Proposition 8: How Free-for-All Abortion Paved the Way for Homosexual Marriage

Just as with abortion, nuances exist with regard to homosexual rights. The Supreme Court's blanket decision in Roe v Wade, however, took away most of those distinctions with regard to abortion, saying that abortion is in nearly all cases simply another choice. These same subtleties are just as obviously missing in the debate about "homosexual marriage" in California. In all of the discussion of "homosexual rights", the most important of the missing nuances--"what's best for the child?"--has been all but discarded by the so-called "rights" advocates.

In his book, The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn notes that beginning in the 1970's, "free-love" advocates claimed that marriage didn't matter. Blankenhorn goes

Admittedly, a great deal of discrimination still needs to be cleaned up. Homosexuals still don't have all the rights of heterosexuals, even though they should. Yet, when all of these rights are abstracted away, what's left over is one gigantic responsibility.

on to say that since the 1990's it has become very clear, as divorce statistics and other evidence were analyzed, that the corollary to healthy marriage is a healthy society. Above all, marriage is a responsibility to foster the health and well-being of children. "Homosexual rights" advocates don't much seem to care about this nuance.

Admittedly, a great deal of discrimination still needs to be cleaned up. Homosexuals still don't have all the rights of heterosexuals, even though they should. Yet, when all of these rights are abstracted away, what's left over is one gigantic responsibility. Marriage has been throughout the

I suppose one could define as "unequivocal" a 4-3 (or 57%) Court decision. In light of (1) a referendum in the year 2000 in which 61% of Californians agreed that marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman, and (2) 6,000 years of history that has recognized marriage as primarily a responsibility, such a definition seems trite and self-serving.

entirety of earth's history a commitment to society made by marriage partners that they will make every attempt to raise healthy and happy children. "Free love" damaged that social compact. Abortion as a simple choice was another sucker-punch against the family. Now "homosexual marriage" seeks to completely sever the institution from its primary reason for existence.

The "California Marriage Protection Act" ballot initiative, as it was initially called, was modified by Attorney General Jerry Brown so that it came to be legally known as the "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" act. Brown said,
The title and summary is not false or misleading because it states that Proposition 8 would 'eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry' in California. The California Supreme Court unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.
I suppose one could define as "unequivocal" a 4-3 (or 57%) Court decision. In light of (1) a referendum in the year 2000 in which 61% of Californians agreed that marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman, and (2) 6,000 years of history that has recognized marriage as primarily a responsibility, such an unequivocal definition seems trite and self-serving.

We have only lately discovered, as the Roe v Wade smoke has cleared, that abortion can never be thought of as simply a woman's right to choose. Children have rights, too. Unfortunately, standing on the shoulders of abortion advocates who don't bother to think about such trivialities, "homosexual rights" advocates have learned not to care either.




Comments

  1. I'm not sure if you can compare "Free Love" to homosexual marriage. Free Love would seem to promote a complete absence of responsibility, whereas homosexual marriages seeks to create a binding contract between two individuals and if anything promotes an increase in responsibility.

    Aside from wanting to share with each other a deep commitment and expression of love, perhaps many of the reasons for those who desire same sex marriage are related to legal matters such as hospital visitation, employment benefits and that kind of thing. If it were to be about raising a children, is it not possible that a stable and loving home provided by two same sex parents would be a better environment for children to be raised in, that say Britney Spears 2 kids?

    I think on both side of the argument there are the fringe extremists, who give marriage a bad name on the heterosexual side, and sexual deviants who perhaps portray a stereotype for homosexuals as promiscuous and immoral individuals, but I would suspect that the vast majority are just good people who are wanting the same benefits and freedoms associated with marriage that you and I enjoy.

    While you and I may belong to a religion that regards the lifestyle of homosexuals as contrary to Gods laws, it's also a religion that has been persecuted for beliefs contrary to mainstream ideals. It seems ironic and hypocritical that such a religion that has been able to thrive because of a society which promotes freedom, now seeks to deprive others who don't share those views of their freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd like to second the thoughts of the previous comment. It's a hypocrisy that I can't get past in my own thinking.

    Also, the biggest problem with the comparison you make is the assumption that "pro-choice" is the same as "pro-abortion." Take the emotionally charged rhetoric out of these wedge issues, and you are basically arguing that the government should become more involved in dictating what personal choices we can make, and legislating the "free will" out of the lives of Americans.

    Seems contrary to traditional conservative or libertarian thought, which you often promote here.

    Your religious beliefs may not be those of others. LDS faithful should be capable of recognizing the dangers of legislating religious beliefs. Libertarians should be capable of recognizing the dangers or legislating morality. Either way you spin it, it's a contradiction of thought justified by little more than the belief that your belief is superior to the beliefs of those who disagree with you, and that being enough to justify that the government then legislate to promote your ideals, rather than limit itself to provide citizens with liberty and the ability to live as they choose within the confines of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UK and Jason,

    It was not my intent to proclaim my religious beliefs in my article. I'm not sure where you think I did, or where you think that I advocate the legislation of my particular religious beliefs. My intent in citing David Blankenhorn's book was to indicate that there is enough social evidence that children generally thrive when there's a loving father and mother in the family. Britney Spears' problem is that she is most of the time not capable of being a loving mother. As well, I think that children would be better off in a home with two homosexual caregivers than in a home with an abusive father. Nearly all homosexuals ARE capable of being loving parents, but I don't suspect that this is the reason that most homosexuals would want to become "married".

