Split Thread Mormons and marriage

[catsmate]

Can I assume I won't be seeing a reply to my previous post? Just to remind you:

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock
It seeks to force us to accept and treat a vulgar mockery of marriage and family as equivalent to the real thing.

So two people who care about each other and wish to get married is "a vulgar mockery"; do you apply this standard to:

1. Forcing women into marriage?
2. Forcing women into marriage for the material gain of her relatives?
3. Forcing underage girls into marriage?
4. Polygamy?
5. Polygamy by coercion and deception?
6. Posthumous marriage?
7. Marriages where the woman is expected to defer to her husband, merely because he is her husband?

What about restrictions on marriage rights based on race? Religion?
What degree of consanguinity between people should prevent marriage?

Split from: Why do homosexuals...

Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Can I assume I won't be seeing a reply to my previous post? Just to remind you:
So two people who care about each other and wish to get married is "a vulgar mockery"; do you apply this standard to:

1. Forcing women into marriage?
2. Forcing women into marriage for the material gain of her relatives?
3. Forcing underage girls into marriage?
4. Polygamy?
5. Polygamy by coercion and deception?
6. Posthumous marriage?
7. Marriages where the woman is expected to defer to her husband, merely because he is her husband?

What about restrictions on marriage rights based on race? Religion?
What degree of consanguinity between people should prevent marriage?

I don't know what sort of answer you expect here. Do you somehow imagine that I object only to one form of mockery and abuse of the sacred institution of marriage, but will defend other, equally reprehensible abuses thereof?

 

[RandFan]

I don't know what sort of answer you expect here. Do you somehow imagine that I object only to one form of mockery and abuse of the sacred institution of marriage, but will defend other, equally reprehensible abuses thereof?

Interesting, so you think Polygamy is a form of mockery and abuse of marriage?

In any event, I think you missed his point. God doesn't seem to think marriage was a sacred institution as all of those things have been sanctified by god according to the Bible and or Mormonism.

Perhaps we should reason on our own and leave god and sanctity out of it. Unless you think ancient prescriptions about marriage are actually relevant in a modern society.

 

[bikerdruid]

I don't know what sort of answer you expect here. Do you somehow imagine that I object only to one form of mockery and abuse of the sacred institution of marriage, but will defend other, equally reprehensible abuses thereof?

it is a refreshing thought and a great relief that this type of bigotry is not common in canada.
straight couples do enough to mock and abuse marriage.

on a positive note, the first queer couple married in canada just celebrated their tenth anniversary.
i'm sure, that despite your ill wishes, they had a wonderful celebration.

 

[DC]

I don't know what sort of answer you expect here. Do you somehow imagine that I object only to one form of mockery and abuse of the sacred institution of marriage, but will defend other, equally reprehensible abuses thereof?

yes

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Interesting, so you think Polygamy is a form of mockery and abuse of marriage?

It wasn't my attempt to address each individual example, and argue which is legitimate and which is not. I was merely responding to the apparent argument, of logic similar to “How can you possibly object to assault, when theft is something that has also happens?”

Homosexuality—especially when used as the basis for a fraudulent mockery of marriage—is immoral, disordered, and wholly against the laws of God and nature. That other activities may take place that are similarly immoral is completely irrelevant to this fact.

That one kind of evil takes place is not, in the least, an argument that some other form of evil isn't evil.

 

[Chaos]

I don't know what sort of answer you expect here. Do you somehow imagine that I object only to one form of mockery and abuse of the sacred institution of marriage, but will defend other, equally reprehensible abuses thereof?

It´s quite simple.

Either you object to the mockery and abuse of marriage which is glorified by your religion, in which case we have to wonder why it´s still your religion.

Or you don´t object to it, in which case you´re a bigot and a hypocrite.

Pick one.

 

[Mark R]

Homosexuality—especially when used as the basis for a fraudulent mockery of marriage—is immoral, disordered, and wholly against the laws of God and nature.

And you know what is against the laws of god how? The Bible? A book written in a language you don't know, by people you don't know, and changed so many times over history we cannot tell what the real version is.

Or is there some other source you are getting this information they rest of us are missing?

Regarding the laws of nature, these are descriptive laws. They are not prescriptive. They are not attempting to assert any type of moral judgment. Calling homosexuality immoral based on the laws of nature is as silly as calling the space shuttle immoral for trying to break earth's gravitational pull on liftoff.

