LDS

[Slowvehicle]

Pup, There are many legal ramifications which could be the topic for another thread. For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.

Um, no. In your opinion, your sect has attached superstitions to the concept of "marriage" that post-date the development of, and alter the intent of, the idea...superstitions which originally conflicted with the claim you are now making. LDS realized it was no longer the "word of 'god' " that "marriage" could be "sacred" to the polyunion of one man and several women. LDS has the opportunity to repair the conceit that their superstition does not apply to people outside the sect.

If the only problem, as you claim, is that the word is "sacred", why do you call homosexuals "disgusting", "immoral", and "evil"?

 

[Janadele]

Homosexual ACTIVITY is what is being referred to.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It is not just a word to those who hold the ordinance and the implications of it sacred.

And you are welcome to practice your superstitions behind closed doors, as long as you do not arrogate the presumed authority to make anyone else, to say nothing of everyone else, play by your superstitious "rules".

BTW, Happy International Blasphemy Day!

 

[tsig]

Is it so difficult to start another thread? It is not appropriate to this LDS thread to discuss further the legal and political implications and ramifications.

It's not appropriate to discuss lds marriage in a lds thread?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Is it so difficult to start another thread? It is not appropriate to this LDS thread to discuss further the legal and political implications and ramifications.

Is it so difficult to answer questions about points you, yourself, brought up in the thread you, yourself, started? I am still waiting for you to substantiate the absurd claims you, yourself, made about the "Radical Gay Agenda", in this very thread.

How is it that anything done among consenting adults in private has any effect, or could have any effect, upon things your sect does?

 

[Shalamar]

Homosexual ACTIVITY is what is being referred to.

Just as bad as Heterosexual activity.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Homosexual ACTIVITY is what is being referred to.

No. You have referred to people as "disgusting", "evil", "slaves of Lucifer".

I ask again: How can anything done among consenting adults, in private, affect you at all, except in the squickiness of your imagination? Name one thing that I, for instance, have done, in private, in, say...the past 48 hours...of which you are accurately aware, much less in any way affected by.

As opposed to, for instance, your pretense that the superstitions of your sect ought to have legal authority and social suasion over me and those I love.

Is it so hard to answer a direct question?

 

[desertgal]

Is it so difficult to start another thread? It is not appropriate to this LDS thread to discuss further the legal and political implications and ramifications.

I don't believe you are allowed to dictate what is discussed in this thread, as long as it relates to the LDS Church, beliefs, doctrine, etc., especially when you brought the subject up. Even what you deem "anti-LDS" is still relevant.

You are not the administrator of this forum or this thread. Stop telling us what we can talk about. Report it to a moderator if you don't like. No matter how often you lie that it isn't, it IS an option available to you.

Gay. Gay marriage. Gay rights. Gay is okay.

 

[Olowkow]

Homosexual ACTIVITY is what is being referred to.

Sexual intimacy between consenting adults is a source of pleasure and a means to maintain a bond of love and friendship. Human desire for sexual partners is a continuum of natural attraction from completely heterosexual to bisexual to solely homosexual (the Kinsey Scale). The fact that you or I disapprove of a particular behavior is irrelevant. There is no reasonable argument for condemning any adult sexual behavior that is consensual and results in no harm.

Are Mormons equally concerned about heterosexual couples' behavior in their the privacy of their bedrooms? You may not realize that the sex acts that gays engage in are the same that many responsible straight couples also enjoy. On any given day, there is much more sodomy being engaged in by straight married or unmarried couples than by gay couples...just the sheer numbers.

What people do consensually in private is emphatically none of your business, and it's downright silly to make it a centerpiece of theistic dogma of major religions.

Proscribing healthy natural behavior such as masturbation and other variations on sex for purely procreation purposes is dangerous, and the bigotry and guilt promotion of homophobes, often religiously motivated, has psychologically harmed many perfectly innocent men and women.

 

[Pup]

For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.

That doesn't fit with "if you disagree then go your own way" though.

And wouldn't that be: marriage is sacred to the union of a man and one or more women? Though the church has abandoned pushing for legal polygamy on earth, the church still calls it "marriage" when a man takes a second wife in the afterlife. There are others who would say that's adultery and that marriage truly is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.

Personally, it doesn't bother me however the word is used, but then I do try to follow the philosophy of letting others go their own way.

 

[kellyb]

Homosexual ACTIVITY is what is being referred to.

Oh, so it's ok if I say Mormon activity is disgusting, immoral, and evil?

 

[jsfisher]

Is it so difficult to start another thread? It is not appropriate to this LDS thread to discuss further the legal and political implications and ramifications.

This is, as others have pointed out, the ideal thread in which to discuss the beliefs, practices, history, mythology, absurdities, and anything else that comes up in an LDS context.

You have provided a great deal of fodder for the discussion, Janadele, but embarrassingly little discussion, itself. Care to rectify that? For example, Book of Abraham -- pure fraud or some redemption by extenuating circumstance: Discuss.

So far, there is a substantial case for pure fraud, but the discussion has been terribly one-sided. If only someone could provide some insight as to the validity of the Book -- in her own words, of course, and without vacuous addiction to copy-pasta.

 

[RandFan]

Pup, There are many legal ramifications which could be the topic for another thread. For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.

The United States is a secular nation. Religion does not own the word "marriage". Creating second class citizens is not good for society. If you think "marriage" is sacred then that is your right but you are not the arbiter of what words gays and lesbians can use for their unions. Separate but equal is demonstrably harmful to those who are forced to be second class citizens.

 

[RandFan]

Is it so difficult to start another thread? It is not appropriate to this LDS thread to discuss further the legal and political implications and ramifications.

This is thread is more than sufficient. It's all things "LDS".

 

[RandFan]

Homosexual ACTIVITY is what is being referred to.

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes is none of your business.

 

[kerikiwi]

For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.

Opposite sex unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage. It's not sacred.

 

[deaman]

What is the point of disputation Dissolution? Would it not be better instead to learn and understand and if you agree then follow, or if you disagree then go your own way.

Wouldn't it be good to follow your own advice?

 

[deaman]

Pup, There are many legal ramifications which could be the topic for another thread. For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.

You do not own the word "marriage".

 

[deaman]

Is it so difficult to start another thread? It is not appropriate to this LDS thread to discuss further the legal and political implications and ramifications.

You do not own this thread.

You do not own the internet.

You do not make the calls as to what goes on at the JREF site.

You do not get to say what is appropriate, and what is not, appropriate.

 

[deaman]

Pup, There are many legal ramifications which could be the topic for another thread. For this LDS thread, sufficient to say same sex civil unions do not and should not require or need to use the word marriage, which is sacred to the union of a man and a woman.

If marriage describes a sacred union of a man and a woman, then union between a man and any number of women, by your definition, would be sacriligious.