    History shows that the prime environment for building a strong society is a family whether a loving mother and father exist. Failures to achieve this norm do not lend credence to the idea that we should open the institution to further failure.

    It's not really a religious argument. It's an anecdotal one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Iteresting Thesis. I had never really made the connections that you do here. But they seem to make a logical connection.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To Urban Coda and Jason

    If you are truly fervent defenders of freedoms of American citizens, you should have started earlier when those freedoms were being taken away from us. Although it seems to me that you are defenders of perversions rather than freedoms. I guess you do not know the difference between a freedom and a perversion. I am afraid, to you it is one's right (in other words freedom) to practice perversion. To you any attempt to curb perversion is heinous infringement of freedoms. But we better start by defining terms.

    The freedoms (which we so often speak about while using it interchangeably applying to almost anything), granted to us by our constitution are actually our rights to speak our mind without any restriction, (without being punished either financially, or by imprisonment, etc.).

    Also Freedom in a broader, spiritual sense means freedom of mind, which comes with true knowledge. Ultimate knowledge brings to ultimate freedom.

    But returning back to the freedom to speak, for example, one's mind freely (without fear of any form of punishment). That freedom also gives right to act however one chooses to, unless those actions are criminal in nature, unless they affect another's sovereignty, unless they affect another's self dignity, unless they spread immorality and perversion. After all any individual has a right not to know, not to see any perversion around him and his family. This, of course, does not restrict your right to practice perversion inside your own house. After all no one can prevent you practicing homosexuality, or even spouse abuse unless the spouse is not ok with it. By the way, while advocating for the rights of the homosexuals, you hopefully do not forget about the rights of the polygamists, or do you? I assume that the boundaries of your unlimited freedoms include the polygamists too. Otherwise you cannot claim that they are unlimited.

    Returning back to the Constitution. It is written for moral people. It neither restricts, nor provides rights to practice and spread immorality and perversion. And again, I do have a right not to see any perversion around my family, particularly around my children. Therefore no one has any right to practice any perversion openly, publicly. And since by longing to legalize homosexual relationships, homosexuals are striving to practice it openly, it cannot be allowed. That is why legalization of homosexual marriages infringes my, and particularly my child's right not to see any perversion around.

    Now, you may argue that homosexuality is not a perversion. I do not have time to go over this now. Whatever it is. It is my right not to see homosexuals legally (openly)married in public. Homosexuals still have their right to practice it in their houses. So do polygamists, lesbians and all others. Again, no one is able to restrict them to do it in their houses. I am not calling to create a special police force to do it. I am saying none of these groups should advertise publicly to get recognition.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous,

    First of all it's Koda with a K, not a C :-)

    While I personally don't agree with or practice either polygamy or homosexuality, I would defend the right of an individual to practice either.

    If I could ask a couple of questions...

    You said:

    That freedom also gives right to act however one chooses to, unless those actions are criminal in nature, unless they affect another's sovereignty, unless they affect another's self dignity, unless they spread immorality and perversion.

    I agree with freedom not including anything criminal or that affects anothers sovereignty, but I'm not sure where in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or any other document it refers to immorality or perversion.

    First of all, what exactly defines immorality? It would seem to me that in an Islamic country, it would be immoral for a woman to show her face or her legs, therefore, if a muslim were to be a United States citizen, we would all be required to make sure women keep their faces covered - am I not correct?

    Morality is a personal decision, and I would suspect that it differs for each person based on personal and/or religeous beliefs. And as a direct result of that, you can't legislate morality.

    The problem with many who oppose Gay Marriage, is that they equate Gay Marriage with public sex orgies or other obscene practices, which I and I would suspect most people, gay or straight would find offensive as well.

    How would the knowledge that a gay couple in your neighborhood was married affect your life?

    How would the sight of a gay or lesbian couple holding hands in the park affect you or your kids?

    Can you provide any argument against Gay Marriage that doesn't invoke your personal religious beliefs?

    The thing is that you are free to believe what you believe, speak what you would like to speak and you are able to do this because you and I both live in a free society.

    Freedom has two sides. It allows us to do the things we would like to do, but it also allows others the freedom to do the things they would like to, even if we don't like it.

    At the end of the day, aside from being something you don't like, gay marriage has no effect on you whatsoever.

    I am saying none of these groups should advertise publicly to get recognition.

    So basically freedom of speech is reserved only for those who agree with you? Do you by chance also believe that blacks should still be slaves and that women not be allowed to vote?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry for misspelling your name. It was not done intentionally. But I wish you could be as much observant towards the rest of my response.

    You say, "While I personally don't agree with or practice either polygamy or homosexuality, I would defend the right of an individual to practice either," Did I say they did not have that right? In my response I have stated and emphisised twice that all, homosexuals, lesbians, polygamists, etc. have their inherent right to practice whatever they want in their own houses. I only said I was against legalizing those relationships. Why? Because the legalization of those relationships sends a wrong signal to the growing generation. The legalization of those relationships actually conveys that there is nothing wrong with them, that they are not perversions, that they are not immoral. This is how the legalization and open recognition of those relationships affects my children. Also yours.

