes, the OP started with LDS, because the poster was LDS and that was their experience.

I don't think picketting any religious structure is right, whether it is a UU building, a LDS temple, a Catholic Catherdral, etc. etc. etc. Yes, it'll keep happening because people have their free will and it's allowed under the contitution. I just wish that they could do it in a more polite manner, I've seen polite, calm, nice protests out there.

 

[lilithu]

I think that it is a very legitimate thing to point out. Other groups have also had bad confronations with the ignorant or hopelessly bigoted, and the only way for such behavior to be rejected from society is for all groups to 1) understand that the behavior of their harrassers is no more hurtful than that experienced by other minorities and 2) realize that nobody is safe or immune when ignorance and prejudice are allowed to prevail. Do you contest the truth of this? Do you contest its relevance to the OP?

Flappycat, I did not challenge you directly when you first introduced the issue of homosexuality into the thread. I'd already butted heads with you on the atheism thread and didn't feel like going at it again so soon. And I also realize that you're coming from personal hurt. Very valid hurt. Nevertheless, you have hijacked this thread in order to spotlight your own issues. I don't deny that the issues are related, and said as much when I said that we are dependant upon each other to preserve our rights. But by focusing on your own hurt here you invalidate the hurt felt by LDS here. The implication is that somehow they deserve this.

From your first post:

I will sympathize just as soon as I hear that the Church of LDS has a strict policy against interfering with the lives of members of the gay community, whether directly or through the ballot box. Quid Pro Quo.

I don't believe in Quid Pro Quo. I believe in compassion. If you know what it feels like to have such hatred directed at you as these picketers are doing, and I'm sure you do, then you can draw on that experience to have some compassion for the Mormons who are feeling hurt here, independantly of any other issues you may have with them.