Mormons anticipating marriage discrimination lawsuits?

[VINYLONE]

To me, the wealth inequality, unrelenting partisanship, unsustainable defense spending, and our idolatry of "job creators" is a far greater threat than a small minority (gays) being able to be married.the Koch Bros are a bigger threat to America than all the gays combined.

I like this. Who are you referencing when you write "job creators?"

 

[Archie Moses]

So you admit that the government has nKoiever forced the church to do anything against its marriage standards? So what exactly are you arguing about? Why the cause for concern?

I for one am one fed up Mormon who's tired of this Chicken Little attitude I've seen from fellow Mormons in the past few years. Whether we are talking about taxes, debt, health care, marriage, guns, etc it's as if the world is coming to an end!

To me, the wealth inequality, unrelenting partisanship, unsustainable defense spending, and our idolatry of "job creators" is a far greater threat than a small minority (gays) being able to be married.the Koch Bros are a bigger threat to America than all the gays combined.

I was making a point that government has, in fact, had a hand in saying what religions can or can't do. Do you disagree?

 

[One Brow]

I was making a point that government has, in fact, had a hand in saying what religions can or can't do. Do you disagree?

It's misleading to to say "the government requires religions, when acting like public entities, to follow the same laws as other public entities" is equivalent to "saying what religions can or can't do". The latter carries the implication that it is talking about religious activities.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I was making a point that government has, in fact, had a hand in saying what religions can or can't do. Do you disagree?

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

 

[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.