    But again let's clarify the terms of morality and perversion, moreover since you have asked me to do so. Here is the dictionary definition of morality: pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical. Immorality is the opposite. Does this answer your question? It is immoral when it is wrong. Principles of right and wrong are independent of any religion. I'll come to your example of a muslim mentality later on. But going a little back let me answer to your enquiry involving the Constitution and morality. First, I did not say it, the Constitution has said something about morality or perversion. Here is what I said about the Constitution, "It neither restricts, nor provides rights to practice and spread immorality and perversion." Actually what I said is that the Constitution does neither restrict nor allow any immorality or perversion. How could I be more explicit? Neither, nor. I basically said that there is no word in there about perversion and immorality. I wonder how could you infer something else? I also said that our Constitution was written for moral people. I was only suggesting that it would be a worthless paper in the hands of immoral people, which we actually are. Now, returning back to the immorality issue. I guess such as many of us, you too are failing to differentiate between morality and legality. The Laws in our society (no other society is an exception) are based (in theory) on morality. In other words on right principles rather than on wrong ones. No society would openly declare about intentionally creating their laws on wrong principles. It is another issue that certain legislations have immoral motives and as a rule bring to immoral disbalances in the society. But the legislators themselves never admit that they had an immoral motive. On the contrary, they do their best to present their motives as being moral and just. But going back, all the societies in the near and distant past had punishments for murder, theft, robbery, etc. in their legislations. What I am coming to is that the concepts of right and wrong, moral and immoral are inherent to the humanity notwithstanding time, race and religion. And do not give me the nonsence that morality is a personal decision. What does it mean "you can't legislate morality?" Are you advocating to legislate immorality? I suspect you are one of those for whom everything is relative, including morality and immorality. All right let's see how far you can go with that.

    Let's go to your example with a muslim mentality where it is "immoral for a woman to show her face or her legs." Is this immoral or moral? Ah, I forgot you do not differentiate between morality, leagality and immorality. By the way, there is no logic in what you say next, "if a muslim were to be a United States citizen, we would all be required to make sure women keep their faces covered." There are many muslims in our country, and still we are not required to "make sure women keep their faces covered" Although, you forgot about legs. It is my understanding that you ultimately oppose to the muslim practice to cover the faces and legs of women. It seems to me that you are advocating an ultimate freedom, since to you morality is a personal decision. And because any personal decisions cannot be limited, then anything is okey to you. Let's see. You are saying then that it is moral, sorry okey, for our women to open their legs, half of their breasts and their belly buttons to anyone around? How would you feel if your wife or your sister did it? What if your wife decided that it was just a friendly jesture to spend a night or two with your close friend or a complete stranger? Or if she decided to go to work with completely open breasts? What if your friend came to visit with you and your wife with open genitals. Does this sound too much. Then your concept of morality, being a personal decision, is shattered. Or maybe you would be okey with all these, but not yet. Maybe in a couple of generations? Actually, when you say morality is a personal decision, you actually say that there is no morality or immorality.

    Now about your questions, "How would the knowledge that a gay couple in your neighborhood was married affect your life? How would the sight of a gay or lesbian couple holding hands in the park affect you or your kids?" I have answered these questions in the beginning. The legalization, and public recognition of homosexual and lesbian relationships sends a message to my children that there is nothing wrong with those relationships, thus interfering with their education with the right and wrong in its core. I hope you would not object to my right to educate my children however I choose. Oh, maybe to you there is no right and wrong? And those people who had created those concepts were out of their minds?

    Now about your question, "Can you provide any argument against Gay Marriage that doesn't invoke your personal religious beliefs?" Where did you see implications on religion, moreover on my personal religious beliefs in my response? Where did you see any allusions to any religion? If I were to bring religion or God into this your concepts would nor stand even a minute.

    Again it is not a matter of dislike. It is the matter of sending a wrong message to the growing generation. I guess everything boils down to whether homosexuality is a perversion or not. Here is the dictionary definition of perversion: any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal, a change to what is unnatural or abnormal. Similar to morality and immorality the sense of perversion is also inherent to human beings. If unnatural, pervert practices are adopted in a society (like homosexuality in ours, or oral sex or other pervert sex forms of Kama Sutra) it does not make them normal.

    Freedom of speech, again, is designed for people to speak their mind about politics, politicians, economy, philosophy rather than perversion. The founding fathers did not mean perversion when providing freedom of speech. Also freedom of speech does not allow lobbying for perversion, moreover legalizing it. Freedom of speech may allow to print magazines, articles about perversion, publishing them on-line, or printing books. but never demonstrating those ideas on the streets, in public places, such as the freedom of speech does not allow to promote racial discrimination, for example. I do not advocate for driving blacks back to slavery. Nor do I advocate for depriving women of their voting rights. Why are you all the time stretching for straws? Why are you arguing against whatever I did not say? How does my argument against homosexuality have anything to do with blacks or momen?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon,

    Your point about the definition of perversion is a good one. It is also something that becomes an obsession, often to the point of addiction. It doesn't become that way for all by any means, and why sex becomes an obsession, it's hard to say, but when it does, it affects far more than just the one obsessed. Homosexuals can already have their relationships, so legalization of "homosexual marriage" would be not much more than a tacit approval of sexual obsession and its host of attendant social ills.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah! Anonymous - we've tangled on here before haven't we?

    Let me try make this as direct as possible, since we seem to be headed down a path of saying the other said something when they didn't and claiming we said things we didn't.

    The Muslim example is extremely relevant to this discussion. For a Muslim, a woman showing her face or legs is immoral. Therefore 'relative to his morality', you and I are both immoral.

    Slavery and Women voting. I suspect the "It's immoral" argument was made when trying to stop those things from being respectively made illegal and legal. In fact I know it was made when they were trying to abolish slavery.

    Morality is relative to the civilization in which is exists. I actually grew up in a culture where woman would expose their breasts for ceremonial occasions. I can honestly say it didn't affect me negatively at all, it was just the way it was in the culture. In fact I was concerned at one point that once married that particular part of the anatomy would continue to mean nothing to me - fortunately I've adapted to the culture in which I now live.

