Zone1 Mormon Church Sells its Soul, Endorses Lyingly-Named Respect for Marriage Law

[WinterBorn]

It's the same thing. If you say gay marriage is OK for others, but not for you, that's double-speak hypocrisy. It's the same as the pro-abortion people saying "I oppose abortion for myself, but I support others aborting". That's ridiculous. And proof that it's ridiculous is to substitute the word "rape" for abortion. Would you say "I personally oppose rape, but I respect the choice of other men to rape"? Of course you wouldn't. If something is wrong, it's wrong for all.

I can happily say that gay marriage is ok for others but not for me. Since I am not gay, why would I be interested in same sex marriage for me? I am, however, very interested in equality for all. Your church is welcome to forbid same sex marriages. But the gov't has no religion, per the 1st amendment. So it is not ok for them to forbid it.

 

[Mashmont]

I can happily say that gay marriage is ok for others but not for me. Since I am not gay, why would I be interested in same sex marriage for me? I am, however, very interested in equality for all. Your church is welcome to forbid same sex marriages. But the gov't has no religion, per the 1st amendment. So it is not ok for them to forbid it.

More proof that you are happy with an atheistic government. But atheism is a religion, according to the courts. I thought you opposed religion in government. You don't. You just want the atheist religion as the government religion.

 

[WinterBorn]

More proof that you are happy with an atheistic government. But atheism is a religion, according to the courts. I thought you opposed religion in government. You don't. You just want the atheist religion as the government religion.

I want a secular religion. If the gov't was actually atheist it would be against all religion. It isn't. In fact, it protects religious freedom.

 

[Mashmont]

I want a secular religion. If the gov't was actually atheist it would be against all religion. It isn't. In fact, it protects religious freedom.

Atheist laws = atheist government. Abortion is an atheist law. That's what you want.

See, with abortion, it's either an atheist choice or a Christian choice. The 'secular' claim is nonsense. There is no secular position on abortion that is different from the atheist position. This issue is why so-called separation of church and state is nonsense. It can't be done. Those who say it can today are really only interested in promoting an atheist state.

 

[WinterBorn]

Atheist laws = atheist government. Abortion is an atheist law. That's what you want.

See, with abortion, it's either an atheist choice or a Christian choice. The 'secular' claim is nonsense. There is no secular position on abortion that is different from the atheist position. This issue is why so-called separation of church and state is nonsense. It can't be done. Those who say it can today are really only interested in promoting an atheist state.

So imagine if a gov't did not favor any religion, but allowed and was supportive of all religions. Imagine Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans and others (including those with no religious beliefs) were all equally represented by their gov't. And no laws were made solely based on any religion's dogma or rules.

What would you call it?

 

[onefour1]

It's the same thing. If you say gay marriage is OK for others, but not for you, that's double-speak hypocrisy. It's the same as the pro-abortion people saying "I oppose abortion for myself, but I support others aborting". That's ridiculous. And proof that it's ridiculous is to substitute the word "rape" for abortion. Would you say "I personally oppose rape, but I respect the choice of other men to rape"? Of course you wouldn't. If something is wrong, it's wrong for all.

My point is not that I believe this decision by the church to be the right thing. I simply wanted to point out that the church is not embracing the practice of homosexuality. Unlike the Catholic church, it is not a doctrine of the church that the leadership is infallible. I believe that the leadership in our church can make mistakes and this may possibly be one. I don't think it is a respect that others can or should sin but that it is a respect of free will to choose. God the Father has always respected mankind's free will to choose. I think the church is walking a fine line with this announcement. Regardless of whether or not we support bills that promote the normalization of homosexuality as a free will choice, as you have pointed out it is not a teaching that I think the Lord Jesus Christ would ever promote. That being said, mistakes have been made by clergy of many religions. This is most prominent in the history of the Catholic church.



It is because of heresies of the Catholic church that we believe in the separation of church and state today. These are just a few of the issues found in the Catholic church not to mention the rapes, pedophilia, sex abuse, nun-abortions, etc committed by many of the clergy.

You Mashmont as well as I should be concerned when we see evil things occur within our churches. Those who are leaders within churches are subject to weakness and are imperfect beings. They are not infallible. History is filled with the evil acts of men in religious positions of authority. God has set up his church on earth and allows men with weakness to have authority over the churches. I believe it is up to the members of churches to object to any wrong doings of those in authority in the churches. I believe your concern over The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints siding with the LGBTQ's is valid. I share in the concern. I am spending time reading and studying the reasoning for such a decision and trying to understand why such a decision was made.

 

[Meriweather]

They are not infallible.

Which infallible action are you against? There were two. Which one bugs you?

 

[Foxfyre]

How does having parents of the same sex benefit children? How does having a same sex relationship benefit the participants?

Disclaimer: I do not oppose gay marriage and have been a guest at a gay marriage. I do not think homosexuality is a choice though transgendering, something quite different from homosexuality, is.

And yes children will do better with a loving gay couple than they will do being passed around in foster homes.

But there has never been a legitimate scientific study that has not shown clear and measurable benefits to children having a responsible mother and father in the home. That would include straight children and gay children.

Most thinking people know that men and women are different. They generally will process information differently, react/problem solve differently, parent differently. And having influence from and interaction with both provides a balance and nurture that same sex parents simply cannot provide.

