A Thread for Pathros_1983

[Pathros_1983]

IOW, you, or Monty, or emarkp, or whoever, could present a point that is essentially irrefutible, and I could then say “I prayed about this for hours, and God told me, in His Divine Light, that you were wrong.”

And by your own statement, that “diving light”, which could as easily as not be total bullshit, would carry more weight than whatever well-reasoned, supported with cites, documented throughout-the-ages point you made.

If we debate something and no consensus is made that will probably be what happens. Our faith will be the determining factor if we “believe you or not.” That doesnt mean the second you attack something we believe we will result in “well I prayed and was right so I don’t need to debate this.” As long as contention is avoided, I will respond to your comments. Just remember what emarkp said, and thats that we do not consider the bible to be the entirety of canon.

my original intent was to get you to discuss your religious beliefs/tenets here (as you will see if you re-read the OP), since you were unwilling to do so in the Pit thread. And since your morals are, I would hazard a guess, derived from your religious beliefs and tenets, and since your thoughts regarding legislation stem from those same beliefs and tenets, I would not think it a hijack of this thread to go into a discussion about those.
(and)
Where in the Bible is there justification, according to LDS beliefs, for “imposing your morals on people who don’t follow your religion.” as MrVisible asked?

Mr. Visible made that comment in the pit thread, and in the pit thread I told him I was going to give him a well thought out response. I also said to be patient because I was going to consult a few people. I have yet to respond to him because I am not yet finished writing my response. I considered it a hijack to take the focus of the other thread and put it on this one, but if you so wish to go along with what Mr. Visible wants, then I will tell you the same thing and thats to be patient and I will give you a well thought out response. In the meantime, if you wish to put more focus onto LDS beliefs on homosexuality then do so. I will post what emarkp said in the other thread here.

originally posted by emarkp
**MrVisible, you seem to think that laws are only passed based on objective evidence that the motivation is sound.

That’s not how it works in the US. Sorry about that, but laws typically are passed because a group of people is large enough to demand it, and it’s not considered unconstitutional (and they often don’t even pass that last litmus test).

In the case of same-sex marriage, you seem to have gotten things backwards. Marriage has been recognized by the state for centuries because it was the norm in society. People formed families, had children, and governments recognized that legally. Big surprise–society tends to codify in law practices that are generally accepted as being in the norm.

Same-sex unions have never been a part of marriage laws. Given that you (and others) wish to change the law to recognize same-sex unions equally with traditional marriage, I think you need to apply the same standard you yourself stated in the other thread. Specifically:

quote:

Originally posted by MrVisible
And not in nebulous terms; you’ll need facts, statistics, and proof.

So prove to the rest of us in society with facts, statistics, and proof, how this will be a benefit to society, and not a net detriment.

And while you’re at it, please read here an essay which echos my feelings about why most (if not all) arguments for same-sex unions are spurious.

Also I object to your claim that not changing law to recognize same-sex unions is marginalizing same-sex couples in America. It is not laws that marginalize people, it is society–the same people who write the laws. Frankly, same-sex couples are in fact at the margin of society. The relevant definition of marginal is: “excluded from or existing outside the mainstream of society, a group, or a school of thought.” Same-sex couples are far outside of the mainstream.

Finally, the idea that small-minded people need an excuse from the law to beat people up is ridiculous on its face. People who are nasty enough to beat someone senseless because he behaves differently don’t look at the lawbooks and see if that behavior is somehow “marginalized,” think “Hey Bubba, didja know that gays can’t marry each other according to law? Let’s go rough some of 'em up.” I was a scorned member of society myself when growing up. I was a nerd (still am, actually). I endured a fair number of fights because of that, and there was no need for laws which excluded nerds from some activities/benefits/etc.

AND

Another point I forgot to address was that we all labor under laws based on philosophies we don’t agree with. Financial policy is probably the best example. I personally don’t believe in redistribution of wealth and social engineering through taxation, and yet others who disagree have passed laws which compel me to hand over my hard-earned money for those purposes. Why do these people insist on forcing their beliefs on me?

[emarkp]

*Originally posted by iampunha *
And to emarkp:

“Note how I pointed out that we LDS do not in fact rely solely on the Bible as canon.”

Note how I said, in the OP: “Well, here you are. Your place to debate, to show us your arguments and the tenets of your beliefs.”

How about this, for a question meant for Pathros_1983 (but which anyone who knows the answer may feel free to give it):

Where in the Bible is there justification, according to LDS beliefs, for “imposing your morals on people who don’t follow your religion.” as MrVisible asked?

This is getting bizarre. Do you see the dischord between the first sentence there and the fourth? [Did you read the article I posted](http://library.lds.org/Library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1995.htm/ensign october 1995.htm/samegender attraction.htm)?

As for imposing morals…I’ve already pointed out in the other thread that (as least in the US) we live in a society which passes laws all the time based on conflicting philosophies.

(Looks like Pathros beat me to it. I prefer links to text where convenient.)

[dangermom]

This is getting really strange. Look, the beliefs of the LDS Church regarding homosexuality are very simple.

1. Sexual activity is only allowed within marriage.
2. Marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints november 1995.htm/the family a proclamation to the world.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0, which I hope will lead you to the Proclamation on the Family, will give you a summary of LDS beliefs on marriage and family. Since this proclamation is endorsed by the prophet and all the apostles, it is in itself valid doctrine to Mormons. See? Simple.

Now, note that this means that homosexual desires do not in themselves constitute serious sin, at least not any more than heterosexual lust does. Straight sex outside of marraige is just as bad as gay sex. The problem is that there is no legitimate outlet for those desires, the way there is for straights. I’m sorry that it’s difficult, but that’s how it is. Straight people who never marry are in the same situation: celibacy for life. So are divorced and widowed people. Lots of people have managed celibacy. If my husband left me or died, I’d have to do the same.

There are plenty of scriptural verses in the LDS scriptures and in the Bible that condemn fornication, and since no one has ever thought to question the male/female nature of marraige, I’m not sure it’s ever been directly addressed until now. I believe Paul says something to the effect of that the man is for the woman, and the woman for the man, but that may be Peter Gabriel. Anyhow, I have to go make dinner for the baby and haven’t got time right now to look it up.