Force vs. Freedom to Choose

Great Debates
1

Okay, looking back over my past posts on SSM (Same-Sex Marriage), I can see that I have erred. I’ve been trying to force my moral views on other people, and that isn’t right. I believe that God is against SSM, but I’m not going to try to force anyone to believe that. If you don’t want to believe that, that’s fine with me.

All I seem to be doing is putting my foot in my mouth every time I post on this subject.

DISCLAIMER: The LDS church is in no way responsible for my words–I am. I have portrayed my religion as wanting to force its views on society, when in fact that is not true. The LDS church teaches that freedom to choose is one of the most important rights we as God’s children have. All statements I have made about forcing people to adhere to my morality (or lack thereof) are solely my views, not those of the LDS church.

I think I’ll just keep my damn mouth shut from now on. :frowning:

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

2

The cornerstone of religious and spiritual insight is the awareness of your own lack of immunity from being in error, which is a state that all the fervent worship of God won’t do anything about.

Once you accept that, you realize more quickly that it is a bad thing if religious people or people with a vision from God or prophets or whatever go around trying to force people to adhere to God’s will as they understand it…because they might be wrong, perhaps even diametrically opposite of what is truly God’s will on the issue.

Instead, you focus your energies on trying to communicate your spiritually-inspired vision to others in a context where they are free to disagree with you, debate you, or ignore you entirely. And I think that is what you are doing, so it would seem that you are in the clear.

Disable Similes in this Post

3

Thanks, Allan. I really don’t want to force my views on anyone, just to express them sometimes. Isn’t that what this forum is for, after all, is the free expression of ideas and the combatting of ignorance?

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

4

Flinx:

Even our Lord did not force his views on others. Think about that.

He did express His opinions, but He showed the way with a loving heart. Think on that.

You took an important step. :slight_smile:

You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-

5

Very good points, Edlyn. Thank you. :slight_smile:

I have always been a very forceful person, at least to some extent. That’s been in my personality since Day One. Just ask my younger siblings.

I apologize to any I have offended by this forcefulness, and I pledge to be less so from now on, especially with the downtrodden who don’t need my condemnation. I’ve had to learn this lesson over and over again. Hopefully this time it will stick.

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

6

Edlyn said:

Uh, yeah, He just throws you into eternal torture if you don’t accept those views…

7

Hey, David, was’t that slythe’s turn to post the “God hates humans unless they turn sock puppet for him” line? :slight_smile:

I’ve said over and over again that IMHO, and subject to the strictures above, what God wants is lasting human happiness, which in each person’s own way, they are to find in their loving relationship with Him. About the only justification for a relationship with God founded on fear is that it’s (slightly) better than no relationship at all, in the same way that a child obeying his parent’s discipline comes to see where the parent is coming from (out of love) and to love the parent in return. Even Adam, the strongest “God’s wrath” advocate now posting, will say much the same thing. So set up another straw god to shoot down if you must shoot at one (I think Zeus has a millennium or two free if you need somebody).

Now, to the OP: Bill, insofar as I am concerned, you were entirely within your rights to say what you said. That I disagree strongly with your premise is no cause to believe that you did not have great integrity in making those anti-SSM posts.

As I have said before, if I believed in the doctrine of the Latter-Day Saints regarding Prophet Hinkley’s stricture on the subject, it would be incumbent on me to advocate opposition to SSMs, on the theory that, for whatever reason He might have, God opposes them and has so revealed it to his Prophet, who has in turn revealed it to the Faithful. Bill, you count as one of those Faithful, and have every right to present your views.

I personally feel very strongly that the judgment about marriage is a personal moral choice, and that laws should not attempt to influence that choice. But I can see very clearly that there can be grounds for feeling otherwise.

If I understood you in the first place, you were not opposed to SSMs on the basis that you found them immoral, but on the basis that your Prophet told you that God was opposed to them, and would withdraw his blessings from America and expose it to his wrath if they were permitted. Keeping America from God’s wrath sounds to me like a good idea.

IMHO, Mr. Hinckley is well-intentioned but all wet. However, in yours, he is the one sure voice of God on earth. We can agree to disagree on this issue without flaming each other. (Which I started back when, and for which I now publicly apologize.)

