Mormon Leader Outlines Continuing Opposition to Gay Marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2014 8:04 PM GMT
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' stance on homosexuality has softened in recent years, but this marks the second consecutive conference in which leaders took time to emphasize the faith's insistence that marriage should be limited to unions between a man and a woman, as God created.

    "While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not," Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve said Saturday. "He designated the purpose of marriage to go far beyond the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of adults, to more importantly, advancing the ideal setting for children to be born, reared and nurtured."


    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mormon-leader-outlines-opposition-gay-marriage-23207572
  • Kazachok

    Posts: 415

    Apr 06, 2014 8:34 PM GMT
    Okay...
    Does he support introducing a mandatory pledge for newlyweds that they will have children?
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Apr 06, 2014 8:39 PM GMT
    I'm surprised the Mormons have time to fight marriage equality... I would think they'd be busy with their campaign to stop all masturbation.
    (pssst... they're losing!) icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2014 9:10 PM GMT
    Kazachok saidOkay...
    Does he support introducing a mandatory pledge for newlyweds that they will have children?

    If so, then I guess post-menopausal women, and men with very low sperm counts, can't get married. Roman Catholics have a similar problem with their marriage doctrine, too.

    If marriage & sex is only to procreate, should the infertile be barred from marriage & sex? If infertile straight couples can marry, why can't lesbian & gay couples marry?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 1:12 AM GMT
    Good for us all that we have the freedom to criticize bigotry pretending to be the voice of God.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 1:22 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    ART_DECO saidThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' stance on homosexuality has softened in recent years, but this marks the second consecutive conference in which leaders took time to emphasize the faith's insistence that marriage should be limited to unions between a man and a woman, as God created.

    "While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not," Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve said Saturday. "He designated the purpose of marriage to go far beyond the personal satisfaction and fulfillment of adults, to more importantly, advancing the ideal setting for children to be born, reared and nurtured."


    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mormon-leader-outlines-opposition-gay-marriage-23207572



    Well, good for them. Religious freedom is alive and well in the USA.


    Thank you for saying this. I get tired of the idea that every religious organization has to agree with our agenda of equality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 1:32 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    CarolinaMan saidGood for us all that we have the freedom to criticize bigotry pretending to be the voice of God.


    Yes, it is good that you are able to classify their beliefs in any way you like and speak out about your opinion of their beliefs. Absolutely.


    My opinion on the beliefs and expressions of one particular Mormon is pretty useless. This fellow may hold his opinion with a toxic dose of religious piety. Neither of us will be influencing God or anyone on this forum for that matter.
    Anyway, God has already decided that gays are cool.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 1:35 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Well, good for them. Religious freedom DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS is alive and well in the USA.

    Corrected
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 2:14 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said
    Well, good for them. Religious freedom DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS is alive and well in the USA.

    Corrected


    Most religions are exclusive. Its part of their appeal. It's a little unfair to call a voluntary collection of people working to live by and promote specific goals and beliefs as discrimination. Then again I have a borderline obsession with diversity so maybe that is why it doesn't bother me as much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 2:55 AM GMT
    taichiguy said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said
    Well, good for them. Religious freedom DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS is alive and well in the USA.

    Corrected

    Most religions are exclusive. Its part of their appeal. It's a little unfair to call a voluntary collection of people working to live by and promote specific goals and beliefs as discrimination. Then again I have a borderline obsession with diversity so maybe that is why it doesn't bother me as much.

    The issue is that these anti-gay religions do not confine their beliefs exclusively to their own congregations. They spend money and resources (contrary to US tax law) to make their religious doctrine into secular laws that apply to ALL of us. I'm not a Mormon, nor is a Jew a Mormon, nor Protestants. But Mormons want to pass laws that apply to all of us and that reflect their religious beliefs, not the rest of us.

    And the Catholics try to do the same, and the Christian fundamentalists. This is exactly the kind of religious influence the Founders tried to block, to make our US Constitution secular and non-denominational, not religious. Applicable to all, favoring none.

    But favoring Christian sects is what Right Wingers now claim the Founders intended. This false interpretation threatens to tear the country apart, and restart the kind of religious wars that ravaged Europe in the centuries before this country was founded.

