LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

. . . the phrase "Mormons, by themselves," designates Mormons. Your post distinguishes the group so referenced from others, and the fact that they are Mormons is, thereby, made central to your argument about rights.

I don't disagree.

It is clear from the manner in which it is written that you acknowledge the group in question acted as Mormons, because they are Mormons.

You make an unwarranted assumption. You cannot say with certitude that every Mormon voted the same way.

And therefore, insofar as the group is acting on the basis of falsity and fraud, then the falsity and fraud are relevant to what they do.

So you believe that Mormons who voted on the issue didn't study it, discuss it, analyze it, research it. How would what Joseph Smith did or didn't do in the 1830s influence how LDS members voted on Prop 8 circa 170 years later?
The Church isn't a static institution. That's why it has a living prophet. Your argument is a tortured one at best.

Nobody here is disputing the rights of "Mormons, by themselves," to voice their opinions or to vote their consciences. But when they do so, it is entirely relevant, and entirely permissible, for those who find their beliefs repugnant, to attack their beliefs and the basis of their beliefs.

No it isn't. Where do you intend to draw the line about voters you would target for attack? You advance a very dangerous idea; i.e., a litmus test for who does and does not have the unimpeded right to vote.

Nor does it matter whether or not they alone were responsible for the passage of the bill in question. If they participated, and if they did so openly as a result of their Mormon beliefs, then that is what they did.

Do you realize what you are saying? Some citizens' beliefs may disqualify them from being eligible to vote. Do you really believe that?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . None of the sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus (at least in the xianist canon) have anything to do with homosexuality at all. In fact, at least in the xianist canon, Jesus is not said to have ever mentioned homosexuality.

You overlook the fact that Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus and commissioned him an apostle who was to continue the earthly ministry of Jesus. Thereafter, Saul became Paul, and he--acting under the authority of the risen Savior--spoke out against homosexuality on at least three occasions: 1) Romans 1:26-28; 2) 1 Cor. 6:9; and 3) 1 Tim. 1:10 (King James version).

Mormons of apparently acceptable standing, with temple privileges and everything, see no problem identifying "homosexual behaviour as a "disgusting and abhorrent" lifestyle.

You make a sweeping generalization.

Further, The CJCLDS has seen fit, as an organization, to become socially active in denying the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples, even when neither party of the couple is, in fact, a mormon, nor would ever choose to be.

Religious organizations have a right to speak out on moral issues.

At the same time, the CJCLDS provides counseling, support groups, and remediation for divorced mormons, up to and including allowing divorced mormons to re-marry at the highest level of temple privilege. Nor do we see the CJCLDS actively pursuing legal restrictions on, ot prohibition of, civil divorce, even for mormons.

I can't speak for the Church, but I believe it is committed to doing everything possible to help those who are divorced and to save marriages threatened by divorce. Rather than conflicting with Jesus' counsel, it seems to me this approach is supportive of it.

Why is it that behaviour specifically proscribed, even forbidden, by Jesus (at least in the xianist canon) is allowed, supported, and remediated in the CJCLDS. . . .

(See above.)

while behaviour about which Jesus is not said to have said a word is reviled?

As I point out above, Jesus did speak out against homosexuality through his commissioned apostle.

Again, I grant you, as I have all along, that your sect may impose whatever standards it chooses upon its members. I do not grant that your sect's superstitions give them leave, authority, or permission to arrogate to enforce your rules, invented to control the behaviour of members, upon non-members and the public at large.

The Church doesn't have the authority to enforce rules designed for its members on non-members. It does have the right to make its voice heard on moral issues, just as some other religious and conservative organizations did re. Prop. 8 (and many years ago, the Equal Rights Amendment).

I do find it odd that your sect adopts the name "Jesus Christ" in its cognomen while so selectively applying the teachings attributed to Jesus, who was said to be said to be "the Christ".

The ministry of Jesus Christ did not end with his mortal death. He commissioned his disciples, including Paul, to continue his work. As you may know, several of his disciples gave their lives in honoring that divine charge.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Are non-believers devoid of prejudices?

No but they aren't codified into our defining documents, if we can even be said to have such things.

 

[skyrider44]

Yes. And you haven't presented anything that actually supports that argument. As such, you currently rely only on bigotry to support the view.

I rely on bigotry to support my views? You might want to reconsider that statement, inasmuch as it merits an apology.

 

[bruto]

I don't disagree.



