• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

LDS Church will stay the course in opposing gay marriage

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Apostle: Same-sex attraction can change | The Salt Lake Tribune

Same-sex attraction can be overcome and any type of union other than marriage between a man and a woman is morally wrong, an LDS apostle told millions of Mormons on Sunday.

“There are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature,” Boyd K. Packer, president of the church’s Quorum of Twelve Apostles, said in a strongly worded sermon about the dangers of pornography and same-sex marriage. “A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. Do you think a vote to repeal the law of gravity would do any good?”

Packer, speaking from his seat because of his frail health, addressed more than 20,000 members gathered in the LDS Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City and millions more watching the faith’s 180th Semiannual General Conference via satellite.

The senior apostle drew on the church’s 1995 declaration, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” to support his view that the power to create offspring “is not an incidental part of the plan of happiness. It is the key — the very key.”

Some argue that “they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural,” he said. “Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember he is our father.”
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
I wonder to what extent the mormon leadership supports legislating morality.

Why stop at gay marriage? Include adultery, blasphemy, pre-marital sex, tithing less than 10%, heresy, using caffeine (coffee, soda), etc.

Why is it not enough for them to preach their beliefs and morality to their followers? Simply excommunicate or reprimand offenders. Why do they insist on blatently injecting their religion into our secular gov't?
 
Last edited:

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Based on Utah state law, they support injecting their morality into legal action to a high degree. Have you ever tried to buy a drink in Utah?
 

DarkWizard12

Trans-Fascist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
10,372
Reaction score
2,288
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Based on Utah state law, they support injecting their morality into legal action to a high degree. Have you ever tried to buy a drink in Utah?
To a certain extent, morality always has and always will be legislated, no matter how atheistic you get.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Anybody tried convincing a Group of Gays on the reverse of the above theme anytime lately(??) You will be overwhelmed by the Understanding, compassionate, multileveled tolerance and Intellectual astuteness.
 
Last edited:

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
To a certain extent, morality always has and always will be legislated, no matter how atheistic you get.

As the 19th century political philosopher Lysander Spooner stated in Vices Are Not Crimes, "Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property. Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another. Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property. For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things."
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wonder to what extent the mormon leadership supports legislating morality.

Why stop at gay marriage? Include adultery, blasphemy, pre-marital sex, tithing less than 10%, heresy, using caffeine (coffee, soda), etc.

Why is it not enough for them to preach their beliefs and morality to their followers? Simply excommunicate or reprimand offenders. Why do they insist on blatently injecting their religion into our secular gov't?

That's not the way to the devout religious are programmed. Go forward and be fruitful also includes spreading the faith. If you aren't doing it then you are failing.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Anybody tried convincing a Group of Gays on the reverse of the above theme anytime lately(??) You will be overwhelmed by the Understanding, compassionate, multileveled tolerance and Intellectual astuteness.
Did you have a point or are you merely trying to smear all homosexuals?
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's not the way to the devout religious are programmed. Go forward and be fruitful also includes spreading the faith. If you aren't doing it then you are failing.

"Spreading the faith" can only be done with a sword? People must be forced into belief and conformance to christian morality through laws?

I thought "the word" is what is to be spread, not "the word" by the tip of a sword. To render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is gods" apparently what is caesar's is God's and what is god's is god's.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"Spreading the faith" can only be done with a sword? People must be forced into belief and conformance to christian morality through laws?

That is how it has historically been done. Christianity's original spread was by the sword in order to directly displace paganism (which was the dominant spirituality in most of the world). Same with Islam, same with Hinduism, etc.

I thought "the word" is what is to be spread, not "the word" by the tip of a sword. To render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is gods" apparently what is caesar's is God's and what is god's is god's.

The worst thing to happen in history, IMO, was when Constantine I chose Christianity over Paganism. If someone could go back in time and prevent that from happening, I think the world would be a much different place. His religious policy was what started the behaviours that we see even today.
 
Last edited:

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Laws, all laws, are nothing more than morals with clubs. What they're doing is no different than what I'm trying to do-- we're just on opposite sides of this one.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Laws, all laws, are nothing more than morals with clubs. What they're doing is no different than what I'm trying to do-- we're just on opposite sides of this one.
There is a difference between laws based on objective facts and those which are based on unverifiable claims, opinion, speculation, or holy book tales.
E.G., (1) requiring vaccinations for school children to prevent the spread of disease and (2) banning the eating of pork to prevent offending the god believed to exist by some portion of society.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is a difference between laws based on objective facts and those which are based on unverifiable claims, opinion, speculation, or holy book tales.

All of those things serve a human function though. Faith-based systems create personal well being. I read a study not long ago that said people who are grounded in whatever it is they believe tend to have stronger immune systems. There is also tradition, history, and social structure interwoven into these systems.

It's just the politics of those things that get messy. The root of the problem continues to be people not being able to live life according to their own beliefs without the need to try and dominate others. I frankly don't care if someone believes in God, as long as they don't try to take measures to force me to believe in the things they do. A stable society should be able to keep balance between multiple modes of thought. Right now there are some cracks.

E.G., (1) requiring vaccinations for school children to prevent the spread of disease and (2) banning the eating of pork to prevent offending the god believed to exist by some portion of society.

#2 actually has a basis in human health. Many diseases that pigs have are transmittable to humans. Pigs were seen as unclean animals in ancient time for a reason. You have to put yourself in the context of an older epoch. They knew nothing about the microscoping world, and God was the basis of knowledge and explanation for practically everything. (By "they" I tend to refer to the people in regions where the Abrahamic faiths all sprung up.) People probably observed things about pigs that were unhealthy and then attributed it to God's will; then that got written into scripture. Just because the explanation may be faulty, doesn't mean there is no underlying reason.

