Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Good post
Another negative reputation comment:
We never do really see our own bigotries, I suppose. I see myself as being disdainful of any sort of system that offers answers to human behavior that run counter to human nature, which would include religions, libertarianism, communism, etc. Maybe I am harder on religion than other sort of nonsense.
However, I don't have nearly the influence of the LDS. When I discriminate against religious people, it is unintentional and ineffective. When the LDS discriminates, it casts a pall on the lives of thousands of its own members. So, as much as I deeply, deeply respect the old rubber-glue argument, I don't think that I feel my comments are in any wrong inaccurate or inappropriate here.
I agree completely. The religion has every right to discriminate, and its members have every right to complain when they are called out on the institutional bigotry.
One is worthy of sealing, to my understanding a sealed marriage is considered a more spiritual form of marriage than the unsealed. Do you believe otherwise?
So, you're the sort that thinks it's moral to support marriages inside your own race only? Because your arguments are parallel to theirs.
I was raised Catholic, and understand perfectly well what sin is supposed to be.
Oh, the horrible persecutions of being told that your religion is bigoted, just because they say the love gays have for each other is unworthy. How will the LDS ever survive it?
When one of the rules of a church is that the couple has to have the same race, do you consider that bigoted or not?
If you do, then what's your point?
What is the difference, in your mind, between the words 'bigoted' and 'discriminatory'? Do they mean the exact same thing?
Of course you love them, you're just telling them that their natures are inferior and not worthy of the honors available to straight people. How could anyone interpret that message as less than loving and accepting?
I think if anyone told you that you could simply choose not to be a Muslim and instead believe what, say, Hindus believe, you would be insulted by the notion.
Consider this a response to your various jabs against the LDS "faith". I think I have elsewhere laid out distinctions between "faith" and "logic". Do "religious" people have any "rights" at all to use their natural human rights to establish a legal structure compatible with their ideals? Why should anyone else have civil rights of that kind. . . . to exercise political franchise to establish laws after their own ideals?
Our American founding fathers actually had some discussions about the need for making a claim of higher authority, or higher moral authority, than a simple claim that humans have a right to do what they please, in establishing a political structure. They realized what no one here has mentioned. . . . If the claim is merely that people are free, there is a problem with that.
They accordingly invoked the moral authority for their revolution of a Supreme Being, an absolute moral authority that is "higher" than man himself.
If we construct a set of laws based merely on what we are, on what we wish, or on what we choose, we face the problem of what I laughingly call the Nietzchean Nightmare. If we enact "law" based on our own authority, why should anyone hold it in any regard? Does one man, or set of men, have higher authority than another? Does a State have higher authority than a rebel?
I am fundamentally against agenda pushers with their special ideas forcing their way on others, just as I am against those "others" who have exercised their majority perks to force their ways on others in the past.
What our founders did, while invoking the authority of "Nature's God" in proclaiming the "self-evident" human right to replace governments abusive of human liberty, was a radical departure from the Western Tradition flowing from a Christianity that embraced statism some thirteen hundred years earlier. They took Biblical ideals about inherent human values derived from an anthropocentric "God" that had handed down a Law, a Law that was based on the existence of an absolute Law Giver giving man specific duties and rights and defining "righteousness", and merely asserted that a set of understandable human rights exist because that fact is supported by the Ultimate Authority.
Scientists use the same foundation when they pursue their Scientific Method, with the understanding that the Universe is fundamentally ordered, and understandable. The Scientific Method I embrace refers to an inherently independent self-existing reality that exists on its own authority and nature, not on a "politically expedient" human agenda we can create or choose for ourselves, as it has in some respects been degraded to today.
What is going on now with various anti-religious movements is a problematical assertion that there is no underlying reality and that we are entitled to define and establish the "reality" that we wish to create.
This is, and always will be, a fool's errand.
We do not want a State empowered to play Fool with our lives.
whatever we believe or wish for our personal life structure, our culture, or beliefs. . .. we do not want to create this monster. . . . . A State that can define these things and give them the force of law, is the very Devil we are trying to rid ourselves of.
Whatever beliefs and social relations we want, we need to assert our "rights" without giving government the power to define them. If you want liberty in any regard, you need to accept a liberty that allows others to select for themselves their own ways as well. Generally speaking, that means you need to limit government's power by mutual agreement, not indulge in a public brawl or debate about who among us is going to win our way, and then use government authority to enforce it.
I argue that there is a self-existing reality to human nature that will determine the results of our actions. That reality determines the value of our sexual relations or actions. That reality places a premium value on heterosexual unions, and on long-term committments to a family structure. Some values can be achieved with other structures if we choose to go that way, or if for any reason that is what we are inclined to, but the premium value is propagation of our species in the face of all the challenges to our continued existence.
I agree with Dutch that "marriage" is a concept owned by it's creators, the followers of a religious tradition. It is an attack on that religious tradition to try to give government the power to define it. If we want religious freedom in any kind of "tradition", if we want freedom to claim any relation is sanctified by our beliefs, we should keep government stripped of all power to define it or regulate it.
what I would do is seek an amendment to our Constitution that removes States from all power to license or define personal relationships. I admit some value for state licensing of say building contractors, professionals, and commercial enterprises, although even those are often harmed more by State regulation than "helped". This is a radical idea. It is the same idea our founders had when they decided to be rebels, and replace their government with one that was not so inclined to play Fool and overlord us.
Gameface, religion is all about our right to believe and act as we are pleased to imagine God wants. If you want respect from others, and toleration from others, for the things you are pleased to value, you will make your case better by supporting the same rights for others.
Last edited:
Such deep, deep ignorance. People would rather be enslaved than starve.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I'm insulted by many notions held by many people. I am unsure what your point is.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
There is a wide spectrum of what can be considered 'better'. Better and worse isn't black and white.
Not really tbh.
If you complained about being discriminated against for being a Muslim, and someone responded by saying "well, maybe you should change your religion", would you take that as a valid retort to your complaint? What OB is saying is pretty obvious.
Siblings and parents have inherently unequal power in their relationships by the nature of that relationship.
If you mean me, I have only referred to institutionalized bigotry. I don't recall calling any individual Mormon a bigot.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
This is not at all related to my post that I made earlier in this thread, so that's why I am unsure as to what OB (or you) is talking about.
If I decided tomorrow that I was homosexual, and there was nothing in my faith that reconciled my spiritual seekings with my sexual attraction, then I would cease my spiritual obedience to my particular faith. This was my point. One sect of one particular religion disallowing gays to marry shouldn't dissuade gay citizens. If a Christian think it's stupid that I don't drink, I really don't give a ****. As long the discrimination isn't systemic, and I am allowed to practice in peace without persecution, I really don't care.
The opposition is the same.
Oh, so this goes back to "it's not prejudice if I say it comes from faith". Yeah, I don't think I feel like having this conversation again.