Mormons interfering in government…again
For several years California has seen much debate over the issue of same-sex marriage. In 2000 it was banned and in 2008 the California Supreme Court reversed this ruling. Now it will be voted upon this November.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is urging its members to donate their means and time to vote against same-sex marriage.
Here’s my question; isn’t church and state supposed to be separate in North America? If so, then why is it that a church is encouraging its members to support certain legislation?
For centuries churches have imposed their morals onto other people that weren’t part of their faith through government legislation, and it continues to do this day.
Here is the full text of the announcement from the Church.
Just a minor note of correction to the misleading title. The Church isn’t fighting against marital equality. As the law currently stands, everyone of legal age, regardless of their sexual orientations and proclivities, has an equal opportunity to be married (as traditionally defined) and to have their marriage (as traditionally defined) sanctioned by the state.
What the Mormon Church is challenging is the efforts by gays and gay sympathizers, to get special privileges granted to them by the state, and have the state sanction human relationships that are demonstrably delitarious to society as a whole.
Posted by Anonymous on June 22nd, 2008 3:16 pmThe broad-based coalition of churches & other organizations should mind its own business. Earth is set to reach 9 billion occupants by 2012. Does it really matter if a few legally married couples get each other’s death benefits and don’t produce more mouths for God to feed?
Posted by Reason on June 22nd, 2008 8:30 pm“to get special privileges granted to them by the state”
The “special privileges” they want are the privlidges that other people already have in legally choosing thier spouse.
“and have the state sanction human relationships that are demonstrably delitarious to society as a whole”
I would like to see this evidence that recognizing same-sex marriage would crumble society. Homosexual relationships already happen, having them recognized by the state won’t change a thing.
Posted by Formo-Mormo on June 22nd, 2008 9:00 pmIt is all about the Cash Grab.
Posted by Anonymous on June 22nd, 2008 9:30 pm“Homosexual relationships already happen, having them recognized by the state won’t change a thing”.
Precisely, I wonder why such a very small minority wants to waste tax payer money on this when they can do what they want without the state getting involved. Why waste Government time and money on this when they can do it anyway?
Posted by Anonymous on June 22nd, 2008 9:41 pm“I would like to see this evidence that recognizing same-sex marriage would crumble society”.
Like it or not (and irrespective of whether one is atheist or a strict creationist), sex is for reproduction. Marriage gives societal approbation to sex, and historically, marriage (whether licensed or by exercise of man’s common right to marry) was expressly for the purpose of procreation. Marriage provides a stable environment for women to raise their children, so societies have universally established marriage as the means by which to ensure that environment. Any form of deviant sex, including homosex, does not produce children. Hence, the rationale for “marriage” between homosexual partners is completely lacking.
It is true that marriage, per se, affords the partners additional benefits. But this is a societal issue, and society has determined that offspring is the basis for marriage. Those other benefits are available to unmarried persons irrespective of their marital state. It is only when government steps in (or, better, strides in) and creates additional benefits (or the perception of such benefits, their being more illusory than real) that people who do not need “marriage” for its intended purpose assume they need it for these spurious benefits
Posted by Anonymous on June 22nd, 2008 9:50 pmHow about government stays out of marriages? That is a position I took some time ago. Marriage started off as a religious/cultural institution, so why does the government now sanction it? That’s like sanctioning baptisms. Make marriage the sole responibility of churchs and then people can have the system they want.
Posted by Formo-Mormo on June 23rd, 2008 8:38 pm“Any form of deviant sex, including homosex, does not produce children.”
What is deviant sex? Anal?
What marriage may have been in the past is not relevant IMO, most peple look at it as the union of two people who choose to be together, regardless of the desire to have children. Some couples choose not to have kids, some can’t, some adopt, yet those are still legitamate unions.
The only reason to deny homosexuals marriage is based on religious grounds, and that is the problem, it’s forcing one groups morals onto anothers. How about we let people live how they choose to live for themselves?
Posted by Formo-Mormo on June 23rd, 2008 8:41 pm“society has determined that offspring is the basis for marriage. “
I’ll disagree with you there. Perhaps this was true at one time, but it no longer is. people get married because they want to be together, perhaps they will have children and perhaps not. Since more people live in urban areas and rural living is less common it’s no longer that important to have a lot of kids to work the family farm.
Besides, the original post isn’t about the validity of same-sex marriages, it’s about one group using the government to push their morals onto another group.
Posted by Formo-Mormo on June 24th, 2008 8:19 am“How about we let people live how they choose to live for themselves?”
Exactley and if the Mormons want to get involved, then let them.
“it’s about one group using the government to push their morals onto another group” This is not what this case is about whatsoever. No one is forcing anyone to be anything else. Its about laws and thats it. Gays can still choose to be gay if they want.
Posted by Anonymous on June 24th, 2008 11:10 am“Exactley and if the Mormons want to get involved, then let them. “
That is not allowing people to choose for themselves.
How would you feel if the Mormons started pushing for other laws that support their moral standards, such as no drinking of alcohol, coffee and tea? Would that be okay with you?
“Gays can still choose to be gay if they want.”
Do you choose to be straight?
Posted by Formo-Mormo on June 24th, 2008 12:12 pmHow would you feel if the Mormons started pushing for other laws that support their moral standards, such as no drinking of alcohol, coffee and tea? Would that be okay with you?
More then okay with me. Coffee and tea, I don’t care. BTW I think they still drink herbal teas. I choose to be straight. You might be interested to know that the Psychiatrist who got homosexuality out of the DSM IV, if you know what that is, changed his mind. I don’t hate gays or gaybash or anything and I don’t see the Mormons pushing their morals on anyone else. Maybe they should. Gays can still be gay if they choose to act on it with or without Mormonism present.
Posted by Anonymous on June 24th, 2008 1:07 pm“More then okay with me. Coffee and tea, I don’t care. “
You say it’s fine with you, but what if some other group with practices that you don’t approve of pushed for legislation to force you to live thier ways, such as JW’s getting blood transfusions made illegal. Are you okay with that? Besides, there are some people that like coffee and tea, why should they not be allowed to have them because Mormons choose not to?
Anyways, you’re missing the point. Their ways are not the ways of someone else, if they choose not to drink coffee or tea that is fine for them, using the government to push your morals onto other people (such as banning same-sex marriages) is an immoral act itself.
“I choose to be straight.”
Great, that is your choice, let other people choose for themselves.
“You might be interested to know that the Psychiatrist who got homosexuality out of the DSM IV, if you know what that is, changed his mind”
Irrelevant
“I don’t see the Mormons pushing their morals on anyone else. Maybe they should”
Okay, why should they? How about the JW’s? Or militant Muslims? Or gnostics? Which church’s beleifs should be legislated for all to follow regardless of their religious persuation?
Posted by Formo-Mormo on June 24th, 2008 1:30 pmPersonal, abusive comments will be deleted, don’t even bother posting them.
Posted by Formo-Mormo on June 24th, 2008 2:17 pm