Mormon church labels same-sex couples

[ShadowSot]

Of course it was sarcasm. Certain people crow about religious liberty as long as it shares their own religious viepoint.

At the same time they have no issues with other religious beliefs being violated that they don't agree with.

That aside, there are many groups in the US that are explicit hate groups. The KKK and Neo-Nazis are still around, as is legal in our society.

That doesn't mean we can't point them out and mock their regressive views.

And yes, if you view a group of people as less than you, whatever your reasoning religious or otherwise, its regressive.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Of course it was sarcasm. Certain people crow about religious liberty as long as it shares their own religious viepoint.

At the same time they have no issues with other religious beliefs being violated that they don't agree with.

That aside, there are many groups in the US that are explicit hate groups. The KKK and Neo-Nazis are still around, as is legal in our society.

That doesn't mean we can't point them out and mock their regressive views.

And yes, if you view a group of people as less than you, whatever your reasoning religious or otherwise, its regressive.

I thought it was sarcasm. It's hard to tell on message boards.

I agree with you. I noticed that too. And I think those who behave like that, need to have it pointed it out to them. I too, have been in their presence and notice the hypocrisy they present.

[Mr Walker]

Right, marriage should stay between one amn, and as many wives as he can support. As God intended.

Who is the government to say that's illegal? That's a deeply held religious belief!

I can't actually see why the Govt. has a say in this at all, on the same basis as homosexual marriages. Its ALL an historical/cultural custom. The Govt can legitimately regulate; care of dependants /minors, property matters, and acceptable treatment of people who 'contract" to live together, but it doesn't/shouldn't really have a role in deciding what is an acceptable relationship and what is not. I don't have a religious belief on the matter, but personally i find polygamy to be a perfectly acceptable cultural extension of marriage between consenting adults, and it works in many societies.

[Mr Walker]

Well a man might be allowed more than one wife, but the opposite should be true too. More important that the ability to afford it should be that a given wife should have absolute veto. Otherwise it becomes male domination.

Agreed. It has to based on informed, and fully free, consent. Consenting polygamy, to me, is much more acceptable and normal than arranged marriages, although i know these can work quite well within some cultures. I've never known a woman crazy enough to want to deal with two men in their life, but they probably exist.

[Mr Walker]

Of course it was sarcasm. Certain people crow about religious liberty as long as it shares their own religious viepoint.

At the same time they have no issues with other religious beliefs being violated that they don't agree with.

That aside, there are many groups in the US that are explicit hate groups. The KKK and Neo-Nazis are still around, as is legal in our society.

That doesn't mean we can't point them out and mock their regressive views.

And yes, if you view a group of people as less than you, whatever your reasoning religious or otherwise, its regressive.

I don't know. i view people who, for generations, chose not to work but to live off a very generous social welfare system, which enables a good lifestyle without working, to be 'less than me" and less than anyone who takes on the responsibilities of being a citizen in a society. I know its not really their fault, when the govt creates a system where a family can make more money on support than by working, but work has other benefits for a human being, in terms of skilling, self respect and purpose in life.

I am not talking about people without skills education or opportunity but those who make a choice to take government benefits permanently, rather than see work. i don't have much respect for them, and believe the govt should require some form of contribution through education or voluntary work, in exchange for a good support sysem

[ShadowSot]

Frankly, I agree with the later part. As I see people who end up trapped, or at least feel so. To succesful and they loose benefits that keeep then afloat, but staying where they are is deeply unfulfilling.

That said there is a difference between people who can work or improve their lot but dont, and people who are simply born with a different sexual orientation or ethnic background.

[Mr Walker]

Frankly, I agree with the later part. As I see people who end up trapped, or at least feel so. To succesful and they loose benefits that keeep then afloat, but staying where they are is deeply unfulfilling.

That said there is a difference between people who can work or improve their lot but dont, and people who are simply born with a different sexual orientation or ethnic background.

Agreed. It is not fair (or logical) to judge people on things beyond their control. However it is both fair and necessary (in deciding social policy) to make judgements about the choices people make in their lives. I know one couple, now in their forties, with 7 children who own a home and acres worth nearly 500000 dollars with independent water and power supply, two negatively geared investment homes, sent their children to private schools, go on overseas holidays and until very recently only worked very rarely (the woman not at all as she was raising the children)

They are a bit different from complete bludgers/parasites, because they physically worked hard to improve properties and sell them, but this was only possible because the govt. paid them, without requiring they work, giving them both a lot of time to work on their properties, plus original and ongoing capitalisation to enable the first purchase and ongoing improvements..

Many young people I know, including some of my young relatives, live very comfortable lives without doing any work at all. They just socialise in various ways .