    So who defines right and wrong? I would argue that it is defined by the culture in which it exists. Right now a fairly significant portion of the culture is trying to adjust morality to make it more inline with the rights offered by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You have a right to argue against that change, as have I the right to argue for it. I believe it's what makes this a great country! And it falls completely within the realms of free speech protection.

    Here is my problem with not legalizing gay marriage...

    I am married and as a result have certain privileges granted to me by the government. Tax breaks, opportunity for employment benefits for me and my family and a whole host of other things. In addition I am granted protections as well. If I am hospitalized, my wife can come and see me. If I die, my wife is able to receive my assets.

    If I was gay, and had a committed lifelong partner, I would receive none of those benefits.

    I would suspect that you consider homosexuality a choice, as I did at one time. I read an example on a blog a few months ago, that might help put this in perspective:

    I like women, and not in the way I like men. As a teenager, it was all I could think about. If I drove by even a moderately good looking young lady, my head would turn. If I drove by Brad Pitt or some other 'gorgeous' male specimen, I would not have the same reaction. I would suspect you like women as well, and so can relate to those feelings well.

    Now imagine those same urges, but for the same sex. That would be really hard to deal with. Not only that, but the majority of society now come out against you, telling you that what feels natural is wrong and that you are some kind of despicable sinner.

    I'm not gay, so I don't know how bad that feel, but I would suspect it would be pretty rough to deal with. I have met a number of homosexual people and, I am pretty sure it isn't a choice they have consciously made. In every case I have found them to be extremely moral, respectful of my beliefs and generally wonderful and contributing members of our society. They are by no stretch promiscious, and I would suspect have as much, if not more respect for their partners, purely because of the opposition they have faced in the past and continue to have to face together.

    That said, I'm not going to personally practice it, not am I going to teach my children to practice it. I will teach them tolerance and love, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference.

    My reason for supporting Gay Marriage is to give homosexual people who are in committed relationships the same legal rights and protections as I receive as a married person.

    The other option is to completely level the playing field and remove all benefits that I receive as a married person.

    Allowing Gay marriage does not mean basic laws for public decency are being taken away, it just means that legal rights for marriage are being fairly given to all who choose to enter into a committed relationship.

    Actually, perhaps legalizing gay marriage would help public indecency because it would require decency laws to be enforced fairly to all. I would no rather see two men making out in public as I would a heterosexual couple. And quite frankly I don't want to see the genitalia of either either.

    If my children were to see two men or woman holding hands or kissing in a park, I would answer them in the same way as I would when they ask about the woman wearing a bhurka and full length robe in the middle of summer and walking several yards behind her husband, or why Grandma drinks tea and coffee or anything like that.

    They believe differently from how we believe. They are still children of God and still have the freedom of choice to pick their actions. They aren't trying to make us believe the same things they do, and we don't have a right to impose our beliefs on them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Frank, I would argue that sexual addictions, not limited to sexual promiscuity, pornography and other addictive practices are a problem amongst both heterosexual and homosexual people.

    The legalization of homosexual marriage would extend legal rights offered to you and I in our committed relationships to homosexuals who engage in committed relationships.

    I doubt a promiscuous homosexual will have any more desire to enter into a marriage, than the committed bachelor down the street who has a different girl over every weekend.

    It's not tacit approval of sexual obsession, it application of the law to all parties who engage in committed relationships. Sexual obsession and its host of attendant social ills, is a completely separate issue.

    ReplyDelete
  11. UK,

    You're right that "The legalization of homosexual marriage would extend legal rights to homosexuals who engage in committed relationships." But would also extend those same legal rights to homosexuals who engage in promiscuous, countless, non-committed relationships. Based on the general feeling of stigmatization in the homosexual community as a result of not being able to marry, I think the numbers of those who would "marry" if it became legal is much higher than most suppose.

    At this point I think it important to weave into the conversation the fact that no-fault divorce and "no father in the home" welfare laws, as much or more than abortion liberalization, have had a very detrimental effect on the child as well. So it's not just child-unfriendly laws that affect homosexuals that are tacit approvals of sexual and self-obsession; child-unfriendly laws that affect heterosexuals have been such tacit endorsements as well.

    Just because the government ruled against the child in cases involving heterosexuals doesn't mean that it should go itself one worse by ruling against the child in cases involving homosexuals. The majority of Californians understood that in 2000; I just hope they remember in 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I definitely agree with you that the abortion laws, as well as the other court ruling that you reference have had a detrimental effect on society, but I don't believe the legalizing Gay Marriage will have much, if any effect on these things.

    Specifically, I see legalizing marriage as provided committed partners the opportunity to receive benefits from employers and things such as hospital visitation and that kind of thing. I'm not sure if these rights/privileges/benefits would automatically be transferred to those engaging in a more promiscuous or uncommitted range of activities, any more than they extend to members of the heterosexual community.

    The other option as I mentioned is to remove all of these privileges from everyone, so that it becomes a non-issue - I believe the fact that government has no business recognizing a union between two people is something we've discussed here before, and if I remember correctly, I think we agreed on the matter, but I think that would go over like a lead balloon with the general population!

    We're all against government socialist schemes until it comes to the point that we lose out piece of the pie - although I would personally back such an initiative.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Perhaps on a different topic and more closely related to your original post...