You make an unwarranted assumption. You cannot say with certitude that every Mormon voted the same way.



So you believe that Mormons who voted on the issue didn't study it, discuss it, analyze it, research it. How would what Joseph Smith did or didn't do in the 1830s influence how LDS members voted on Prop 8 circa 170 years later?
The Church isn't a static institution. That's why it has a living prophet. Your argument is a tortured one at best.



No it isn't. Where do you intend to draw the line about voters you would target for attack? You advance a very dangerous idea; i.e., a litmus test for who does and does not have the unimpeded right to vote.



Do you realize what you are saying? Some citizens' beliefs may disqualify them from being eligible to vote. Do you really believe that?

Skyrider, you are utterly, completely and woefully misinterpreting (again) what I have said. I do not dispute anybody's right to vote, nor do I dispute the right to vote on the basis of belief. I dispute the right to state reasons and not have those reasons disputed. Nowhere at all, ever, nowhere, ever (really!) have I ever suggested that a person with any religious idea should not, or can not vote.

Nor am I saying every Mormon voted the same way. I never said that, and never meant to say that. That is absolutely and completely not what I said. I said that YOU in your post identified a voting bloc of same-voting people who did so because they are Mormons. The distinction was yours. It does not matter if other people despite being Mormons voted otherwise. YOU stated that a particular voting bloc was distinguished from others who voted otherwise and others who voted the same, by being Mormons. Read what you wrote.

Nor did I say the Mormons in question did not study the issue in depth. I do, however, say that insofar as their Mormon beliefs distinguished them as a voting bloc, as you so definitely stated, it is reasonable to question what part their Mormon beliefs had in the process, and one of those things to question is whether those beliefs are based on fraud. As you very well know, the fact that Joseph Smith operated long ago does not make him irrelevant to Mormon policy and thought. The LDS Church can hardly be said to have abandoned him or to have thrown out his teachings, and the LDS Church still defends the integrity and truth of the scriptures he uttered.

You keep saying not to put words in your mouth. Don't you put words in mine either.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You overlook the fact that Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus and commissioned him an apostle who was to continue the earthly ministry of Jesus. Thereafter, Saul became Paul, and he--acting under the authority of the risen Savior--spoke out against homosexuality on at least three occasions: 1) Romans 1:26-28; 2) 1 Cor. 6:9; and 3) 1 Tim. 1:10 (King James version).

Well, no.

At best, Paul is said to have said that Jesus appeared to him, after Jesus was said to have already been crucified. Overlooking the logical problems with a dead person being said to still be communicating with a living person, to say that "Jesus spoke out against homosexuality because Paul spoke out against homosexuality" is, at best, a sophistry. The "living saviour" superstition is unsupported by any kind of empirical fact. Jesus is never said to have spoken about the issue at all. Are those phylacteries quite broad enough, yet?

You make a sweeping generalization.

Well, no.

I refer to the words and behaviour of a member-in-good-standing of the CJCLDS, recorded in this very thread. Perhaps you weren't paying attention...

Religious organizations have a right to speak out on moral issues.

What is the "moral issue" involved with marriage equality?

If it really were the "good of the children", why not oppose bad schools, abusive marriages, social barriers to SES improvement, and divorce? Why pick an issue that has yet to be shown to be detrimental to children, independent of SES?

If the "good of the children" is really the issue, why deny the children of same-sex cohabitants the demonstrated benefits resulting from their caregivers being allowed to marry?

I can't speak for the Church, but I believe it is committed to doing everything possible to help those who are divorced and to save marriages threatened by divorce. Rather than conflicting with Jesus' counsel, it seems to me this approach is supportive of it.

Well, no.

Do consider reading what Jesus is said to have said about divorce. For that matter, do consider reading what Paul is said to have said (evidently, with the "authority" of Jesus) about divorce.

(See above.)

I looked above; you addressed neither issue.

As I point out above, Jesus did speak out against homosexuality through his commissioned apostle.

As I said above, Paul is said to have claimed that a dead person spoke to him from beyond the grave. Jesus is not said to have said anything about the issue of homosexuality; nor is he said to have said that Paul would receive his authority. Taking what Paul is said to have said as indication of what Jesus said is the same silly error as taking the contents of the BoM as evidence that the ahistorical claims of the BoM are true, because the BoM says they are true.

Jesus is not said to have said anything about homosexuality. He is, on the other hand, said to have proscribed divorce, and remarriage after divorce...as well as some other irritating things that also get swept aside as inconvenient.

