'Traditional Marriage'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
You blame religion for doing what?

I blame religion for telling a gay man to marry a woman, because it was God’s will that we do so. My church leaders were wrong, and a lot of unhappiness could have been avoided had we not listened to them. [/quote]

This makes no sense. The church doesn’t force men or women to marry, and most certainly doesn’t force people outside its own parish to marry. Any gay man that married a woman because the church told him to is a moron. And there’s no intelligence test measuring low enough for any gay man that married a woman because the church told him to and then blames the church.

Did the words ‘til death do us part’ come out of your mouth?

282

[quote]lucasa wrote:
This makes no sense. The church doesn’t force men or women to marry, and most certainly doesn’t force people outside its own parish to marry.[/quote]

Of course the church doesn’t force people to marry. However, when it presents God’s plan of happiness as consisting exclusively of marriage between a man and a woman, it’s pretty obvious what you are supposed to do.

Some churches are starting to realize that marrying a woman doesn’t turn a gay man straight, and are now recommending that gays remain celibate.

So take your pick:

You can be unhappy in a mixed orientation marriage, or you can be unhappy celibate and alone.

[quote]Did the words ‘til death do us part’ come out of your mouth?
[/quote]

My wife and I released one another of our vows when we realized that our marriage was inherently incompatible. We still care for each other, but we are much better off as friends than as husband and wife.

283

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
forlife wrote:
If you knew that I was 100% honest and faithful to my wife during our 9 years together, would that affect in any way your view of gays?

Consider who you’re asking this question to. You’re not dealing with someone intellectual and reasonable like TB23, you’re asking a bigoted arrogant little toerag like Mick and expecting a serious answer?

I’ve read your nonsense on this board for quite a while now. I wonder why anyone with so little talent, at least in writing logical coherent posts, feels so superior to others who in the real world are not only more intelligent but can buy and sell you.

TB in my opinion is the real deal, there’s no one on this board who can match his intellect, posting style and knowledge of the issues. He along with others have owned you on issue after issue, but like most liberals you have no “shame” and you keep posting. In a way you and forliar make a good pair…maybe you should hook up.

Anyway, you represent the very worst on this board. You’re shallow surface knowledge of most issues is laughable. I usually ignore most of your posts because I just don’t have the time to point out all of the inconsistencies in your arguments.

You jump on the band wagon of most every liberal issue that comes along. Ho hum… Don’t get me wrong that’s your right, but I think you should think twice before denigrating others. You’ve never shown me anything on this board that I would consider any sort of well thought out solid argument.

In short you simply take up bandwidth.

[/quote]

LOL

284

[quote]forlife wrote:
lucasa wrote:
This makes no sense. The church doesn’t force men or women to marry, and most certainly doesn’t force people outside its own parish to marry.

Of course the church doesn’t force people to marry. However, when it presents God’s plan of happiness as consisting exclusively of marriage between a man and a woman, it’s pretty obvious what you are supposed to do.

Some churches are starting to realize that marrying a woman doesn’t turn a gay man straight, and are now recommending that gays remain celibate.

So take your pick:

You can be unhappy in a mixed orientation marriage, or you can be unhappy celibate and alone.[/quote]

Wow, so all the supposed gay people that have existed throughout history were either unhappily married or celibate (if there is such a thing as a gay celibate)?

It’s a false dichotomy (sort of);
Hide your sexuality in general.
Hide your sexuality from the Church.
Don’t hide anything, don’t belong to the Church.
Do whatever the hell you want, then repent and join the Church.

Your impugning of the Church is nowhere near as convincing as your sources’.

So, not 100% truthful on one of the core tenets of marriage then?

285

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Wow, so all the supposed gay people that have existed throughout history were either unhappily married or celibate (if there is such a thing as a gay celibate)?[/quote]

Not what I said at all.

I did say that religion has frequently been the reason gays have chosen to marry someone of the opposite gender, and a lot of pain has ensued as a result.

We were honest with each other before, during, and after our marriage. Mutually choosing to terminate a commitment doesn’t imply that you didn’t have integrity during the duration of the commitment.

288

yawn

Come on Micky, you can do better than that. You’re just repeating the old “You are a big fat liar, and gays are icky, and um you are stoopid too” mantra.

I’m losing interest…no new material?

290

crickets

291

OK, here is the deal, I read up on the stuff you posted. Though it is disturbing, it does not shake my faith in the Mormon Church. Now I now you are going to ask why. Here is my simple answer:

If the church were based solely on Joseph Smith, I could see where you might have an argument that it is a false church. However, It is the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints. Not the Church of Joseph Smith, or the Church of Brigham Young. I can not answer for what they did. I can’t even begin to explain why they did what they did, and I unlike many other members of the church, will not attempt to justify something I was not there to witness or to understand. It is easy to sit here approximately 200 years later and Monday Morning Quarterback something. I don’t know if it happened or not. Historical Records can be altered, and it maybe true that those things happened. All I can say is this, I know that this church is the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe in it because of the good things that it has done in my life. I believe in it because of the things it does for my family. I believe in it because I have had things happen in my life that prove to me that this church is true for me and my family. I know that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and his son Jesus Christ and that this church was restored to the Earth at this time for a reason. I believe that Jesus Christ will return again to the Earth and that we will all be judged by him.