    The problem doesn't seem to be allowing a greater variety of people to marry, it seems to be the breakdown of marriage within our culture as a whole. Perhaps if we could get passed things such as Gay Marriage rights, then all of us, both gay and straight, could find ways to strengthen the marriage commitment to where it returns to being the foundation of a strong society.

    I would argue that abortion has been a major factor in absolving many members of our communities from responsibility, which has manifested itself in many areas. Extending marriage benefits would seem to work in the opposite direction of increasing responsibility.

    I support abortion as a choice in cases of rape and incest, but that does open a gray area as to when those reasons end and people who have an abortion purely for selfish reasons comes into play. I see the big problem being the marketing of abortion and using it as a money making venture, rather than the legalization of abortion being the problem itself. But perhaps that is an entire topic by itself.

    ReplyDelete
  14. UK,

    You're right. Marriage is breaking down all across the world. It will break down further if homosexuals are given the legal right to "marry". Taken in isolation, or taken in total with all the other child-destructive issues we've discussed, I think it is in the best interest of children to NOT legalize "homosexual marriage".

    Here's a sobering look at what has happened to families in Massachusetts already who have tried to teach their children that homosexuality is morally wrong. It gets to the point that children are at the center of this issue, and that parents have a right to raise their children as they best see fit.

    Imagine as well the ramifications for churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong in states where "homosexual marriage" is legalized.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think the problem is there are two issues - somewhat related, but not a definite cause and effect type relationship.

    Schools have no business teaching anything other than education. Morals, religion and similar teachings are the responsibility of parents, not the government.

    I whole heartedly agree with the video that parental rights should trump anything else, but I still think it is a separate issue from Gay Marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good point. I agree that this would make the problem much easier to solve. The problem is that the state doesn't agree with us.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Which is one of the reasons my wife is considering home schooling... Just seems a pity that my property taxes wouldn't be going towards their education any more.

    I wish there was some way to initiate a revolution that didn't involve the need for violence or bloodshed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I hear ya! I heard someone on the radio this morning say that "the Constitution is dead". I disagree, and I think that's a scary sentiment, because the resulting despondency might lead to the violence and bloodshed you refer to.

    I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution would isolate the effects of such states' decisions (i.e. to legalize homosexual marriage) by requiring such things as Utah's Marriage Amendment to be respected in a way that anyone who gets married, say, in Vermont, if they move to Utah, they are no longer considered "married". That way we could begin to deduce the effects of those policies by comparing how society changes in states where such things are legal vs. in those states where they are not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Urban Koda,
    I hope you agreed with me that homosexuality is a perversion. Now, the question is whether it is right to legalize it or not. All your arguments about benefits, hospital visitation rights, or inheritance issues, etc. are invented justifications. I do not think it is what homosexuals are striving for. One can get unemployment benefits even if he or she is a single. Even your next door neighbor can visit with you in the hospital. You are free to put together any type of will with anyone's name on it (even your pet's). I think homosexuals are striving for recognition, with far reaching implications that homosexuality is not a perversion. This is what I am against. Homosexuality is a perversion, therefore it must not be legalized, moreover taught at schools including the kindergarten. The norm is male and female relationship. Anything other than that is perversion. I do not want my children to be taught otherwise. You are not taking that right from me, are you? By legalizing homosexuality the government is sending a legally binding message to the rest of the society and particularly to the growing generation that homosexuality is normal. Look at the rest of the world of mammals. There is nothing there but male and female relationships. Why should it be different for humans. Are we not mammals?

    And again, because it is not normal, then it is perversion, therefore it must be recognized as such, therefore cannot be legalized, since legalization sends a binding message to the rest of the society and will eventually bring to the demise of family values (as a matter of fact, all the values). How? When you say, that morality and perversion are a personal choice then who is to judge whether that personal decision is immoral or not? Nobody. Then anyone can perform any immoral act without limitation. Then, immorality will flourish. Unless we come up with laws to restrain every immorality. Which again brings us back to legalizing morality and outlawing immorality. But please remember that we cannot create laws for every immoral act. There are unlimited varieties of them. There is only one right way, while there are endless numbers of wrong ways. We always say THE right, but A wrong, THE truth, but A false.

    But I guess it is hard to snap out of Relativism. It particularly states that there is no right and wrong, that everything is relative. Relativism is nonsense. It negates itself by its own statement. As soon as you said there is no truth, your statement became not true. So, nothing is relative. There are absolutes to which we are subconsciously trying to match our thoughts. The fact that you see some value in your judgments is a proof. You have never tried to compare your thoughts with mine in order to prove them valuable. You subconsciously have compared them with those absolutes.

    So, it is nonsense to say there is no truth. After all is it not true that we are communicating or that you are reading my message, that I have responded to yours. Actually, let's go to concrete examples. It was interesting to know that in a religious ritual women in Polynesian culture would open their breasts. Even if this is still considered normal (not in everyday life though) does it necessarily mean that it is normal in general? The answer is, NO. In the rain forests of Amazon or in Papua New Guinea there are tribes walking completely necked. If it is normal for them is it normal in general? Or Eskimo, Inuit people cover themselves with fur coats from top to bottom. There are tribes in Central Africa where women do not cover their breasts at all. So?

    All these examples have something in common, though. People are mammals, and they adapt to the environment. The climate and the availability of soft fabrics had a decisive role in all of those cases. Because men in certain cultures are indifferent to open female breasts, does not necessarily mean that female breasts are not special organs, that they are lacking sexual receptors, that they are sexually as senseless as the nose or the ears. Your personal example of being indifferent to open breasts before coming to America is a proof that by changing the environment people may change their perception. But again, your perception changes not the nature of female breasts.