The Church doesn't have the authority to enforce rules designed for its members on non-members.

For once, I agree.

And yet, your sect continues to act as if it is meet and proper to attempt so to do. Why do you suppose this is?

It does have the right to make its voice heard on moral issues, just as some other religious and conservative organizations did re. Prop. 8 (and many years ago, the Equal Rights Amendment).

...and look how that turned out. It is no longer considered "moral" to own slaves; it is no longer considered "moral" to deny humans civil liberties based upon the color of their skins; it is no longer considered "moral" to deny humans civil liberties based upon their genetic gender; no matter with what, or whose, authority religious and conservative organizations pretended to justify these behaviours. I am old enough to remember when it was considered "moral" to deny humans the benefits of civil marriage if they had different-colored skins; and when it was considered "moral" to oppose remarriage after divorce. As a society, we outgrew those phases. We will outgrow this one, sooner or later.

The ministry of Jesus Christ did not end with his mortal death.

Well, no.

Whoever, or whatever, the itinerant apocalyptic preacher upon which the Legend of Jesus^TM is based may have been, he died. The "ministry" of people claiming to speak with his authority, and in his stead, goes on--no matter how little he would have recognized the organizations formed "in his name".

He commissioned his disciples, including Paul, to continue his work.

...according to words attributed to Paul and to those disciples. And to the disciples of those disciples. Funny how the substance of that "ministry" keeps changing...

[/quote] As you may know, several of his disciples gave their lives in honoring that divine charge.[/QUOTE]

Well, no.

Even if there were no disputes about which of the "disciples" actually existed, or about which of the "martyrs" were martyred, there is no empirical evidence of any "divine charge". Not only that, among those claiming to have received the "real" "divine charge", there is a notable lack of homogeneity.

Yes, people have decided to sacrifice their own lives in service of their ideas about a "divine charge"...some of them were even xianists. What has that to do with denying the civil right of marriage equality to adults capable of consent?

 

[skyrider44]

But you've admitted that the evidence does not identify any merit to the proposal. You've said that "the jury is still out". So you've formed an opinion before the jury has come back with a judgement. You've pre-judged the issue. That's the literal definition of prejudicial.

The expression "the jury is still out" means that no decision has been reached; it has nothing to do with pre-judging; in fact, it is the opposite of pre-judging. The correct, literal definition of "prejudicial" is as follows: "1. tending to injure or impair: hurtful, damaging, detrimental. 2. obs. being or taking the form of prejudice: biased, possessed, or blinded by prejudice. 3. leading to a premature judgment or unwarranted opinion." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 2002, p. 1,788)
[/quote]

I, personally, would be much more satisfied if you came out and said you don't want gays to marry because you don't believe homosexuality is moral and you want to root it out of society entirely. That argument, while wrong, is at least consistent.

What makes you suppose I'm interested in satisfying you?

 

[Loss Leader]

The expression "the jury is still out" means that no decision has been reached; it has nothing to do with pre-judging; in fact, it is the opposite of pre-judging. The correct, literal definition of "prejudicial" is as follows: "1. tending to injure or impair: hurtful, damaging, detrimental. 2. obs. being or taking the form of prejudice: biased, possessed, or blinded by prejudice. 3. leading to a premature judgment or unwarranted opinion." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 2002, p. 1,788)

The thing you just quoted agrees with me completely and proves you wrong completely. Did you actually read it?

You have said that there is insufficient evidence regarding gay parenting. You have also said that you believe homosexual parenting hurts children. So, you have made a judgment based on insufficient evidence. That's prejudice.

You have expressed anti-gay prejudice. At the very least, own it.

 

[skyrider44]

You clearly stated that "biology alone tells you what marriage is not about". Now you're backing out of it.

You misread that statement. Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.

The LDS hierarchy strongly influenced its membership to vote to restrict the rights of non-Mormon citizens based on their religious convictions regarding homosexuality.

Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?

You don't even know how to address the statistical issues that joobz points out, do you?

Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.

Paying attention to what? Empirical evidence in support of your claims that same-sex couples should not be granted the same legal rights as heterosexual couples has been about as abundant as the evidence supporting your claim that faith is a component of the scientific method.

I am not anti-gay; please don't put words in my mouth.

No, you just think that gays should be legislated into a second class status that denies them equal rights with heterosexuals.