    The US was not only supposed to be the first democratic republic, but also the first secular one. Take away the secular and you take away the democracy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 3:03 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    taichiguy said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said
    Well, good for them. Religious freedom DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS is alive and well in the USA.

    Corrected

    Most religions are exclusive. Its part of their appeal. It's a little unfair to call a voluntary collection of people working to live by and promote specific goals and beliefs as discrimination. Then again I have a borderline obsession with diversity so maybe that is why it doesn't bother me as much.

    The issue is that these anti-gay religions do not confine their beliefs exclusively to their own congregations. They spend money and resources (contrary to US tax law) to make their religious doctrine into secular laws that apply to ALL of us. I'm not a Mormon, nor is a Jew a Mormon, nor Protestants. But Mormons want to pass laws that apply to all of us and that reflect their religious beliefs, not the rest of us.

    And the Catholics try to do the same, and the Christian fundamentalists. This is exactly the kind of religious influence the Founders tried to block, to make our US Constitution secular and non-denominational, not religious. Applicable to all, favoring none.

    But favoring Christian sects is what Right Wingers now claim the Founders intended. This false interpretation threatens to tear the country apart, and restart the kind of religious wars that ravaged Europe in the centuries before this country was founded.

    The US was not only supposed to be the first democratic republic, but also the first secular one. Take away the secular and you take away the democracy.


    could you point me to the law that does not allow religious organizations to spend money affecting the political process. Would they be allowed to console their followers on what laws support their personal beliefs best.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Apr 07, 2014 3:15 AM GMT
    taichiguy said
    ART_DECO said
    taichiguy said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said
    Well, good for them. Religious freedom DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS is alive and well in the USA.

    Corrected

    Most religions are exclusive. Its part of their appeal. It's a little unfair to call a voluntary collection of people working to live by and promote specific goals and beliefs as discrimination. Then again I have a borderline obsession with diversity so maybe that is why it doesn't bother me as much.

    The issue is that these anti-gay religions do not confine their beliefs exclusively to their own congregations. They spend money and resources (contrary to US tax law) to make their religious doctrine into secular laws that apply to ALL of us. I'm not a Mormon, nor is a Jew a Mormon, nor Protestants. But Mormons want to pass laws that apply to all of us and that reflect their religious beliefs, not the rest of us.

    And the Catholics try to do the same, and the Christian fundamentalists. This is exactly the kind of religious influence the Founders tried to block, to make our US Constitution secular and non-denominational, not religious. Applicable to all, favoring none.

    But favoring Christian sects is what Right Wingers now claim the Founders intended. This false interpretation threatens to tear the country apart, and restart the kind of religious wars that ravaged Europe in the centuries before this country was founded.

    The US was not only supposed to be the first democratic republic, but also the first secular one. Take away the secular and you take away the democracy.


    could you point me to the law that does not allow religious organizations to spend money affecting the political process. Would they be allowed to console their followers on what laws support their personal beliefs best.


    Religious institutions are allowed to talk about the issues, but if they cross the fine line they could lose their tax-exempt status.

    Yes. The Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, N.Y., lost its tax-exempt status in 1995 after the IRS determined it had violated federal tax law by publishing a full-page ad in USA Today in late October of 1992 advising people that voting for presidential candidate Bill Clinton was a sin. The church sued in federal court to regain its tax-exempt status but lost in federal district court. A federal appellate court later upheld the ruling denying the church tax-exempt status.

    http://projectfairplay.org/facts/faq/


    So they can say which laws support their personal beliefs. But I believe if they tell the congregation how to vote or to call their congressman and tell him/her how to vote, then that crosses the line.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 3:26 AM GMT
    taichiguy said
    could you point me to the law that does not allow religious organizations to spend money affecting the political process. Would they be allowed to console their followers on what laws support their personal beliefs best.

    Console or counsel? What religious groups cannot do is DIRECT and ORDER their followers what to do politically. Something that Mormon and Roman Catholic leaders now do routinely, against an impotent and ineffectual IRS.

