LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

I guess you do have more to say.


You're certainly reenforcing your own statement with the sources that you present to support your argument.


How is it not biased? You've cited a conservative Christian writer who once suggested that being gay increases one's risk of getting cancer, and who cites a sociologist who wrote a book published by The Christian Institute.

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

 

[Loss Leader]

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions.

I suppose you'd have a point if we hadn't already had a tremendous number of homosexuals in positions of great power. Some of them, sadly, had to hide their sexuality because of bigotry. Some of them were more open. But strangely, for all the time the country has supposedly been going to hell, it has never actually gotten there.

 

[halleyscomet]

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

Again, your fear is ungrounded. Churches today are perfectly free to discriminate on which marriages they will and will not perform. For example, it's downright common in MANY denominations to refuse to officiate an interfaith wedding. Every now and then a church in the American South hits the papers for refusing to perform an interracial marriage.

No one is going to force the LDS church to officiate a gay marriage, and anyone telling you otherwise is flat out wrong, probably lying to you.

 

[dafydd]

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

Perhaps you can tell me why your god gives children cancer? Janandele is avoiding the question.

 

[abaddon]

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Mendel was Silesian not Moravian.

Mendel's work on genetics was scientifically confirmed, Mormonism is not scientific.

Mendel's work complemented that of Darwin who was a pastor himself.

Furthermore, you have a strawman there. Nobody dismissed any opinion here because of the beliefs of the one holding that opinion, but because such opinions had no scientific basis.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

Nope. Baseless opinions carry no scientific weight. Otherwise I might as well claim the moon is made of skittles, yet be surprised to be dismissed.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

Any source is open to challenge. It so happens that the ones with the weight of scientific evidence in their favour are the ones you don't much like.

And surely you understand the whole preceeding Mayo Clinic discussion, or did you not read those posts?

 

[Craig4]

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

Please, do tell, who is suggesting that LDS churches would have to marry same sex couples? There are no laws on the books anywhere in the US that would direct any church to perform a wedding. If the LDS doesn't want to do a ceremony for a same sex couple they don't have to. You're making up an issue that doesn't exist.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Yes, we all know about Mendel. Remember, you used him in your attempt to justify your assertion that faith is a component of the scientific method. Ironically, I pointed out then that Mendel's religious beliefs were not a part of his scientific methodology. If Mendel had argued for some unsupported claim on the basis of its religious correctness, then you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

If someone makes claims about international Jewish banking conspiracies and cites "research" originating from Arian Nation websites, it would be about as objective as citing the anti-homosexual "research" that you have presented. I'm sure that many religious people are involved in legitimate science concerning the sociology of various homosexual issues. That isn't a problem as long as they don't let their religious views influence their research. But all you have managed to produce is pseudo-science, designed to appeal to people who don't know how the scientific method works, and produced by bigots who want to justify their desire to discriminate against people whom they regard as morally inferior to themselves.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

I'm getting the strong impression that you are not even bothering to read much of what is being posted in this thread. It has been explained to you more than once that the Mayo Clinic page you cited was not being disputed, at all. What was disputed was your false claim that it was presenting issues unique to homosexuals. Is that so hard to comprehend? What does your failure to pay attention to such a simple point say about your objectivity regarding this issue?

 

[Slowvehicle]

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

So much prejudice. So many misstatements.

1. There is no "radical homosexual agenda". A pervasive humanist/rationalist agenda, maybe. Your claim of a "radical homosexual agenda" is no more a reflection of reality than a child huddling under the covers, sobbing, "Poppa, poppa, in the closet a boogeyman is!".

2. Are you pretending that it ought to be acceptable for a citizen to practice illegal discrimination?

3. You are welcome to your opinions about "immorality". However, your opinions about "immorality" have, and should have, no sway upon or suasion over the behaviours of consenting adults in private. We have been over this. If you, personally, find homosexuality, or any other lifestyle or practice, "immoral", do not participate in it. It's that easy.

4. In what way do you imagine the CJCLDS might not be able to "perform legal marriages", when marriage equality becomes the law? You have yet to support your biased, bigoted claim that any church will be "forced" to perform marriages for anyone...this is still more of your "gaoled pastor" fiction.

5. If the CJCLDS will "never capitulate" to the law of the land, why does the CJCLDS believe it has the right to dictate the behaviours of others, even (or especially) non-members?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Open-minded individuals who sincerely seek the truth about a given issue, do not influence the outcome by selectively choosing sources. Truth knows no political, economic, or religious constraints. Truth exists where it exists. You seem to believe that if one is a Catholic, his/her conception of truth is predetermined by his/her Catholicism. Not so. There are many Catholics who do not accept certain aspects of Catholic doctrine, yet they continue to be Catholics. The same is true of Mormons. Some LDS believe the BoM is a 19th century work written by Joseph Smith. Yet they continue to be faithful Latter-day Saints.

Your "interesting" observation at the beginning of this post manages to be both simplistic and naïve.

Needs must, when the devil drives, eh?

I will refrain from pointing out the fact that you are arguing with a man of straw you, yourself, have raised...

Any chance of you commenting on the quality of the opinion piece about actual research?

You seem to miss the effect that pervasive bigotry and wishful thinking has upon opinion pieces.

Any comment on the problems and misuses of the Regenerus "study"?

