03-04-2006, 10:33 PM | #21 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
State the logical basis for your declaration.
In effect, you quibble with the choice Church leadership may exercise by advocating against gay marriage. You make references to "discrimination", how the Church leaders may have felt more than a century ago when polygamy was outlawed because it was viewed, by some as "immoral." I question that premise in the first instance, or whether it was more a power play, probably a mixture of both. You appear to believe there really is nothing wrong with gay marriage and state, wrongfully, that the Church is in the minority on this issue. Almost all states have passed measures outlawing gay marriage. That sounds like an endorsement of the Church's position, not evidence of being in the minority. Just engage in a risk benefit analysis. What does the Church risk by endorsing legislation outlawing gay marriage? The ire of persons not associated with the Church. Were these persons ever going to donate? Not likely. What does it gain? It consolidates its declaration that families are ordained of God, it stands against what it considers sin and perhaps slows the acceptance of an abhorrent activity. It may become common practice? But what would be the benefits? So it appears the Church's position is perfectly logical, and your opposition is irrational and unexplained.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
03-04-2006, 10:48 PM | #22 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
The issue here is not what the church should do internally, but what moral issues the church should seek to impose on others externally. |
|||
03-04-2006, 10:50 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
03-04-2006, 10:51 PM | #24 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
||
03-04-2006, 10:56 PM | #25 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
that risk exist even if the Church did nothing. That's a false risk incurred by virtue of their efforts. Nice try but the mental gymnastics isn't worth it.
All governments do is legislate behavior. Perhaps you mean more than you say, but you haven't identified a real risk. The Church should organize legislation, as gay marriage will NOT benefit society. Legitimizing this behavior is not beneficial. There is no net benefit to society, and based on health risks and additional insurance expenditures, further legitimization of the behavior is harmful. The Church and its cooperatives may lose the battle, but it's one worth fighting. Your perceived risk is nothing. It does happen and will happen.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
03-04-2006, 10:57 PM | #26 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Re: Homosexual marriage...
Quote:
Religious freedom is about choice. It is about providing people with the highest degree of freedom possible while still maintaining social order. Compare it, if you will, to Christ's plan and Satan's plan. Who desired to compel obedience to moral principles and who desired to allow choice? |
||
03-04-2006, 11:03 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Of course governments benefit behavior. Nobody has said any differently. The question is WHAT behavior is appropriate for legislation? Surely you aren't arguing that ALL behavior is appropriate for legislation, though your argument implies exactly that. In my view, the church needs to be cautious about legislating its beliefs if it is to have any moral position to demand fair treatment from majority groups when the church is in the minority. |
|
03-04-2006, 11:05 PM | #28 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
No I compare it with the Nephites and the Anti-Nephi-Lehites, who refused to entertain priestcraft, throwing the false teachers out of their lands.
By your argument, the majority should never stifle any activities of the minorities. Yes LDS are oppressed from time to time. We should either make affiliations for political protection, or leave if we are stifled. This argument is humorous; because minority opinion groups are stifled, the majority should not prevail. Isnt' that what representative government is generally about, if an issue arises of general concern, the majority vote should be given weight, as long as legitimate minority rights are protected? Since when is gay marriage a legitimate right? Through the normative process, it may become so, but historically it has not been so, and it will never benefit society. The degree of harm is open for debate. I submit the harm heaped upon society, for political reasons, will never be measured. You just rationalized away representative government, in favor of a tyranny of the minority.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
03-04-2006, 11:07 PM | #29 | |||
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
You are being intellectually dishonest here.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|||
03-05-2006, 12:44 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
You are extrapolating way too much here. I did not say we should throw out our entire representative government. Get off of your sled heading down your slippery slope! I said an LDS majority should be exceptionally cautious in enforcing its moral opinions on others- two very different concepts. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|