Now, where I will end up at the end of that judgement, who knows. I don’t know where anyone will end up, but I do know that the Judgement of Christ will be just. There will be no confusion. Hopefully, I will end up together with my family for eternity. And, when we meet there at the Judgement Seat, I will be able to say hello to you and we can continue our conversation there and see first hand the answers to all our questions.

292

I applaud you for looking into it. Many Mormons wouldn’t have the integrity/courage to go even that far.

I bore the same testimony about Joseph Smith and the LDS church many times, with 100% sincerity. I had received an undeniable spiritual witness through the power of the Holy Ghost that my testimony was true.

Then I stepped back and realized that my touchstone for truth could be flawed. Rather than a “spiritual witness”, I now sincerely believe it was the product of emotions that were very real, but came from within rather than some divine source. I realized that millions of people in other religions have had similar spiritual experiences, confirming the truth of their particular beliefs, which contradicted mine. Logically, we couldn’t all be right, so it begs the question whether these experiences actually are supernatural as we are taught to believe.

As noted by William Gardiner:

[quote]Mormons will at this point inject that a certain kind of feeling experience supercedes any level of external evidence because the feeling experience is actually a member of the godhead telling them a truth. This seems viable if one could know that the feeling state they’re having is actually the Holy Ghost telling them something. How would they know this feeling state is the Holy Ghost? And how would they know what the meaning of the feeling state is? Because someone in the organization has told them what it is. So, Catholics have their truths confirmed by this feeling experience, as do Born-again Fundamentalists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons…How reliable could this be as an ultimate source of truth?

Confounding the ability of church members to honestly look at such a question is the indoctrination process that begins in early “programming.” Throughout the Mormon experience comes the indoctrination of knowing. “I know the church is true” programming and a discouragement of questioning the truth of Mormon scriptures and leaders strongly inhibits the process of an honest and ongoing search for truth. Mormons are typically unable to see this in themselves. The ability to objectively see this in their experience runs contradictory to the programming of knowing. But if we were to discuss this in the context of another religion–for example The Jehovah’s Witnesses, then Mormons can clearly see the error in someone believing they know the truth and then shutting off the process of ongoing critical examination and continued searching. Such individuals are dismissed by Mormons as being closed-minded–all the while missing that very quality in themselves.

And of course the indoctrination process is what confounds the feeling experience method of truth. If I am a Jehovah’s Witness, and have been “programmed” to revere the founder Pastor William Russell as inspirational, it is likely that I will have strong feeling experiences about him and the doctrines he introduced. I will have been taught this is the Holy Ghost telling me what is truth. I know it is true because I have had this powerful warm feeling.[/quote]

I believe most LDS people are well meaning, and do a lot of good in the world. However, that doesn’t make their fairy tales any more real than the fairy tales of people in other religions.

I don’t ask people to go any further than they are comfortable, in the pursuit of truth. If the LDS church brings you happiness, that is great and perhaps there is no need to go down the rabbit hole.

I sincerely researched the LDS church, looking at the best arguments I could find from both critics and church apologists, and ultimately decided that it was not the divine institution I believed it to be.

After doing so, I decided to publish my research as a website, for others that may also be looking for answers. If you decide the rabbit hole really is worth pursuing, feel free to check out my website. If you don’t, I respect your decision and wish you and your family the best.

http://trialsofascension.net/mormon.html

293

[quote]forlife wrote:

Not what I said at all.[/quote]

Sorry, I must’ve misunderstood, ‘So, take your pick’ to mean that there are only the options you presented. Really you meant there are lots of options, but you only consider the two that diminish the Church and allow you to do what you want when you want while deflecting blame from yourself.

The commitment was the duration of your life. Terminating the contract prior to it’s expiration, regardless of the consent of the involved parties, is hardly preserving the integrity of the contract.

Seriously, all the witnesses, vows, 'til death do us part, speak now or forever hold your peace, you think the whole marriage thing is just who you prefer to have sex with? It’s like saying a cease-fire in the Middle East is just about preserving Israelis and Palestinians.

I don’t mean to slight you too much (I think marriage today is way too pervasive and largely misunderstood), but the thought line is baffling.

294

Different copies of the of the different gospels and other books are kept around and incorporated into Christian textual criticism. If you have the right credentials, you can even go look at the old copies for yourself in various museums around the world. The oldest complete New Testament dates to around the first century, I think. You can also buy a critical New Testament and look at the textual variants, if you so desire. There aren’t any significant discrepancies between the different copies.

The “Gospels” of Thomas, etc, were excluded from the canon because they were works of 2nd century Gnostic writers. In other words, they came much later and didn’t agree with the doctrine of the 12 Apostles and the texts of eyewitnesses. Early Gnosticism was addressed by John in his 1st epistle and (I think) Paul.