 

[bruto]

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

What you are saying, if you said it in ordinary language, is close to the truth, but it's not insidious because it's not hidden. The so-called "homosexual agenda" as I perceive it has long been to get people to accept homosexuality as normal, which does indeed include, of course, anti discrimination laws, and the ability to run for and hold political office. These are matters to do with civil society, not with religion. Where I live, for example, anti discrimination laws have been in place for much longer than gay marriage has. You can't throw gay people out of their homes or fire them from their jobs, and you can't take their children away. Wow, ain't that a terrible shame? Those laws do not inhibit free speech, or the expression of disgust, hatred or disapproval in e religious context. It's true that you can't necessarily shout on the street what you can shout from the pulpit, but that's always been true of many things. It is true too that a church-owned organization cannot discriminate in non-religious activities, though there's a lot of free pass for the churches even here. But if the Mormons ran a hospital they could not refuse to serve gay patients, and probably could not vet candidates for janitorial positions on their private sex lives (at least openly).

There is nothing, and never has been anything, in this development, which prevents any church from performing legal marriages or from deciding whom not to marry. The laws allow any church to be the venue in which a legal marriage is performed according to the preferences of that church. What the churches cannot do is prevent adherents of other religions, or no religion at all, from performing civil or church marriages that they don't like. And why on earth should this not be so?

I have highlighted the last part of your post, because it contains an ongoing misunderstanding, and have highlighted part of mine because it contains an oft-repeated but apparently ignored statement. Churches hold a lot of power in our society, and are exempt from many of the rules that must govern a secular civil society. Gay marriage is performed in many states in the US. Churches do not have to perform them if they prefer not to. Period. End of argument. To suggest otherwise is a falsehood and a wicked one - not a misunderstanding but a lie. If you want a good example of the "insidious," start there.

 

[joobz]

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

equality isn't a radical idea.

Those who oppose equality are the radicals.

For example:
Klu Klux Clan, The Taliban, Neo Nazis, any number of urban city gangs, ...the list goes on and on and on.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Well, not actually, and it would be simplistic and naive of you to claim so.

Had Fr. Mendel, for instance, claimed that it was impious to investigate why genetic combinations happen in the ratios they do, because those combinations simply represent the perfect will of 'god', that would, in fact, be a reason to find his conclusions unacceptable. Had he, for instance, claimed that a "heathen" would not see the same ratios, because she would not find favor with 'god', that would be a reason to find his conclusions unacceptable. If he distorted his findings to reflect a papal mandate of what the "holy" ratio should be, that would be a reason to find his conclusions unacceptable.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

Well, no. However, when religious organizations, and conservative organizations, and conservative religious organizations distort the findings of studies, they should not be surprised to find their contributions discounted.
See, for example, the hordes, simply fabulous hordes, of egyptologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, linguists, and historians depending upon JS' "translations" of the BoA as their sole source of historical and lexicographical accuracy.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

...which recommended precautions, also urged for heterosexuals, have what, exactly, to do with the "good of the children"?

 

[joobz]

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Mendel's work was well documented and substantiated. It didn't rely on dogma or authority to make it's claim.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

not at all. What he is saying is that these sources you quote are not original research works, but rather opinion pieces.

Why do you avoid discussing the actual data instead of interpretations of the data?

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge.

You must back this argument up with evidence.
What sources are you defining as "liberal"?

Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

You again are missing the point. The Mayo clinic report isn't being attacked. What is being attacked is your interpretation of what the report says.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

I don't know about Australia, but I bet it's pretty much the same as in the United States regarding the legality of marriage. Here, if you get married in a church/temple (Mormon, Catholic, Hebrew, Muslim, Baptist, etcetera), but you don't get a state marriage license, then you still aren't considered to be legally married. The religious recognition of a marriage and the state recognition of a marriage are two separate issues. If a Catholic woman finds out that her husband has been cheating on her, she can file for divorce and be legally divorced from him in the eyes of the state, yet wait years for the RCC to officially annul the marriage.

Not performing same-sex marriages is part of the religious freedom of the LDS, just as it is part of their religious freedom not to perform Muslim or Hindu marriages. What isn't part of your religious freedom is telling non-Mormons that they can't get married because their union doesn't conform to Mormon morality.

 

[Empress]

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

*GASP*

Not the radical homosexual agenda, trying to get equal rights for all people regardless of their sexual orientation! The horror!

 

[skyrider44]

To what end? That's what you will not address?
So, I'll ask one more time the question you refuse to answer, to what end do you point out the promiscuity of gays (lesbians are less sexually active than all other groups)?

DO - YOU - HAVE - A - POINT?

Assuming a gay couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous,
what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

 

[skyrider44]

OK. We have dealt with the fiction that children need to be "protected" from being adopted by loving couples in stable relationships, and we have dealt with the fact that the honest, non-fraudulent, openly-available studies show, if anything, an advantage to children raised by same-gender couples in stable relationships (an effect which may, in fact, reflect SES more than any other factor).

Not so fast. The underlined portion of your post takes liberties with the truth. There are other studies, just as credible, that show children raised by SS parents suffer a variety of problems compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. I have posted some of those studies, but for you and some others they are dead on arrival.








Where do you find the "right of religious organizations to determine whom they will join in 'holy wedlock' " to need protecting?

Is this more of your "gaoled" pastor false witness?

Please demonstrate a single, actual, honestly-described case of a church entity being forced by law to perform a marriage between same-gender individuals.[/QUOTE]

 

[desertgal]

The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

The Mormon church isn't being demanded to perform civil unions, same sex or otherwise, so it's pretty easy to refuse to capitulate to demands which aren't being made.

Hey, maybe the Mormon church could refuse to capitulate to the demand of allowing blacks into the priesthood next. Oh, wait...

 

[Foster Zygote]

Assuming a gay couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous,
what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

Assuming a heterosexual couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous, what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

 

[deaman]

The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.

Just like the LDS Church would never fold "Plural Marriage:, under pressure from US law. That would never happen, right?