8

Polycarp wrote:

There are a couple of things I want to mention here:

  1. The problem with saying I find someone else’s practice “immoral” is, it sounds like I’m looking down my nose at them and being all “holier-than-thou.”

  2. Yes, the main reason I’m opposed to gay marriage is that the LDS prophet has asked members to oppose it. I have pledged my support to the prophet, so am bound to try and do what he says, even if I don’t understand exactly why. I’m not trying to be cruel to Otto, Esprix, et al, by being opposed to SSM. I think they’re good people, but I just don’t agree with their stance on SSM.

  3. Yes, I’m worried that God’s wrath will follow if this nation makes SSM legal. When I say that, I don’t mean that ONLY SSM will bring wrath, I just mean that it is ONE of the things that will bring wrath.

But far be it from me to take away someone else’s free agency. If Otto wants to live that kind of a lifestyle, I’m not going to stop him. I may vote against SSM, but I’m not trying to take away anyone’s rights. I’m just trying to follow the prophet.

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

9

Polycarp wrote:

All water under the bridge. I had forgotten completely about our old arguments and flames. I accept your apology, and apologize myself for being bullheaded sometimes.

10

Flinx, although I haven’t seen your earlier posts, it sounds to me like you have debated a point in the realm of reason and philosophy, and have allowed yourself to be persuaded by what you see as a superior argument.

I have tremendous respect for you! Rah!

He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’

11

Rah, rah!

When all else fails, ask Cecil.

12

SingleDad wrote:

Well, not really. I am still against SSM and believe that the institution of the family is threatened by it, but I’m just saying here that I agree with Otto when he says I shouldn’t be trying to force my viewpoint on others. Yes, I’ll still vote against SSM. I may even discuss it further.

The question here is whether I will try to force it on people or whether I’ll give them my arguments in a way that will allow disagreement and respect their right to choose for themselves.

But thanks for the compliment–it made my day. :slight_smile:

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

13

Then you’re still willing to force by rule of law your religious viewpoints on others. So really, nothing’s changed.

14

Otto, I’m just trying to be nicer to people. This thread’s title doesn’t say, “Hooray for me, I’ve changed!” My intention is to try and be less forceful in my posts. I do reserve the right to vote as I see fit. The title isn’t “Otto has persuaded me to abandon my religious convictions!” either. You have, however, persuaded me to try to be more respectful of others and less forceful. For that, I thank you, sir. :slight_smile:

15

Otto, let me put it this way: if I were not a Mormon, I would be siding with you on the SSM issue.

16

Then youre saying that your church’s teachings disagree with your own convinctions?
My pastor is against it, in fact, he was vocal at the Domestic Partners meetings here in Lakewood. If I disagreed strongly with him, I wouldn’t be in his church.

17

Orangecakes, let’s just say that I’ve been around long enough to know that people do mistreat those who struggle with same-sex orientation, and I’d like to see “gays” get as much respect and tolerance as the rest of the people. Look what happened to poor Matt Shepard.

I will not go against what the prophet says, however. If he says jump, I’ll say “How high?” Or at least I’ll do my best to follow him because I believe he’s a man of God; the mouthpiece of God, in fact, for our day.

The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)

18

This is not to say, however, that President Hinckley is against “gays”–in fact, I’ve heard him say on television that “gays” are welcome in the Church as long as we don’t act on our homosexual feelings. He’s an extremely nice man, and a humble servant of the Lord, IMHO.

19

I see you were already ‘beat up’ a bit for that comment.

I thought you didn’t believe in Him. If you give Him ‘credit for that’…

You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-

20

Flinx, I have never felt you were trying to change anyone or force your beliefs on anyone - this board, after all, is for the airing of opposing views. Do you proselytize? Yes - it is the nature of your religious beliefs. Do you tell me I’m morally wrong? Yes - but I simply disagree with you, and offer opposing points of view, as we have different value systems (and we both can word our statements without being inflammatory, albeit passionately). Is voting “imposing your beliefs on society?” Yes - it is the very nature of voting. Are you wrong for doing it? No - although I might disagree with your reasons.

We can disagree without being disagreeable.

Esprix

Ask the Gay Guy!