DiscussMormonism.com

Ok a little delirious now but something this outlandish should not require much mental effort. I opined that I thought the Church was uncharacteristically concerned on an on the gay marriage issue because they saw it as a slippery slope. Once gay marrigae is legal, coerced solemnization of gay marriage in LDS temples will follow.

My TBM friends corrctecd me. He retorted that it was the Church trying to protect the family. What about the family are they protectin?. Is it children who would potentially be raised by homosexual parents? Why is the Church so adamant about this one?

I don't understand California. They're so far left that neither party campaigned there. Yet they pass proposition 8?

I want some of whatever you're smoking tonight...

ajax18 wrote:The best way to save the world is breed out young white pope. . .

Most popes tend to be quite old.

Dr. Shades wrote:

ajax18 wrote:The best way to save the world is breed out young white pope. . .

Most popes tend to be quite old.

As most prophets, seers and revelators.

(and Fidel Castro and Kim Jong IL and ...)

Ajax,

No offence. but coudl oyu please restate your OP? It was a bit hard to understand what you were trying to say.

Gaz

Gazelam wrote:Ajax,

No offence. but coudl oyu please restate your OP? It was a bit hard to understand what you were trying to say.

Gaz

**cough cough**

After you restate it to Gaz, could you pas-- er.. Restate it to me too?

Gazelam wrote:Ajax,

No offence. but coudl oyu please restate your OP? It was a bit hard to understand what you were trying to say.

Gaz

Sorry guys, sometimes knowing Spanish can get you in trouble.

On one talk show the moderator criticizes the church for not "going after" the polygamists in Texas? What more can the Church do that excommunicate people?

Is polygamy between consenting adults? Do children consent to being born into a family of two moms?

Why are people gay? They like it better. Why is gay ok? It's something they want to do. Why is polygamy not ok? It's not really necessary to justify multiple sexual partners to the state anymore, so who needs a law?

I heard a few years ago an evangelical (I think it was James Dobson) addressing on the radio his Christian audience. He said that apparently it was well known that Christians should be against gay marriage, but there was a lot of confusion as to why exactly (besides the biblical passages condemning homosexual behavior). I fear often the "common" person (your average Joe) often doesn't know why they believe certain things, they just know they do, and they are often at a loss in trying to defend their position in a rational manner.

The most-often used reasons that homosexual marriage is bad are:

1) Because God said so, either in the Bible or by a Latter-day prophet

2) Slippery slope argument (If we allow gay people to marry, soon we'll have to let polygamists marry and then people to marry their dogs and houseplants)

3) If homosexual marriage is elevated to a legitimized, legal status, then it will be seen as okay or even preferable to people (esp children). Then people would be gay who otherwise wouldn't have been. This may as well lead to a decrease in the births of children, and as Spencer W. Kimball once said, if everyone were gay, the entire earth's population would cease in a generation.

4) If homosexual relationships are given legally-protected status, it would enable homosexual parents to adopt children. And, according to some, children are not as well off in homosexual households.

5) Homosexual marriages and recognition thereof would be forced on church organizations (homosexuals must marry in the temple).

5) The "family" is weakened by the frivolous usage of the institution--making it less special, less dignified.

Did I miss any? But it's important to note that, for Mormons, there is no need to defend their position with a logical discussion or reasoning to back it up. First of all, the prophet's word should be enough, and second, when you're committed to what you have a testimony of, there isn't need to be critical of your position--in fact you shouldn't be critically analyzing your beliefs a la Rene Descartes because that's not faith, that's not testimony.

But one problem I've always had, and I still can't get over it, is that I don't know to what exactly the "family" is. When proceeding with a rational discussion, one must first start with defining terms. The "family" doesn't have a clear reference because, to me, it is a sociological phenomena that isn't a necessary practice in humanity (and this would explain why marriage laws and customs vary so widely from country to country). On the other hand, religious people often see it as an earthly mirror of a heavenly archetype--and who can even argue with a metaphysical claim like that?

"The "family" is weakened by the frivolous usage of the institution--making it less special, less dignified."

Can it be any 'less dignified' than now with so many divorced, on third partners and whatever?