I have no problem with a person not working for money. ie i dont believe every citizen has an obligation to be a wage slave to support the govt through taxation. My wife gave up paid work when we married and hasn't worked outside the home for forty years although she puts in more than 40 hours a week on housework and for may years did twice this, caring for her parents and"foster" chidren) But she took nothing from the govt (other tax payers) during that time as i supported her) Today, i don't work but i get nothing from the Govt. as I am a self funded retiree, for now.

My objection is to people who choose to have a parasitical attachment to their society, when they DO have a choice to form a symbiotic one..

Edited November 9, 2015 by Mr Walker

[ShadowSot]

Ok. Now, what does what you are talking about have to do with what this topic is about or what I was talking about?

[Mr Walker]

Ok. Now, what does what you are talking about have to do with what this topic is about or what I was talking about?

Labelling.

Justifications for such labels.

Beliefs and values varying between people plus the balance between socially accepted values and individual values different from the norm.

You said no one should judge people for being different.

I disagreed, in that I think we do have to judge/evaluate whether individual behaviours are positive/negative; allowable or not allowable, in a society. At the moment pornography and sex without love is acceptable to society but having sex with someone under 18 years of age is not.. Letting your kids go feral is ok but punishing them for behaviour is not .At the moment abortion is socially acceptable, but rape in marriage is not.

At the moment homosexuality is acceptable to society while polygamy is not,

BUT! All those values change over time, and so does the balance between individual liberties and social enforcement of behaviour in every society.

At the moment it is socially acceptable (in Australia at least ) for generations of a family never to work by choice and live comfortably off taxes paid by the work of others.

Whenever we make personal judgements about ONE social issue, we allow /validate the judgement of ALL social issues by every other individual..

Having 65% of a population approve of a practice does not make the practice right, ethical, or moral. And thus neither does having 99% of people approve. The opposite is also true. Just because 80% of a population disapproves of something, doesn't make it wrong, immoral or unethical.

That has to be arbited independently, using the logical examination of the consequences of each policy.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Mr Walker

[ShadowSot]

You agree that you cant be against a group of people just for being different. You listed specific examples why you feel superior to ither people and why.

[shadowhive]

I'm guessing that this may provide the test case for LGBTQ advocates to erode that freedom. Now that legal partnerships and actual marriage have been recognized nationally, the next step is to show the "religious haters" that the LGBTQ agenda MUST be recognized by all Churches, regardless their doctrine or faith based prohibition. The question is what will the enforcement penalty be? Tax exemptions?

Personally I think the bit that's more likely to be challenged is how they want the children of same sex parents to treat their parents.

From the post:

Under the new policy, the Mormon church will forbid the "natural or adopted" children of parents in same-sex relationships from receiving a name and a blessing in a ceremony performed by the Mormon priesthood, according to the handbook.

Additionally, children of same-sex unions will be required to be of legal age and no longer living with their parents in order to be baptized, confirmed, ordained or recommended for missionary service. Under the policy, the child would also have to disavow same-sex relationships.

Baptism and confirmation would also require the approval of the church's governing First Presidency, according to the handbook.

That just sounds extreme, to put it mildly.

I think eventually the change you fear happening will come but from within and not without. People have LGBT children, friends, family and they see them as people not the monsters the church seems intent on painting them to be. I think followers of churches (all of them eventually) will get sick and tired of the teachings that they'll rebel against them and call for change. After all that's how happened before, it'll happen the same way again.

Edited November 10, 2015 by shadowhive

[Podo]

This is just another example of a religious organization being ignorant and directing hatred towards LGBT folks. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised, at this point.

[Mr Walker]

You agree that you cant be against a group of people just for being different. You listed specific examples why you feel superior to ither people and why.

No i said that i could be (and am) 'against" people who CHOOSE dangerous or destructive philosophies and behaviours. But i can't blame people who have no choice in their sexuality poverty race colour etc.

I DO not feel SUPERIOR as such, although i know that certain beliefs, and thus behaviours, produce better, more constructive, and potential increasing outcomes; while other beliefs and actions create negative outcomes, are destructive and reduce human potential. Thus, in a very objective/measurable way we can judge peoples' beliefs and behaviours, ascertain that some ARE superior to others, and work to improve everyone's beliefs and behaviours. To be very honest a gay life style produces less favourable outcomes than a straight one. But being gay is a product of genetics. Thus we have to work to improve outcomes for gay people while recognising that just being gay creates real medical and social risks /limitations if one lives honest to ones sexuality.(just being one of a minority of about 5% of the population creates very real problems for gay people and leads them to have less choice in social outlets sexual partners, potential marriage partners etc.

I wouldn't want to be gay for the same reaosn i wouldn't want to be black in my society. It limits disadvantages and harms a person within the nature of society as it exists now. Being gay even more than being black because a black person can happily marry a white or red person but a gay person has to marry another gay person to be happy. And the pool is very limited.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Mr Walker

[hellig heilige]

(CNN)A new Mormon church policy considers church members in same-sex marriages as apostates whose children will be barred from baptism and church membership unless they disavow same-sex unions.