    These church actions are clearly in direct violation of Federal law, but everyone in government is afraid to take on all those Mormon & Catholic voters (not to mention Congressional campaign contributors). So the tax laws governing religious groups go unenforced.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 3:33 AM GMT
    creature said
    taichiguy said
    ART_DECO said
    taichiguy said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said
    Well, good for them. Religious freedom DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS is alive and well in the USA.

    Corrected

    Most religions are exclusive. Its part of their appeal. It's a little unfair to call a voluntary collection of people working to live by and promote specific goals and beliefs as discrimination. Then again I have a borderline obsession with diversity so maybe that is why it doesn't bother me as much.

    The issue is that these anti-gay religions do not confine their beliefs exclusively to their own congregations. They spend money and resources (contrary to US tax law) to make their religious doctrine into secular laws that apply to ALL of us. I'm not a Mormon, nor is a Jew a Mormon, nor Protestants. But Mormons want to pass laws that apply to all of us and that reflect their religious beliefs, not the rest of us.

    And the Catholics try to do the same, and the Christian fundamentalists. This is exactly the kind of religious influence the Founders tried to block, to make our US Constitution secular and non-denominational, not religious. Applicable to all, favoring none.

    But favoring Christian sects is what Right Wingers now claim the Founders intended. This false interpretation threatens to tear the country apart, and restart the kind of religious wars that ravaged Europe in the centuries before this country was founded.

    The US was not only supposed to be the first democratic republic, but also the first secular one. Take away the secular and you take away the democracy.


    could you point me to the law that does not allow religious organizations to spend money affecting the political process. Would they be allowed to console their followers on what laws support their personal beliefs best.


    Religious institutions are allowed to talk about the issues, but if they cross the fine line they could lose their tax-exempt status.

    Yes. The Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, N.Y., lost its tax-exempt status in 1995 after the IRS determined it had violated federal tax law by publishing a full-page ad in USA Today in late October of 1992 advising people that voting for presidential candidate Bill Clinton was a sin. The church sued in federal court to regain its tax-exempt status but lost in federal district court. A federal appellate court later upheld the ruling denying the church tax-exempt status.

    http://projectfairplay.org/facts/faq/


    So they can say which laws support their personal beliefs. But I believe if they tell the congregation how to vote or to call their congressman and tell him/her how to vote, then that crosses the line.


    Thank you. I grew up Baptist and never heard much politics in the church outside of being told to vote and make myself heard. I always get confused when people talk about religious organizations having undue political influence. In my experience it's always been zealots in the pews that work the hardest to push the views of the church into political system. Also because I'm black and grew up in Florida I have seen the positive impact churches can have. They worked hard to push people to go out and vote when the Sunday before the election was no longer offered as a early voting day in an attempt to discourage black voters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 3:37 AM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    taichiguy said
    could you point me to the law that does not allow religious organizations to spend money affecting the political process. Would they be allowed to console their followers on what laws support their personal beliefs best.

    Console or counsel? What religious groups cannot do is DIRECT and ORDER their followers what to do politically. Something that Mormon and Roman Catholic leaders now do routinely, against an impotent and ineffectual IRS.

    These church actions are clearly in direct violation of Federal law, but everyone in government is afraid to take on all those Mormon & Catholic voters (not to mention Congressional campaign contributors). So the tax laws governing religious groups go unenforced.


    I'm on my phone so thank you for correcting my English. I have very little knowledge of the Catholic or Mormon church. I have met a lot of very angry former Catholics so it makes me think they must be even more close minded than my southern Baptist upbringing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 07, 2014 10:21 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    CarolinaMan saidGood for us all that we have the freedom to criticize bigotry pretending to be the voice of God.


    Yes, it is good that you are able to classify their beliefs in any way you like and speak out about your opinion of their beliefs. Absolutely.


    Correct! Just as the Mormons have a right to an opinion on marriage, and voice it, and too have no gay marriage in their membership rules, and if gay and bi Mormons don't like it, they also have a right to leave; as I did. Not all Mormons are conservative voters either.

    But God still has not changed his mind on marriage either. Even Mr Obama has told America/world he thought marriage was between one man, and one women, then handed the issue over to the states.