Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<There are a lot of "anyones" here saying it's you who's confusing things, and no "anyones" yet saying it was me.>> <We obviously have different ways of defining "a lot". Just because one or two people believe you because they agree with you doesn't mean they've read the articles, and examined the issue honestly.> Except more than one or two people HAVE said they read the articles. That they disagree with them doesn't mean they haven't examined the issue honestly, except in your mind. <<You can get all semantic again (and probably will), but when you say someone "showed cause," that's a lot closer to saying he "proved" something than "he gave his opinion.">> <We wouldn't have to argue semantics if you wouldn't distort the meaning of words.> That's just pathetic right there. And so there will be no distortion, I'm referring to the 3rd and 4th definitions: "1 : having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity 2 : marked by sorrow or melancholy : sad 3 : pitifully inferior or inadequate <the restaurant's pathetic service> 4 : absurd, laughable <a pathetic costume>" <<Oh, but I can.>> <But you didn't, as I expected. > What? Yes, I did! Unbelievable. I said MA had one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. You said "Saying that Massachusetts has a low rate compared to the nation is useless; we need to see if or how it's changed. " So I showed what happened to the divorce rate in MA after same-sex marriage came into effect, and that the divorce rate, far from rising, declined. And it declined at a faster rate than the period before marriage equality. And at a faster rate than states that instituted measure against marriage equality. Sorry if those aren't the stats you'd like to see for MA. But those ARE the stats for MA. What's amazing is you claim with a straight face that I didn't even provide them. That's telling, though.
Originally Posted By mele I watched a program on PBS one day which talked about gay marriages back in Biblical times. Doing a quick internet search brought up the term "Adelphopoiesis" and "Slovenia". Of course, there's debate about what these unions were about. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoesis" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...hopoesis</a> It just shows how silly it is for people continue to analyze the Bible and history, etc looking for an answer to this issue. We're not living in Biblical times, we don't follow the laws in Leviticus and we aren't legally required to follow more than 2 of the 10 commandments. Our society has evolved and so institution of marriage. Marriage in the Bible wasn't between just one man and just one woman. Men practically sold their daughters into marriage, men had multiple wives AND concubines/slaves. Women (usually in their early teens, another way that marriage has changed) rarely chose their husbands, their fathers made the choice. Women had no choice but to have sex with their husbands and could be tossed aside if they couldn't have children. Even in America, as of the late 1970s, only 3 states that did not recognize "marital privilege" as a defense against rape. All other states followed common law, which defined rape as "the forcible penetration of the body of a woman ***not the wife of the perpetrator***. (According to this website: <a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/13228/Oregon-v-Rideout.html" target="_blank">http://law.jrank.org/pages/132...out.html</a>) Marriage has evolved in ALL ways, save for one. Once black were seen as equals, they were given the right to marry interracially. Once women were seen as equals (still waiting for that to fully come to fruition), they were given more rights in their marriages. Homosexuals are now (sporadically) treated as equals and they, too, will soon be given equal rights.
Originally Posted By utahjosh My religion-based opinion on gay marriages is not based on the Bible, but on modern-day revelation to prophets and apostles. Mainly this one: <a href="http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.lds.org/library/dis...,00.html</a>
Originally Posted By utahjosh The link in 484 is to the Proclamation on the Family. Here are some relevant quotes, but I encourage you to read the whole thing. It's not very long. "All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." "We...declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife." "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
Originally Posted By mele <<Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.>> Gender...hm, *most* gay people usually identify with their own gender; they don't want to be the opposite gender. When I had sex with a woman before I got married, it was AS A woman. I was not pretending that I was a man, I didn't feel like a man, not did I want to be a man. I am a woman. I do not feel any less of a woman for any desires I may have. That is not how "the gayness" works. Gender is definitely an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. Which is PRECISELY why it is so ludicrous to tell gays and transgendered people why they are mistaken about their desires and must change themselves, pretend to be who they are not. Ridiculous. Until you are ready to give up your gender and sexual orientation upon command, do not assume it is so easy for someone else to do it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's fine for you to believe that as a Mormon, utahjosh. It's when people take their belief and try to force it on to everyone (i.e. not even allowing civil same-sex marriages) that I object.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Mele, the statement you quoted does not presume that it's EASY to not follow your desires. Nor does is presume that gay people are trying to change their gender.
Originally Posted By mele <<nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.">> I like this bit thrown in at the end.
Originally Posted By utahjosh "It's fine for you to believe that as a Mormon, utahjosh. It's when people take their belief and try to force it on to everyone (i.e. not even allowing civil same-sex marriages) that I object." I understand that. The last sentence in the proclamation says: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." So that's part of our belief, and I know that many disagree.
Originally Posted By mele <<Mele, the statement you quoted does not presume that it's EASY to not follow your desires. Nor does is presume that gay people are trying to change their gender.>> Of course, it's not EASY...it's EASY to tell someone ELSE to do it when you're unwilling to do it yourself. You're defining what "gender" means when you use it against gay people. I see that as "changing" it. I am a woman...no matter who I am attracted to. So, how does my gender, which is essential to me, come into play at all?
Originally Posted By utahjosh <I like this bit thrown in at the end.> I'm sure we disagree on this stuff. I hope you don't mock it. I believe that "this bit" is not a threat of man, but a revelation and warning given by God through prophets of God.
Originally Posted By utahjosh "You're defining what "gender" means when you use it against gay people. I see that as "changing" it. I am a woman...no matter who I am attracted to. So, how does my gender, which is essential to me, come into play at all?" It's not a statement specifically on Gay people, it's a statement about the Family in general. Take it as a whole.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.<< Gay marriage does nothing to weaken tradition heterosexual marriage. Nothing. What does weaken it is infidelity, irresponsible parenting, and of course, divorce, joblessness, and on and on. But if people want to believe that gay marriage is any sort of threat to traditional heterosexual marriage, well, they'll just go on and believe it. Eventually, perhaps the LDS church will get some sort of divine revelation, as they did regarding blacks back in the 1970's, and it'll all be okay.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Eventually, perhaps the LDS church will get some sort of divine revelation, as they did regarding blacks back in the 1970's, and it'll all be okay.> Not going to happen. There was never direct revelation, specific instruction from the Lord to not give Blacks the priesthood. The Lord DID give specific instruction to allow it, though. But the ideas in the "Proclamation on the Family" are eternal ideals that we will never stray from.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Not going to happen.<< Well, you just don't know that. The Lord gave no specific instructions that gay marriage wasn't okay -- He never mentioned it. Maybe the Lord will give specific intruction to allow it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So that's part of our belief, and I know that many disagree.> If part of your belief is to foist your beliefs on the larger civil society, and/or harm fellow US citizens by depriving them of equal rights, then yeah, I can't get behind that. Because that IS what you're doing. As as 2oony points out, disallowing gay marriage does nothing to "strengthen the family" anyway. Nor does allowing it weaken the family. In fact, just the opposite - it brings more people into a family structure. So even the stated reason for opposing it doesn't wash. (2oony): <But if people want to believe that gay marriage is any sort of threat to traditional heterosexual marriage, well, they'll just go on and believe it.> Bingo.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <The Lord gave no specific instructions that gay marriage wasn't okay.> Gay marriages will never be allowed in the LDS Church Temples - Marriages there are for eternity, have a lot to do with procreation, and building of families, which is not possible with a gay couple to do naturally and eternally.
Originally Posted By utahjosh And if people want to believe that gay marriage is no threat to traditional heterosexual marriage, well, they'll just go on and believe it.
Originally Posted By mele Thankfully, more and more people believe it everyday and will also be voting.