(You know, because the space shuttle has an agenda against the Universal Law of Gravitation. That is the real reason the program has been shut down.)

 

[RandFan]

It wasn't my attempt to address each individual example, and argue which is legitimate and which is not. I was merely responding to the apparent argument, of logic similar to “How can you possibly object to assault, when theft is something that has also happens?”

Well, don't be shy. You don't need to argue anything. Which do you think are evil and which aren't?

Homosexuality—especially when used as the basis for a fraudulent mockery of marriage—is immoral, disordered, and wholly against the laws of God and nature. That other activities may take place that are similarly immoral is completely irrelevant to this fact.

How do you know? The Bible says that the instance of marriage listed, the list where you declare some are evil, condones all. Please to explain?

That one kind of evil takes place is not, in the least, an argument that some other form of evil isn't evil.

What is this "other evil"? If all of the types of marriages listed are condoned by god, in the Bible, how can you call them evil AND, more importantly, what is your basis to declare homosexuality evil and disordered?

 

[Dayan81]

And you know what is against the laws of god how? The Bible? A book written in a language you don't know, by people you don't know, and changed so many times over history we cannot tell what the real version is.

Actually, the New Testament has remarkable clarity on what is and what is not to be accepted. 1st Corinthians 5:11 states "But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat".

I anxiously await the day when homophobic Christians become consistent in their religiously-motivated hatred, and begin casting out the idolaters, liars, drunks, thieves, and straight individuals who engage in sexual activity other than vaginal intercourse for the purpose of procreation.

 

[Giordano]

It wasn't my attempt to address each individual example, and argue which is legitimate and which is not. I was merely responding to the apparent argument, of logic similar to “How can you possibly object to assault, when theft is something that has also happens?”

Homosexuality—especially when used as the basis for a fraudulent mockery of marriage—is immoral, disordered, and wholly against the laws of God and nature. That other activities may take place that are similarly immoral is completely irrelevant to this fact.

That one kind of evil takes place is not, in the least, an argument that some other form of evil isn't evil.

Bob Blaylock,

Having lurked here and read many of your posts, I still don't understand why you are so angry about gays getting married. Why is it any of your concern?

If I were to marry in a Christian ceremony, the fundamentalist followers of my religion would consider it invalid, and an immoral, offensive mockery of "true" marriage. The same would be true, in reverse, if a Christian fundamentalist were to marry into my religion. Society therefore invented a wonderful concept that began even before Abraham: the government will simply allow any two consenting adults to legally marry if they wish. If a couple also desire a specific church to sanction their marriage, then they have to agree to the church's rules. But for tax purposes, custody, hospital visits, etc,, the government can't use a religious test. Would you want them to? What if my religion somehow got enough power one day to mandate the rules that have to be followed for you to marry your loved one? What if you had to swear your wedding vows to Allah, or to Rama, or to Thor? What if the government declared that you had to be circumcised to be married?

Unfortunately, for too long in the U.S., the government has imposed a religious-based test on civil marriages: the consenting adults cannot be the same sex. It's time to recognize this as religion-based discrimination and fix it. I'm not asking that YOUR church marry people of the same sex any more than I am asking YOUR church to marry people of another religion. But it is OUR government and OUR country, and I am asking you to not impose your beliefs on other people if it doesn't affect your own life.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It´s quite simple.

Either you object to the mockery and abuse of marriage which is glorified by your religion, in which case we have to wonder why it´s still your religion.

Or you don´t object to it, in which case you´re a bigot and a hypocrite.

Pick one.

You missed a third possibility, which is that you are misrepresenting, either as a result of ignorance, or more likely, as a result of dishonesty, what my religion does or does not “glorify”, in which case, your point says nothing at all about me, actually, but says something very significant about you.

 

[arthwollipot]

Homosexuality—especially when used as the basis for a fraudulent mockery of marriage—is immoral, disordered, and wholly against the laws of God and nature.

Can you please explain exactly what it is about homosexuality that makes it, specifically, immoral?

I'm curious about the word 'disordered' too, but for now I'd like to focus on the word 'immoral'. It might help if you gave other examples of things that are 'immoral'. I'd like to try and get to the basis of what it is about a particular thing that makes it 'immoral'.