I do, indeed, remember the Harvard paper. I also remember (but perhaps you don't) my subsequent posting of two additional studies, one of which was the largest of its kind re. the effect of same-sex marriage on children. As I recall, you didn't have anything to say about that one.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? First of all, you didn't post either the Social Science Research or the Journal of Health and Social Behavior papers. You simply posted links to anti-gay websites that misrepresented what the studies actually said. If you'd actually bothered to read the studies you'd have known that. Then you turned around and offered a tu quoque fallacy accusing me of using "liberal" sources, when the only sources I'd referenced were the articles that you yourself claimed supported your argument.

 

[joobz]

I am not anti-gay; please don't put words in my mouth.

You do not link to original papers, you link to bigoted analyses of actual studies. I have corrected you on this point, but you continue to do this same thing. (For example, your reference to the gay couples being unhealthy). this is the kind of behavior one who is against a topic would do. If you were truly not anti-gay, then you wouldn't use such biased sources to support your opinions.

I do, indeed, remember the Harvard paper.

Then perhaps you would understand why foster zygote is right when he says you used bearing children as a test for marriage. Your own sources do the same thing. I encourage you to actually read the papers you reference.

(Note, that it is very of you to respond to a side point and ignore the actual point I was making.)

I also remember (but perhaps you don't) my subsequent posting of two additional studies, one of which was the largest of its kind re. the effect of same-sex marriage on children. As I recall, you didn't have anything to say about that one.

I didn't have anything to say on it because that study supported my understanding of the science. It was your source's bigoted position that wasn't supported by the study.

I rely on bigotry to support my views? You might want to reconsider that statement, inasmuch as it merits an apology.

Yes, it is clear you rely on bigotry to support your views.
For example, you linked to a paper that claimed gay couples were less healthy then straight married couples, insinuating that gay lifestyle is not healthy. however, I pointed out that the actual study shows that there was no difference in health between straight and gay couples living together, only married and unmarked couples. In other words, the study didn't support the bigoted position that gay lifestyle is unhealthy.

A non biased person would have responded with a, "I apologize,I was wrong on that study. Clearly, the gay lifestyle is not unhealthy. ". Nor have you responded with something to the effect of "on the grounds of child welfare, clearly as we do not ban poor people from marrying, it would be wrong to ban gays from marrying for this reason."

Until you make these concessions, I am forced to stand by my statement.

 

[abaddon]

I rely on bigotry to support my views? You might want to reconsider that statement, inasmuch as it merits an apology.

I have held my water for a while, but to be blunt you have aligned yourself with an obnoxious and hate filled bigotry.

I do not see you correcting this in any way. I do not see you disagreeing with such view in any way.

It seems to me that you wish to impose your world view by legal fiat, on everyone.

What business is it of yours if two chicks tie the knot?
What business is it of yours if two dudes tie the knot?

What business is it of yours what such couples may get up to in the bedroom?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . I said that YOU in your post identified a voting bloc of same-voting people who did so because they are Mormons.

Please find in my post the terms "voting bloc" or "voting bloc of same-voting people."

 

[joobz]

You misread that statement. Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.

this post is by far and away the clearest demonstration of your anti gay bigotry.

Have you ever heard of vaginal prolapse? What are the causes?
What does this say about your claims of health and heterosexuality?




Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?

Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.

It is insufficient to make this claim. You have to actually show where my critique is faulty. For every research paper you have presented, I have read it and shown where it doesn't actually support your argument.
You clearly haven't even read these papers.


I must ask, why haven't you read the original reports? Do you think you are qualified to argue about the science when you haven't even read them?
What are your motivations for not reading? Is it because you are already certain of your conclusion?

I do not expect you to answer these questions. I only make them with the hopes that you will begin to recognize what is clear to me and many others.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You misread that statement.

Then why, in response to my query as to whether you were referring to procreation in marriage, did you reply, "That's certainly a major part of it. Marriage makes it possible to bring children into the world under the protection of a father and a mother who are legally committed to each other"? Clearly you are only now attempting to move the goalpost to disown your earlier statement.

Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.

If it's a fact, then please back up your claim with actual evidence. And please, no links to homophobic websites. I want to see real medical evidence.

And what does this have to do with allowing consenting adults to marry? And what about females?

Here's the deal: Not all homosexual males engage in anal sex (sorry, I hope candid reference to sexual acts doesn't offend you). And many married heterosexual males engage in anal sex with their spouses. So anal sex is not an argument against legalizing same-sex unions. Are you in favor of laws proscribing anal sex between married heterosexual couples? And what about female same-sex couples? What argument about "unnatural" sex are you going to employ against them?

Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?

Marriage is a right. Any two consenting, heterosexual adults can be married and have that relationship recognized by the state. There is no requirement that they have children. There are no requirements that they engage in, or refrain from, any consensual sexual activities. There is no restriction based on age, save for the requirement that they both be of legal age. There are no restrictions based on ethnicity. You are seeking to deny this right to same-sex couples because their behavior offends your religious morality. The same religious morality that once declared that marriage between men and women of different "races" was immoral.

Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.

Just like the evidence from the ancient Egyptian language, regarding what the funerary texts "translated" by Joseph Smith actually said, is less than convincing?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Please find in my post the terms "voting bloc" or "voting bloc of same-voting people."

Seeing as we're asking for evidence, would you be so kind as to point to the "liberal" sources that I cited?

 

[halleyscomet]

If God is so important to marriage, why do Atheists have a substantially lower divorce rate than Conservative Christians?

Why are so many Christians pushing hard for marriage to be defined as one man and one woman, when such a definition spits in the face of the actual BIBLE?

 

[skyrider44]

Nice red herring, but this isn't about liberal vs. conservative. It's about the methodology employed. The LifeSiteNews.com article is a blatant propaganda piece that only pretends to be backed up by scholarship for the benefit of its homophobic readership that doesn't know the difference.

Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle? The lead paragraph in the article "Health issues for gay men: Prevention first" reads: "All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however. Included in Mayo's recommendations are "Tackle depression," "Seek help for substance abuse," "Be monogamous," and "Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections." Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/health-issues-for-gay-men/MY00738/METHOD=print

Another article entitled "Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle" reads (lead paragraph) "Sexual relationshiips between members of the same sex. . .expose gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to extreme risks [emphasis added] of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders, and even a shortened life span."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/

A third article ("Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals," published by PsychCentral) reads (first two paragraphs) "Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates," according to Dr. Apu Chakraborty, University College, London. "Rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. . .were significantly higher in homosexual respondents." Those disorders included depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527

Being in denial and calling me names won't change the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy.

 

[Loss Leader]

A third article ("Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals," published by PsychCentral) reads (first two paragraphs) "Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates," according to Dr. Apu Chakraborty, University College, London. "Rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. . .were significantly higher in homosexual respondents." Those disorders included depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence. http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527

You did not quote the first two paragraphs of the article. If you had, you would have read past the first sentence:

Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.​

The researcher later states:

... although the level of discrimination was low, it was still significantly higher than against heterosexual people. This “lends support to the idea that people who feel discriminated against experience social stressors, which in turn increases their risk of experiencing mental health problems....​

The study concluded:

There are a number of reasons why gay people may be more likely to report psychological difficulties, which include difficulties growing up in a world orientated to heterosexual norms and values and the negative influence of social stigma against homosexuality.​

So, the very same source you quoted says that mental health problems in the homosexual population appear to be tied to discrimination, and are not an inherent property of homosexuality itself. If we relieve societal prejudice by fully embracing the concept that some people are gay and that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, the stress on homosexuals would decrease and their mental health would increase.

It's people fighting gay marriage who are causing the mental health issues.

The study goes on to say:

In addition, the gay commercial world in which some men and women may participate to find partners and friends may make misuse of alcohol and cigarettes more likely. The former in particular can have adverse effects on mental well-being.​

Instead of just condemning homosexuals flat out, let's really read this sentence. Why are some homosexuals in public sphere which encourages alcohol and smoking? What can we do about it?

It appears to me that some homosexuals enter high-risk environments like bars because that's the only reliable place that they can go to congregate and associate with other homosexuals. It further appears that if we were more accepting of gay men and women, they wouldn't be forced into the dark corners of seedy bars. They could associate openly in healthier environments.

Their stress would go down, their mental health would improve and everyone would understand what the study meant instead of just reading the first line.


“Finally, our results add to evidence that sexual experiences in childhood in men classified as gay or bisexual may play a role in adult psychological adjustment,” they conclude.

 

[Janadele]

"ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be female) to enter and even appear nude before females in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Situations like this have already been reported in several states with ENDA like laws such as Maine, Colorado and California.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/warnings-over-new-gay-transgender-rights/#6ieewljI3COV3e0B.99
Tip of the iceberg...