    In the case of Arabs, again, because of hot desert climate and availability of soft fabrics they used to cover themselves from top to bottom. Consequently any sight of any part of female body was arousing to Arab males. Now, when women open any part of their body, it is interpreted as invitation to have sex. And since it is immoral for both married and unmarried women to invite to have sex with passers by, then it is natural for the society to punish women for exposing any part of their body. Aren't there any punishments for immorality in Polynesian culture? There must be. The Polynesian culture, however liberal, still must have limitations. Is it allowed for a lady to have a premarital sex in Polynesian culture? Isn't it immoral for a married woman to invite to have sex with a passer by?

    As I have mentioned earlier, together with all our Western perversions we too have some limitations. In other words, the boundaries of our perversions are (fortunately) not limitless. As a matter of fact, homosexuality came from Ancient Greeks. It passed to Romans, then was rediscovered in Italy. Renaissance actually means revival of all Ancient Greek and Roman art, philosophy, and particularly homosexuality. It, homosexuality later passed to European kings. Then to the French bourgeoisie after the French revolution, gradually spreading to the rest of the bourgeoisie in Europe, which came to America together with European (bourgeois) settlers. Here is the brief history of homosexuality. Please note that poor people do not practice homosexuality. Can you imagine a homosexual red neck? Homosexuality is mostly practiced by well-off layers of the society. By those who have time for a perversion. Actually in Ancient Greece and Rome only the rich were practicing it. During the whole history of homosexuality it was only the privilege of the rich. How about other cultures? Did you witness any homosexuality in Polynesian culture. I have not heard of any homosexual relationships among other nations but Western Europeans. Please note that Greeks stopped any homosexual practice as soon as they adopted Christianity. Renaissance itself was viewed as non Christian trend even by its contemporaries.

    But the main thought is that if it is normal for one tribe it does not mean it is normal. If you are still longing to be shown concrete examples of normal, it will be enough to remember that LDS garments were supposed to cover the whole body (of both male and female). That was the norm. So it was blasphemy to cut those garments in half. This is another reason why we, Mormons are the most abominable in the eyes of God. The Arab practice is pushed a little further, to the absolute level. But it never makes it immoral. Actually married women do not cover their faces there I have heard. The rest of the world cultures practice different degrees of abnormality. And again, if it is customary for a certain culture to walk naked, with open breasts or genitals it does not make it normal. Members of those cultures have grown numb, and that only temporarily. Changing the environment will change their perception. Cannibalism for example, was practiced in Polynesian culture for centuries. Does it make it normal?

    Again, there are standards, absolute norms. They are based on human construction. Breasts will always have sexual connotation. It is a scientific fact that all female body is covered with sexual receptors with the most concentration of them on the inside and around vagina, inner side of female thies, on the breasts and lower back. While male body is not all covered with sexual receptors. The only concentration of sexual receptors is on the tip of the penis. What I am coming to is that being accustomed therefore indifferent to necked female body does not turn it into a male body. There are absolutes after all. Absolutes with their inherent values. Only our personal evaluations of the objective reality may vary (may be called relative) and is subject to change but not the values, which are absolute. Again our evaluations are relative not the values of the objective reality. Again, female body can not become a male body. Some people may be born with aberrations. The objective reality itself undergoes gradual changes, sometimes drastic, but at any point it has its inherent value. Just because we are incapable of discerning that value, it does not make them relative. Nothing is relative.

    ReplyDelete
  20. To Frank
    The legalization of homosexual marriage" would be much more than a tacit approval of pervert sexual obsession but rather an aggressive legally binding promotion. Consequently it will bring a great host of attendant social ills, like deterioration of morality as a concept.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous,

    Again, you're arguing over stuff you think I've said, which I haven't and making false assumptions about my positions.

    Allow me to inform you about the struggles faced by same sex couples, since you appear painfully ignorant as to exactly what those are...

    Assume I'm involved in a committed relationship with a member of the same sex.

    Hospitial visitation. If I am involved in a severe accident, my spouse/partner can be denied access to me and also would not be allowed to make healthcare decisions on my behalf. I could put together a power of attorney, but if that paper work isn't on me at the time, my partner won't be allowed access. This is something a regular married couple, and I would suspect even unmarried male/female couples would not have to worry about.

    Employment benefits. Even if my employer were to offer benefits for a domestic partnership, because we are not recognized as a couple by the government, we would have to pay income tax on the value of the insurance policy which we share.

    Home Owner benefits. We can co-borrow on a loan together with the right of survivorship, which would protect one of us if the other dies, but the surviving partner would be required to pay inheritance taxes on the half the house they receive through the death of the other.

    401K. If I have a 401(k) with my employer, I can designate my partner as a beneficiary, however because we are not married, my partner would need to pay up to 70% of that poicy in taxes and penalties, something a heterosexual married couple would not have to do.

    If either of us were to become seriously ill or disabled, the other would not be eligible under the Family and Medical Leave act to care for the other.

    Whether or not homosexuality is a perversion is irrelevant. It's a matter of equal rights and equal protections under the law. This is what those who are supporting same sex marriage are wanting. I know because I have spoken to several of them. I suspect you would likely avoid a members of this community like the plaque. Almost like someone who reads anti-mormon literature to find out about the Mormon Church, rather than asking someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

    Would I be correct in assuming that you would favor a society where everyone is forced by law to choose the right? I think that plan was presented sometime in the past and rejected. But if you want to try and advance the idea again, I'm sure there are some who would want to follow you, ironically many of your supporters would likely be those that you consider most abominable, so you should have fun trying to control eachothers lives and remove as much freedom from each other as possible - Good luck with that one if you ever try it - Please excuse the sarcasm here - I couldn't resist.