Also, there was science before the modern version of science existed. Logical explanations take on different forms that don't necessarily correspond to modern structures. The field of health I'm in is a testament to that. One must be very careful to not write off systems that have inherently useful knowledge on the basis that they seem whimsical compared to your system. You could be tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is a difference between laws based on objective facts and those which are based on unverifiable claims, opinion, speculation, or holy book tales.
E.G., (1) requiring vaccinations for school children to prevent the spread of disease and (2) banning the eating of pork to prevent offending the god believed to exist by some portion of society.

Morals. With. Clubs. There is no qualitative difference between your morals and mine. There is no objective measure of "right" and "wrong". There is only which one of us is strong enough to get their morals passed into law.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
There is no qualitative difference between your morals and mine. There is no objective measure of "right" and "wrong".
I agree. A claim to "right" and "wrong" is a normative statement.

"For example, "children should eat vegetables", "smoking is bad", and "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" are normative claims. On the other hand, "vegetables contain a relatively high proportion of vitamins", "smoking causes cancer", and "a common consequence of sacrificing liberty for security is a loss of both" are positive claims. Whether or not a statement is normative is logically independent of whether it is verified, verifiable, or popularly held."

We may disagree that vaccinating children is "good" but it is objective and verifiable that it prevents the spread of disease.


There is only which one of us is strong enough to get their morals passed into law.

Finding common objective values and goals is key. If we agree on such values or goals then it is likely that we can find and even agree on objective means by which to achieve them.
 

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
All of those things serve a human function though. Faith-based systems create personal well being.
Are you claiming that atheists are unable to create personal well-being in such respects? Or are you claiming that all atheists have faith-based systems (in which case your argument is moot)?

I read a study not long ago that said people who are grounded in whatever it is they believe tend to have stronger immune systems. There is also tradition, history, and social structure interwoven into these systems.
Why not be grounded in beliefs that can be confirmed and verified to exist in reality?

I frankly don't care if someone believes in God, as long as they don't try to take measures to force me to believe in the things they do.
In day-to-day life, I don't care either. But on a public debate forum, when someone claims to know "the Truth", I often challenge them to explain or "show me" how they know.

Oftentimes, the religious offer nothing more than opinion, testimony, or holy-book tales.

#2 actually has a basis in human health. Many diseases that pigs have are transmittable to humans. Pigs were seen as unclean animals in ancient time for a reason. You have to put yourself in the context of an older epoch. They knew nothing about the microscoping world, and God was the basis of knowledge and explanation for practically everything. (By "they" I tend to refer to the people in regions where the Abrahamic faiths all sprung up.) People probably observed things about pigs that were unhealthy and then attributed it to God's will; then that got written into scripture. Just because the explanation may be faulty, doesn't mean there is no underlying reason.
You are missing the point.

I stated: banning the eating of pork to prevent offending the god believed to exist by some portion of society.

I did NOT state: banning the eating of pork to prevent disease.

The point is that making unverifiable claims, opinion, or speculation cannot be agreed upon except through belief without, or in spite of, evidence (I.E., faith). This is in contrast to objective claims which CAN be agreed upon by simply looking at the evidence. See my response above to Korimyr for details.

Also, there was science before the modern version of science existed. Logical explanations take on different forms that don't necessarily correspond to modern structures. The field of health I'm in is a testament to that. One must be very careful to not write off systems that have inherently useful knowledge on the basis that they seem whimsical compared to your system. You could be tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
I have no knowledge of the validity of the "field of health" you are in beyond your testimony. If you claim to know effective treatments then there are hundreds of medical grad students desperately searching for new treatments to jettison them into the medical field. Often, such claims do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny but that does not stop believers from believing.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Considering how long the Mormons officially sanctioned racism against Blacks on theological grounds, it isn't exactly surprising that they would take a similar view against homosexuality. Eventually the social pressure will probably force them to change their stance just like they did with the "mark of Cain" but unfortunately the day is some time away.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Considering how long the Mormons officially sanctioned racism against Blacks on theological grounds, it isn't exactly surprising that they would take a similar view against homosexuality. Eventually the social pressure will probably force them to change their stance just like they did with the "mark of Cain" but unfortunately the day is some time away.

Why is this so important to you on an individual basis - like Today?????

More importantly that analogy will not hold up . True, social pressures by 1978 did cause the LDS leadership to Prayerfully reconsider - but an attempt even a decade earlier would have caused a schism in the membership and this is Honestly recognized by many Mormons today.

Same Sex Marriage is a different thing because there was no deluge of Blacks into the Church right after the change - but militant Gays and their legal teams have had a Bulls Eye on the LDS Church for some time now - so eventually even if every State permis Gay Marriage - it will not rest there.
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Same Sex Marriage is a different thing because there was no deluge of Blacks into the Church right after the change - but militant Gays and their legal teams have had a Bulls Eye on the LDS Church for some time now - so eventually even if every State permis Gay Marriage - it will not rest there.

What are you trying to say? That gays are going to "invade" the Mormon religion some how?
 

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
What are you trying to say? That gays are going to "invade" the Mormon religion some how?

They already have. The MTC is a hotbed of sexual intrigue. And, you know their missionaries work in single-gender pairs and aren't allowed to date....

^.^

Don't even get me started on the ghey menace at BYU.

http://gayatbyu.blogspot.com/
 
Last edited:

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
2,412
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What are you trying to say? That gays are going to "invade" the Mormon religion some how?
The gays are coming! The gays are coming! Everyone, to the life rafts!! Throw them your wine coolers while we make good our escape!!

:lamo
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's because they're all purchased at Mr. Mac.

Plans to take over the LDS:

1) Hostile take over of Mr Mac stores.

2) Introduce a sense of contemporary style.

3) Reap the rewards of the new gay LDS.
 
Top Bottom