The gay couple who are our neighbors harm us not in the least nor diminish anybody's quality of life. But it is the traditional family with traditional values based on the Founding principles that is the glue that makes this the great nation it is. Those who would weaken the American family by pooh poohing the value of traditional marriage, the traditional family to the point nobody bothers with it anymore harm us all and that alone could pretty much destroy us as a nation.

 

[Mashmont]

So imagine if a gov't did not favor any religion, but allowed and was supportive of all religions. Imagine Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans and others (including those with no religious beliefs) were all equally represented by their gov't. And no laws were made solely based on any religion's dogma or rules.

What would you call it?

I would call it impossible. There are laws which are not compatible with both Catholicism and atheism. You have to choose one or the other. That's my point.

 

[WinterBorn]

I would call it impossible. There are laws which are not compatible with both Catholicism and atheism. You have to choose one or the other. That's my point.

It sounds like laws that follow church doctrine and nothing else. Those would be unconstitutional. The members of the Catholic church are welcome to follow them. But they should never be US Law.

 

[Mashmont]

It sounds like laws that follow church doctrine and nothing else. Those would be unconstitutional. The members of the Catholic church are welcome to follow them. But they should never be US Law.

See, with abortion, it's either an atheist choice or a Christian choice. The 'secular' claim is nonsense. There is no secular position on abortion that is different from the atheist position. This issue is why so-called separation of church and state is nonsense. It can't be done. Those who say it can today are really only interested in promoting an atheist state.

 

[WinterBorn]

See, with abortion, it's either an atheist choice or a Christian choice. The 'secular' claim is nonsense. There is no secular position on abortion that is different from the atheist position. This issue is why so-called separation of church and state is nonsense. It can't be done. Those who say it can today are really only interested in promoting an atheist state.

And capital punishment? Do you support that?

As far as a Christian choice, you have a choice to not have an abortion and to vote for candidates who do not support abortion. That is it.

 

[Mashmont]

And capital punishment? Do you support that?

As far as a Christian choice, you have a choice to not have an abortion and to vote for candidates who do not support abortion. That is it.

Did you just change the subject without addressing abortion? lol.

Just for fun, I'll ask it again. How do you reconcile abortion law with separation of church and state?
This is open to any atheist or anybody who thinks you can have separation of church and state.
I've asked it numerous times. Never gotten an answer.

And Winterborn won't answer it either. Watch.

 

[WinterBorn]

Did you just change the subject without addressing abortion? lol.

Just for fun, I'll ask it again. How do you reconcile abortion law with separation of church and state?
This is open to any atheist or anybody who thinks you can have separation of church and state.
I've asked it numerous times. Never gotten an answer.

And Winterborn won't answer it either. Watch.

I don't reconcile it. The US Supreme Court ruled on it. And they have recently ruled on it again.

The separation of church and state is very real. The gov't cannot adopt any religion as official, and cannot make any laws based solely on religious dogma.


There. WinterBorn answered it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Did you just change the subject without addressing abortion? lol.

Just for fun, I'll ask it again. How do you reconcile abortion law with separation of church and state?
This is open to any atheist or anybody who thinks you can have separation of church and state.
I've asked it numerous times. Never gotten an answer.

And Winterborn won't answer it either. Watch.

And no, I did not change the subject. You claim abortion is taking a human life. Capital punishment does the same thing. My question was relevant and on topic.

 

[Mashmont]

I don't reconcile it.

Bingo. Can't reconcile it. Mashie called it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Bingo. Can't reconcile it. Mashie called it.

But you think I have to reconcile it. I don't.

 

[onefour1]

The best discussion I have found so far on this topic is the following youtube video:



According to this video, the democrats came out with this bill and only after going to the senate there were supposedly other protection of religious freedom clauses added. I haven't read the added clauses but the church along with Mitt Romney seem to believe that these added clauses by the senate will ensure religious freedom to religions who wish to continue not allowing the practice of same sex marriage within their respective churches. Senator Mike Lee seems to feel differently about these added clauses and feels that they do not offer sufficient support for the freedom of religion to avoid having to adhere to being forced to practice same sex marriage within our churches and temples. I am certainly no fan of Mitt Romney but I did vote for Mike Lee again and feel that he is probably more correct than Romney. The Church could very well be making a mistake in backing this act. I guess a literal interpretation of the act and what it contains is worth studying and seeing arguments for and against why it is believed to sufficiently protect religious freedom.

 

[Meriweather]

I guess a literal interpretation of the act and what it contains is worth studying and seeing arguments for and against why it is believed to sufficiently protect religious freedom.

Keep in mind I am a cynical Libertarian when it comes to government. First, the Constitution already protects religion. If someone says they are going to pass a law which gives more freedom (religion doesn't need more freedom, it already has it) then look for what they are trying to pass under the guise of protecting religion when the legislation really has nothing to do with religion.

Sleight of hand legislation, distract them with something already in the Constitution in order to pass something many would find distasteful. What are they sugaring in order to get more to swallow it.

 

[onefour1]

Keep in mind I am a cynical Libertarian when it comes to government. First, the Constitution already protects religion. If someone says they are going to pass a law which gives more freedom (religion doesn't need more freedom, it already has it) then look for what they are trying to pass under the guise of protecting religion when the legislation really has nothing to do with religion.

Sleight of hand legislation, distract them with something already in the Constitution in order to pass something many would find distasteful. What are they sugaring in order to get more to swallow it.

I agree. We already have have in our constitution the freedom to worship how where or what we may. I think the real issue is if they grant a right to have freedom of same-sex marriage, will a conflict ensue between two rights that seem to oppose each other and which right will win out when in conflict.