The Gospels don’t tell the same story from the same perspective. Luke and the other gospels don’t disagree. John baptized Jesus and was thrown in prison later by Herod. Luke doesn’t recount Jesus’ baptism the way

[quote]
There are three seperate and different versions of the 10 Commandmants (Exodus 20, Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 5). [/quote]

“Deutoronomy,” literally translated, means “2nd Law.” The book recounts the second giving of the Law to remind the descendants of the Exodus generation of their convenant obligations. Recall that the Exodus generation was condemned to wander in the desert until all were dead for their behavior at Mt. Sinai during the 1st giving of the Law.

Exodus 34 recounts the basic covenant obligations of the tablets Moses smashed in his anger. It’s not a different Decalogue.

I’ve already addressed this a bunch of times, but the short answer is that Jesus has fulfilled the obligations the Israel was supposed to keep, namely, the Law (Leviticus, etc), therefore Christians aren’t under the same covenant obligations as Old Testament Israelites. For this reason, we don’t keep the dietary laws or offer any temple sacrifices, etc. We’re under the New Covenant that Jesus instituted in his death and resurrection.

There isn’t a substantial number of followers in either of these “traditions,” and there have been numerous rebuttals from both the Protestant and Catholic sides. The interpretations of the Bible that have any substantial followings are those of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and the Orthodox faith.

To put it bluntly, the Bible can’t be made to say whatever you want any more than “Moby Dick” can be made to be about wheat farming. Books have meanings just as words do. The very fact that human conversation is possible and understandable should underline this fact. If you can understand me, and I can understand you, than people can also understand the Bible (or any other religious text) and come to a consensus about its meaning.

295

[quote]lucasa wrote:
‘So, take your pick’ to mean that there are only the options you presented. Really you meant there are lots of options, but you only consider the two that diminish the Church and allow you to do what you want when you want while deflecting blame from yourself.[/quote]

I was discussing the two options presented by “the church”, in case you missed it. The truth is fundamentalist churches have no answer for gay members. Both options (entering a mixed orientation marriage or celibacy) lead to pain, loneliness, and unhappiness.

You’re trying to argue that every divorce is a dishonest act? Get real.

I’ve argued just the opposite, numerous times. I believe love is far deeper, more significant, and more encompassing, than just the sexual aspect. Sexual orientation affects not only who you find physically attractive, but with whom you are able to share intimacy on all levels. You probably wouldn’t realize that, having never tried a relationship with someone contrary to your natural orientation.

296

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
To put it bluntly, the Bible can’t be made to say whatever you want any more than “Moby Dick” can be made to be about wheat farming. Books have meanings just as words do. The very fact that human conversation is possible and understandable should underline this fact. If you can understand me, and I can understand you, than people can also understand the Bible (or any other religious text) and come to a consensus about its meaning. [/quote]

Setting the rest of your commentary aside, I can’t resist calling this out. What you really meant is that anyone that shares your perspective can come to a consensus about the meaning of the bible, and any disagreements are due to dishonesty, rationalization, or ignorance rather than a sincerely different interpretation.

You’re dead wrong about that. Having talked with literally tens of thousands of people during the course of my two year mission, I can tell you that well meaning, sincere people frequently disagree on biblical interpretation. And not just on minor issues, but on some of the most central tenets like faith vs. works, the need for baptism, and the nature of god.

297

[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
To put it bluntly, the Bible can’t be made to say whatever you want any more than “Moby Dick” can be made to be about wheat farming. Books have meanings just as words do. The very fact that human conversation is possible and understandable should underline this fact. If you can understand me, and I can understand you, than people can also understand the Bible (or any other religious text) and come to a consensus about its meaning.

Setting the rest of your commentary aside, I can’t resist calling this out. What you really meant is that anyone that shares your perspective can come to a consensus about the meaning of the bible, and any disagreements are due to dishonesty, rationalization, or ignorance rather than a sincerely different interpretation.

You’re dead wrong about that. Having talked with literally tens of thousands of people during the course of my two year mission, I can tell you that well meaning, sincere people frequently disagree on biblical interpretation. And not just on minor issues, but on some of the most central tenets like faith vs. works, the need for baptism, and the nature of god.[/quote]

The fact that you departed from the Christian faith means that you never understood it in the first place and little has changed since then. Scripture is clear on that.

298

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The fact that you departed from the Christian faith means that you never understood it in the first place and little has changed since then. Scripture is clear on that. [/quote]

Logical fallacy on two counts:

  1. Assuming without evidence that once the Christian faith is understood, it must be forever accepted.

  2. Red herring, since the point had nothing to do with my current disbelief in the Christian faith. The point was that millions of people disagree stridently, vociferously, and earnestly on the correct interpretation of the bible, despite your claim that it is clearly written and consensus is easily achieved if people are sincere.

299

Well, since we all know what this is REALLY about, I’ll make it simple. Homosexuality is a grave sin in both the Old and New Testament. Before and after Christ’s birth, death, and resurrection. Before the fulfilled law, and after. And marriage itself is mentioned as only occuring between man and wife. And since you’re not here to champion polygamy, but homosexual marriage, we all know that ultimately that’s what this all about.