 

[catsmate]

It wasn't my attempt to address each individual example, and argue which is legitimate and which is not. I was merely responding to the apparent argument, of logic similar to “How can you possibly object to assault, when theft is something that has also happens?”

Homosexuality—especially when used as the basis for a fraudulent mockery of marriage—is immoral, disordered, and wholly against the laws of God and nature. That other activities may take place that are similarly immoral is completely irrelevant to this fact.

That one kind of evil takes place is not, in the least, an argument that some other form of evil isn't evil.

Every one of the examples I listed, which you (apparently) consider to be " fraudulent mockery of marriage" has been practiced with the support or connivance of the Mormon church in particular, and xian churches in general. Several still are.
Would you not consider it grossly hypocritical and morally wrong for that church to oppose civil rights for homosexuals while it fails to modify its own stance, accept, apologise and compensate for past wrongs? Or at least stop aiding and abetting these practices?

 

[RandFan]

You missed a third possibility, which is that you are misrepresenting, either as a result of ignorance, or more likely, as a result of dishonesty, what my religion does or does not “glorify”, in which case, your point says nothing at all about me, actually, but says something very significant about you.

Let's face the elephant in the room. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were polygamists. The LDS church at one time sanctified plural marriage. It is part of their history. More importantly it is still part of their theology. So, does plural marriage mock marriage? Many Christians say yes, why are they wrong?

 

[Chaos]

You missed a third possibility, which is that you are misrepresenting, either as a result of ignorance, or more likely, as a result of dishonesty, what my religion does or does not “glorify”, in which case, your point says nothing at all about me, actually, but says something very significant about you.

Possibility #4: You are either lying about, ignorant about, or in denial about what your religion does or does not glorify.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Every one of the examples I listed, which you (apparently) consider to be " fraudulent mockery of marriage" has been practiced with the support or connivance of the Mormon church in particular…

That is simply a flat-out lie.

The vast majority of the specific points you mention are not, and have never been, considered acceptable within the Mormon church. You appear to be confusing the genuine Mormon church with a few of the more bizarre offshoots thereof.

In any event, discussion of the specific claims is not relevant to this thread. This thread is about one specific evil. Claiming that other evils also take place is not, in any way, an argument in favor of a different evil.

That some people in the commit murder is not an argument in favor of rape. That some people commit rape is not an argument in favor of theft. That some people commit theft is not an argument in favor of murder.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Let's face the elephant in the room. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were polygamists. The LDS church at one time sanctified plural marriage. It is part of their history. More importantly it is still part of their theology. So, does plural marriage mock marriage? Many Christians say yes, why are they wrong?

I don't deny that polygamy was practiced in the church. My great-great grandfather was a polygamist, at the time the U.S. decide to outlaw it. He was forced to choose to disown three of his wives, and the vast majority of his children, or else go to jail. He chose jail.

In biblical times, polygamy was considered acceptable; and in fact, it appears to be difficult to nail down when and how it ceased to be. It certainly fist the general model of marriage (a man united to a woman as the basis of a family), and differs from modern understandings of marriage only in that a man was allowed to enter into more than one at a time.

But in any event, it is entirely irrelevant to this thread. This thread isn't about anything that has anything to do with genuine marriage. We're talking about a foul perversion of the sacred order that God established on which to form families, and stable societies—a perversion which can only undermine true marriage and family, and destabilize society.

If there is any relevance it is this: People like my great-great-grandfather had stable, viable families, formed around polygamous marriages. It worked well enough until government interfered, and destroyed many of these families.

The homosexual movement seeks to create fake “families” that by their very nature will be unstable and destructive. Not the same thing at all.

 

[cwalner]

We're talking about a foul perversion of the sacred order that God established on which to form families, and stable societies—a perversion which can only undermine true marriage and family, and destabilize society.

That must be why the US is having such a problem with illegal aliens (snowbacks according to father Guido Sarducci) coming from our northern border fleeing the chaos and destruction their society has endured over the last 6 years, looking for a righteous haven that the US offers them in their time of despair.

Oh, wait....

 

[Dayan81]

...The homosexual movement seeks to create fake “families” that by their very nature will be unstable and destructive. Not the same thing at all.

Why would the homosexual "movement" seek to create unstable & destructive families? Do you have any statistics that support your claim that such families are inherently unstable & destructive?