Victor Chelaru Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Here’s why I have absolutely no reservation in saying that this is completely bogus. The fact of the matter that the LDS religion, or any other religion for that matter, defines marriage as between a man and a woman is fine for their religion. What if there was a religion that defined God as a salamander with sixteen arms and a purple tongue - and they wanted to erect a temple with this figure prominently displayed above the front doors. If there was a sign that said “THIS IS GOD” above it, would that be perhaps offensive to other religions? Yes. Is it illegal? No. Certainly not.
So there’s nothing wrong with any religion defining their own practices FOR THEIR BELIEVERS, but as soon as they start crossing over to the beliefs of others, then that’s plain wrong, and goes against the freedom of religion that is one of the core philosophies behind America.
If there are people who are part of the Mormon religion conducting marriages between gay couples then the church has every right to take it up with them, but in no way should the government be involved in stopping priests from OTHER religions in conducting these services…at least no more business than would another Christian church have in passing a law on who God is, what heaven and hell are all about, and whether businesses should stay open on Sunday. Just imagine of there were a proposed law in Utah that demanded that Mormons stopped believing in the multiple kingdoms of heaven, and citing scripture to justify it.
November 17th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
*reads through it*
Uh… Wait… So, basicly, According to this speech, each and everyone not happily married to a woman, or a man, will go to hell. That’s a bit messed up, because…
What about the nuns or monks that take a vow of chastity? According to this speech, they too will go to hell when they die. What about the lonely people who never finds a mate? Those too will go to hell. Etc. I am of the firm belief that all religion is a bunch of hypocricy, and that text did not help to get rid of that belief…
Keep on believing though, just don’t expect the rest of the world to follow through on those crazy schemes.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I agree that no church has a right to dictate the practices of another church. However, we live in a country with laws. We have laws that help us preserve our freedoms and bring us happiness. We are fortunate to live in a country where the voice of the people decides these laws rather than a dictator. However, this also brings upon us the responsibility of making good laws that will guarantee our freedoms and add to our happiness.
The core structure of our society is based around the family. It is the principle source of our happiness and sense of purpose in life. As the “traditional” family disintegrates, so does our society.
Proposition 8 is an attempt to protect and promote the traditional family in our society. It is not about attacking a religion or saying what they can and can’t do. People in whatever church they want can still get married to whom ever (or whatever) they want.
We have a patriotic and moral duty to uphold things of goodness and denounce wickedness. We should fight against that which is evil and promote that which is good. If we all sit by and let people continue to promote wickedness and misery, without doing anything to promote goodness and happiness, what do you think is going to happen?
There is a God, there is a right and wrong. You know that. Families are good. Weakening the definition of the family is wrong.
God is a just and merciful God. In fact, the principle work done in the LDS temples is to offer the opportunity to all people who have ever lived to receive baptism, marriage and other essential ordinances necessary for salvation. So yes, everyone regardless of circumstances will have an opportunity to receive these blessings. There is no hypocrisy in that.
You can find out more here:
November 17th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Anonymous– I don’t know how you got that from what you read. I don’t think the word hell is anywhere in that proclamation.
Here’s my thing about gay “marriage.” I think everyone should have equal rights, and be treated fairly and justly. Fine. I even have no problems at all with granting gay couples the right to “civil unions” where they can have the exact same government rights and tax benefits and what not. But I don’t see any reason why they need to call it “marriage.”
Because a marriage is between a man and a woman who can theoretically, if desired create a family. From a non-religious stand point even– we are clearly biologically designed for this to be so. So this is the relationship that humans should be striving for– for numerous reasons– perpetuation of the species being one of them.
If that’s not your cup of tea, then fine. But I want my children raised in a country where the standard, the ideal to be striven for is a marriage between a man and a woman. This proposition 8 is not about forcing our beliefs on other people, because like I said, I would be happy for homosexuals to have the same rights and tax benefits, it is about not changing the definition of things. It is about not allowing a small minority to force their beliefs on the country. It is about not creating confusion for our children.
Ultimately, the union that will perpetuate our society is a man and woman marriage. Without it, the human race ceases to exist, so why shouldn’t we protect that?
November 18th, 2008 at 9:03 am
This is a subtle point so I want to be completely clear on it. As I see it, there are 3 reasons one might support prop 8:
1. You hate gays or are homophobic.
2. Your religion states that gays shouldn’t be married.
3. You believe that gay marriage introduces or is a symptom of a social change also related to increased divorce rates, children born out of wedlock, and so on.
To address these individually, the group of people who voted for prop 8 based off of #1 are idiots who don’t have an understanding of social systems and the benefit of cooperation. This group aside, the other two arguments are weakened by the presence of the first. For example, I’d have trouble supporting a bill that happened to have beneficial social impacts which also happened to be racist. Slavery in the 1800’s jump started America’s economy. We could argue that this gave us immense benefits and helped us reach such a powerful point where we were able to help the rest of the world in the World Wars. Even if that’s the case I can’t support slavery which actively puts down a whole group of people.
The group of #2’s out there, which you are a part of, cannot be blamed for voting for supporting prop 8. It’s your belief, and there’s nothing wrong with thinking that gay marriage is wrong. However, if your sole reason for supporting this bill is religion, then it has NO PLACE becoming law. No more than should there be a law about what God looks like, how to pray, what days you can go shopping, what one has to wear on Sunday, and so on. The reason I took issue with this is because your sole reason for supporting this according to your original post is because of religious text or speech.
When challenged, you started to fall back to #3, which is a more acceptable argument. That is, if it is true that gay marriage really does have a negative impact on society, religion aside, then discussing a law banning it is definitely acceptable.
While it’s true that many of the laws of the land have religious influence, it’s also true that most things that religion teaches are good for society. So the reason they’re acceptable, even with religious roots, is because they have “secular benefits” as well. Absent of these benefits, it’s nothing more than one group of people pushing their beliefs on another.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
As noted in the proclamation:
“Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society”.
I have no desire to force anyone to believe a certain way. However, I want to do what I can to help promote the things that I know will bring happiness and prosperity to all those that follow them. I think you’re the same way. I’ve never won you over (nor you me) by force on specific topics. It was always through example. I’ve changed quite a bit about how I see and do things based on your good example. I want to do the same. So yeah, not by force, but by promotion and example.
Thanks for the comments! This was enlightening and inspiring for me.