    It's funny that those who promote freedom do so only when it supports their agenda's. As soon as freedom may mean that others would be allowed to do something contrary to what they think is right, all of a sudden it becomes a bad thing. It's like those who fought against removing prayer from school, but are now angered that the topic of tolerance towards people of a different lifestyle might be taught. In my opinion, neither has a place in the school environment, but people don't like the two edged sword that is freedom.

    If I may ask only one question of you... Would you defend the right of early Church leaders to practice polygamy, and to convince 14 and 15 year old girls to marry them (I would argue purely to have sex), under the guise that somehow it would guarantee the eternal lives of them and their families?

    Personally it reeks of hypocrisy that those who defend the behaviour of perverted men, who invoke the name of God (Blasphemy?) to satisy their carnal urges for little girls, but would then turn around and try to deny the rights of two consenting adults from pursuing what they think is right and having access to legal privileges which you and I enjoy. I suspect you will find some way of avoiding this question by hiding behind some excuse of "I'm not going to question their character" or something like that, but please go ahead and humor me anyway!

    You are also approaching homosexuality as though it is a choice made by the individual. I used to think that as well, but having met with and communicated with people who live this lifestle, it doesn't appear to be that way. I'm not sure exactly sure about the hows, whys or anything like that but I am confident that it's not just a choice that people make at some point in their lives, it goes far deeper than that.

    I don't even think the remainder of your response even deserves any comment, but just to clarify a few things. I know as much about Polynesian culture as you do - I'm not ever sure why you made the assumption that I do, or that they have religious rituals where female breasts are exposed? I'll have to check with the Samoan lady I know, but she may be as surprized as I was to hear that. I was in a Samoan dance group at one point in high school, but I recall the girls being rather modestly covered...

    So only the rich practice homosexuality and there are no homosexual poor people? OH?! Someone really should tell the poor homosexual people I've met about this, since apparently they weren't told that when they signed up, that they needed money to join the club...

    And Christians don't practice homosexuality? Huh? but you're the kind of person who believes that everyone who doesn't agree with you, can't be a Christian, so in your arrogant and narrow minded view of the world I guess you would be right.

    As for your graphic descriptions of the human body... What were you even trying to get at there? There is more to homosexuality than just sex. It's about being in a committed relationship with another human being, caring for each other, sharing experiences with eachother, and working together to achieve things. In fact when I have spoken to homosexual couples, sex have never even been brought up. It's more about their love for eachother and their shared experiences, something most of the hetersexuals couples I know could stand to learn something from.

    Perhaps they aren't the ones obsessed with sex?!?

    ReplyDelete
  22. UK,

    I agree that homosexual partners should have everything you talked about--401k, hospital visitation, home owner benefits, etc. The only thing I think they shouldn't have is the legal right to marry. Because THAT is about the children.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I can definitely understand the causes for concern with children. I think it probably remains to be seen what the effect will be, but I'm sure there will be some negative things, and some positive things. Overall, I'm optimistic that the positives will outweigh the negatives, but I think the potential is for it to be the other way around.

    Definitely a complex issue, that's for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  24. To UK
    Maybe I am a little ignorant as to exactly what legal obstacles homosexual partners are facing or (put straight) what benefits are they seeking.

    The hospital visitation issue. The power of attorney is the solution in cases involving homosexual partners. That paper is not supposed to be on the patient. The partner may get it if there is a need. In cases of extreme emergency where time is of grave importance, doctors usually make the decision on the spot even if the patient's legal heterosexual partner cannot be found immediately.

    Employment and homeowner benefits are BENEFITS, rather than obstacles. So, after all benefits are being sought rather than protections. Additionally, heterosexual cohabiting partners are similarly deprived of the same benefits. The same with 401 (K).

    Maybe it is irrelevant to you whether homosexuality is perversion or not in this case. But it does not necessarily mean that it is not perversion. Additionally, it IS relevant in this case. How? In order to grant homosexuals some benefits the society has to sacrifice its morality, also the morality of the growing generation thus putting them on a perilous path of deterioration of all values, and precipitating their final demise. It is too huge of a price to pay for some homosexuals to enjoy BENEFITS.

    It is the first time I am identified with Satan. Actually, you are incorrect. I would not favor that type of society where every one is forced to do right. I favor a society where everyone CHOOSES to do right. People have their inherent rights to choose sides (free agency). But I do not think that by choosing a wrong side they may still dwell among the righteous and continue contaminating their lives. Moreover interfering with the education of their children. After all, people should not be unevenly yoked. Also, it is Satanic to interfere with the education of the growing generation. The legalization of homosexuality is aiming to do exactly that. Therefore it is Satanic. Children are too vulnerable. It is heinous and Satanic to spoil them.

    Your sarcasm is excused. I know how you feel after being immensely pressured. I would not say, though that I am enjoying our back and forth argumentations. It is because we are not moving forward. I guess we have come to a point where we are not listening to each other. You are taking things more emotionally than I anticipated. Please, read carefully my responses, as I am carefully studying yours and even more carefully preparing my comments.

