Mormons anticipating marriage discrimination lawsuits?

[Scat]

The government has never forced any church to perform any marriage it objected to, and there is no reason to think it will start to do so. Catholics churches are not and never have been required to wed divorced people. No church was ever forced to perform an interracial marriage. Etc.

The divorced community is not nearly as rabid in forcing others to accept them as the gay community is.

 

[Archie Moses]

You seem to be better informed on this issue than I. So what have you seen the government dictate to religions?

We could start with polygamy and more recently blood transfusions. I'm sure there's many more things I could find as well. Btw, I don't have a problem with either of those from the government stand point.

 

[JimLes]

We could start with polygamy and more recently blood transfusions.

Most jurisdictions in north America have no laws on the books preventing you from entering into as many sacred bonds with as many people, animals, or inanimate objects as you'd like(Utah's cohabitation law being one of the few exceptions). The government simply chooses to not recognize such unions under its own legal definition of marriage, which has nothing to do with whether that religion views them as marriages or not.

The government, as far as I know, does not compel churches to change their internal doctrines. Even when they conflict with the law, the government does not actually mandate you change your views. You can still oppose blood transfusions all you want.

 

[Deleted member 848]

The divorced community is not nearly as rabid in forcing others to accept them as the gay community is.

And gee, I wonder why this is?

 

[Scat]

And gee, I wonder why this is?

I've never been divorced or gay so I don't know.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I've never been divorced or gay so I don't know.

C'mon Marcus, I'm sure you can dig a little deeper than that. You consider yourself a smart guy, I'm sure. If gays are more 'rabid', shouldn't there be a reason behind it? Unless you think it's purely a coincidence

 

[One Brow]

The divorced community is not nearly as rabid in forcing others to accept them as the gay community is.

You mean, businesses don't discriminate against divorced people the way they do against gay people. Try opening a business that says it won't serve divorce people, see what happens.

 

[TroutBum]

My predictions:

The LDS will let women have the priesthood in the next 20 years.

In the next 40 years, married homosexuals will be allowed to do temple ordinances.

Since the Church has no problem throwing past leaders/doctorine under the bus, why wouldn't they make these changes?

Bitter people are fun. What leaders have been thrown under the bus? Serious question, because I've never heard that before. Btw, neither of hose two things will happen. Maybe at some point, who knows, but I'd bet every nickel I'll ever make that it won't.

I've never been divorced or gay so I don't know.

Your ex-husband disagrees with this statement.

 

[Scat]

You mean, businesses don't discriminate against divorced people the way they do against gay people. Try opening a business that says it won't serve divorce people, see what happens.

You weren't discussing businesses. You were discussing religions. Your comment referencing divorced people was in regards to the catholic church not being forced to marry people that had previously been divorced.

The government has never forced any church to perform any marriage it objected to, and there is no reason to think it will start to do so. Catholics churches are not and never have been required to wed divorced people.

Using divorced people as an example of churches not being forced to do something was weak at best. Gays will push much harder to force religions/churches to marry them/recognize their marriage.

Many churches employ people to maintain their facilities, manage records, etc. If the person hired is gay and married can the church be forced to 1. hire them? 2. provide benefits to their spouse?

 

[JimLes]

Many churches employ people to maintain their facilities, manage records, etc. If the person hired is gay and married can the church be forced to 1. hire them? 2. provide benefits to their spouse?

What does this have to do with churches being forced to marry anyone? Denying someone a sacrament and denying someone employment are very different things.

 

[One Brow]

You weren't discussing businesses. You were discussing religions. Your comment referencing divorced people was in regards to the catholic church not being forced to marry people that had previously been divorced.



Using divorced people as an example of churches not being forced to do something was weak at best. Gays will push much harder to force religions/churches to marry them/recognize their marriage.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about illegal discrimination, not legal discrimination.

Where are the gay people insisting they have a right to be married in churches, then? How are they more rabid in that regard?

Many churches employ people to maintain their facilities, manage records, etc. If the person hired is gay and married can the church be forced to 1. hire them? 2. provide benefits to their spouse?

No, and no. Look it up.

 

[The Thriller]

I think what this discussion brings up is that there is a lot of unnecessary fear going about. Much of which can be dispelled with civil discussion. Which seems to be lacking greatly with our politics.

 

[The Thriller]

Bitter people are fun. What leaders have been thrown under the bus? Serious question, because I've never heard that before. Btw, neither of hose two things will happen. Maybe at some point, who knows, but I'd bet every nickel I'll ever make that it won't.

My guess is the whole blacks holding the priesthood thing. Is that what the OP was referencing?

Many quotes (taken out of context and/or canonized) about blacks and the priesthood have been taken back. There are multiple leaders who one could say have been "thrown under the bus."

Didn't president Uchtdorf a conference or two ago admit that leaders have made mistakes? Didn't he admit that some things have been taken as prophesy when in reality they're opinion or speculation?

I can see where some negative people would consider that "throwing past leaders under the bus."

 

[PearlWatson]

My predictions:

The LDS will let women have the priesthood in the next 20 years.

In the next 40 years, married homosexuals will be allowed to do temple ordinances.

Since the Church has no problem throwing past leaders/doctorine under the bus, why wouldn't they make these changes?

If they can't stop Jews from being proxy baptized, then they will definitely get some proxy sealings of homosexuals with marriage records whether they like it or not.

 

[PearlWatson]

I think what this discussion brings up is that there is a lot of unnecessary fear going about. Much of which can be dispelled with civil discussion. Which seems to be lacking greatly with our politics.

Yes, it is important to dispel the God-clingers unnecessary fears. They should know that if they like their homophobic religion they can keep it.