DiscussMormonism.com

Plans to legalise same-sex marriage in England and Wales have cleared the House of Commons with a majority of 205.
The Government's controversial Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has had its third reading in the Commons and will now go to the House of Lords.

The vote was 366 in favour and 161 against.

Sky News

(Still no Prop 8 style campaign by the Church)

viewtopic.php?p=712404#p712404

... 4 min before ...

ludwigm wrote:http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=712404#p712404

... 4 min before ...

Please accept my unreserved apology.

seems like they should focus more on a good universal dental plan....
and it is actually another step backward...

subgenius wrote:seems like they should focus more on a good universal dental plan....
and it is actually another step backward...

Subby, I am well aware that you and I will not agree on this subject. I'm okay with that. But let me explain my view a little bit more.

Firstly, do I think that two men having sexual intercourse is a natural thing to do? Well, as I understand the term 'nature', no, I don't think it's natural.
However, do I think that two man flying is a natural thing to do? No, I don't think it's natural.

Flying has become a commonplace occurrence for human beings. It serves a useful purpose for society and humanity. If it didn't fit with how the human race wanted to evolve its living pattern then flying wouldn't happen. Men fly because it is the will of the human race (or sections of it) that have determined that flying is a good thing and they have found a way of doing so. Some people don't agree with flying. Some people thing it's harmful to the planet and to the human population. In some respects these people will be correct. There are downsides to aviation, costs to the natural order of things. You could make a reasonable argument that flying should be against the law.

As a society we allow flying, I see no reason why we shouldn't allow same sex marriage, even though there are some perceived downsides.

Bazooka wrote:Subby, I am well aware that you and I will not agree on this subject. I'm okay with that. But let me explain my view a little bit more.

this statement seems self contradictory - you say you are aware - but behave otherwise...hmm
personally, i am not aware of the future you predict - i consider it highly probable that eventually you will agree with me, because i consider your intellectual, moral, and sensible progression to be inevitable.

Bazooka wrote:Firstly, do I think that two men having sexual intercourse is a natural thing to do? Well, as I understand the term 'nature', no, I don't think it's natural.
However, do I think that two man flying is a natural thing to do? No, I don't think it's natural.

claiming that you love to fly does not immediately qualify you for a pilot's license...next time you board a plane, tell the captain to give you his seat and say- "its ok, i love to fly"

besides SSM and flying are two different subjects. The inclination for you to separate an object from itself is a common trap perpetuated by bad science. For example, many scientific branches integrate themselves because of a belief in common substance - such as particles or waves..This belief requires that one assume properties such as color or temperature are distinct from those particles or waves...that those properties are merely effects upon us...which is fine...but....it is impossible to make this same distinction with mental things...one cannot siphon of the mental aspect of mental things when describing them.
so...bringing up flying as a means to validate SSM is an error.

Bazooka wrote:Flying has become a commonplace occurrence for human beings. It serves a useful purpose for society and humanity. If it didn't fit with how the human race wanted to evolve its living pattern then flying wouldn't happen. Men fly because it is the will of the human race (or sections of it) that have determined that flying is a good thing and they have found a way of doing so. Some people don't agree with flying. Some people thing it's harmful to the planet and to the human population. In some respects these people will be correct. There are downsides to aviation, costs to the natural order of things. You could make a reasonable argument that flying should be against the law.

Flying is a choice, because people are not born with wings as their only means of transport. Your metaphor makes no sense on this topic.

Bazooka wrote:As a society we allow flying, I see no reason why we shouldn't allow same sex marriage, even though there are some perceived downsides.

perceived downsides are exactly why society prevents all sorts of things, it should not be discarded just because you want otherwise.
Drunk driving has perceived downsides as well...numerous people drive drunk every day and do not kill or injure people or property...why punish many because of the few?
SSM is not simply a moral issue, it is a virtue of society issue, and an application issue.
I do not have to support everything that i do not agree with solely because it is something i do not agree with. There is no rational reason to permit SSM while the reasoning against it is in abundance.
So, while i appreciate you infatuation with the pet rock of the day i have yet to read a reasonable argument to allow SSM, which is why the LGBT crowd often relies upon the argument of "you can't tell me not to" or a fabricated position of sympathy - for they have no substance to their claim otherwise.

at least Australia is progressing forward:

Openly gay Liberal Senator Dean Smith spoke against the bill, saying opinion in the gay community was divided on the issue. "By not agreeing to same sex marriage, I'm not choosing to endorse discrimination against my fellow gay and lesbian Australians, or to be disrespectful to their domestic relationships... instead for me, it's an honest acknowledgement of the special and unique characteristics of the union described as marriage," he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/gay-marr ... z2U2AhDx74

Lord Carey (Archbishop of Cantebury) in defence of the argument against legitimising same sex marriage gave this warning:

It is not the first time the former Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested that legalising same-sex marriage could pave the way for polygamy - suggesting at the Conservative Party conference last year that there was a "slippery slope" to allowing a "Mormon-style relationship".

...

My question: If a gay member of the church marries his partner, he can be excommunicated by the LDS then? And, then could the gay member sue the LDS because the LDS does not accept a legal marriage?