    I am not of those who promote freedom only when it supports their agenda. I do not have any agenda. And again, freedom and perversion are different things. Freedom is the right to speak one's mind without fear of any form of punishment. You can say and promote whatever you want. But keep it away from the growing generation. Do not interfere with their education. By interfering with their education you are taking their free agency away. Let them learn whatever is right and moral. After they finish their education and become of age of full accountability, then you can bombard them with any immorality you want, thus putting them through a test. Again, do not interfere with their education. Do not infringe my right to educate my children the way which is right and moral. Satanic interference with the education of the growing generation is like infecting an embrio with a virus. Tolerance towards people of a different (including perverted) lifestyles should not be taught starting from the kindergarten. It can be done later. What is the rush about? Actually, it is good that you think it does not have place in the school environment. I might agree with you on the prayer issue, though. I think it is possible to promote morality, intelligence and civilized behavior without mentioning concrete names, like God's.

    As for polygamy. Your question sounds almost as a convinced statement bordering with accusation. I am against molesting and spoiling young ladies for the sake of quenching one's sexual appetites. I am against any form of perversion. But don't be afraid, I am not going to tease you. I am not a ruthless and immoral individual who is ready to batter a limping enemy. I am still inclined to address all issues raised by you with respect while applying sound logic. Polygamy is a very serious matter though, more serious than you can imagine. One should not discard it outright without trying to discern the reason behind it, based only on few shameful incidents. I do not know how many proved cases do you have on your hands to claim that early Church leaders were marrying 14 or 15 year old ladies. No doubt, there were pervert people in the early Church. Their number is probably more today. But it does not profane the Doctrine including the Last and Everlasting Marriage Covenant which is often belittled by the term polygamy. For better clarity in the future it is essential to separate two distinct concepts, the Doctrine on one side and the Church on the other. The Church must never be identified with the Doctrine. Using them interchangeably does not make them one. The Doctrine is the Doctrine, the Church is the people, the members. Therefore it is an absolute nonsense to testify that the Church is true, for example. But returning back to the issue, I would not approve any exploitation of the Law of the Everlasting Marriage Covenant for indulging one's sexual appetites, moreover with young ladies. I will never approve it. Also, it truly would be hypocricy for those who satisfy their carnal urges for little girls, and then turn and condemn homosexuality. I hope you are not seeing me in free-love relationships, moreover with teenage girls.

    As a little reminder, let me reiterate again that homosexuals have their right to practice it in their houses. So do other groups of whatever lifestyle, including polygamists. I am sensing though, that polygamists are not fitting in the boundaries of your freedoms. You are not thinking to fight as vigorously for the rights of the polygamists as you are fighting for the rights of the homosexuals. As a matter of fact, polygamy is a more natural relationship than homosexuality. Without bringing God into this, let me remind you that polygamy is practiced among most of the groups of mammals, even some birds. Therefore it is a very natural relationship on this planet and cannot be classified as perversion. Whereas, homosexuality is almost non existent in the whole animal world. Imagine if homosexuality was prevalent. It would very soon bring to annihilation of all species. How could homosexual couples have offspring. The predators would devour the rest very speedily and then they themselves would go extinct.

    And please keep away from insults, like "I don't even think the remainder of your response even deserves any comment." You better study it before declaring something like this. It is at least unethical.

    Did I insult you by affiliating you with Polynesian culture? In one of your responses (on this same page) you said, "I actually grew up in a culture where woman would expose their breasts for ceremonial occasions." From another of your responses I knew that you had lived in New Zealand. Naturally I inferred that you grew up in a Polynesian culture. Should I infer that in New Zealand women of European descent would expose their breasts for ceremonial occasions? On the other hand, it is possible that you might have grown up in a culture other than Polynesian, then moved to live in New Zealand. Either way my arguments remain unaffected. You are welcome to put the name of the culture you grew up in instead of Polynesian. It will not change the point and the direction of my arguments.

    It is a fact that homosexuality was the privilege of the rich from Ancient Greek nobility to Roman, from Renaissance Artists and philosophers to European kings and rich bourgeoisie. Poor did not have time for pervert thoughts. Have you met homeless homosexuals? Let's define poor, though. Poor are those who do not have sufficient for their needs, despite struggling all day long for food and shelter. How poor were those homosexuals you talked to? If there are truly poor homosexuals, then I am afraid things have gone very very wrong. It may be the consequence of the social ills plaguing our society, all sorts of immorality and perversion. Children of poor fatherless families might have been molested by their mother's lovers or someone else, like a Catholic pastor, for example. As I said, children are very vulnerable creatures. Therefore it is easy to spoil them and turn them into homosexuals. Maybe, fatherless or motherless children of poor families have been affected. But this does not necessarily mean that homosexuality was not started by the rich. Again the cause of it must be looked in the deterioration of morals, falling apart of families, free love movement, then deeper in the Philosophy of Relativism=Philosophy of Satan. So, by promoting freedom of immorality and Relativism you knowingly or not are contributing to the problem rather than solving it. In other words, I cannot believe homosexuality is genetic. By claiming it is genetic we automatically imply that the parents of the individual with homosexual inclinations were also homosexual. It sounds like a joke.

    Now, having looked a little into the causes of the ailment of homosexuality and still finding that it is acquired rather than inherited, I still have compassion towards the unfortunate victims of the social ills plaguing our society (not the well off homosexuals for whom it is a sexual obsession). But legalizing homosexual relationships is not a solution to the problem. By legalizing it we'll have more of it and more of other perversions. But I guess there is no way we can solve any problem in our society. We are doomed to sink deeper and deeper into our own dirt pit. We as a society are free falling without a parachute while trying to notice and fix flaws in each other's hair style. Everything is wrong. And it started when freedom of speech was identified with freedom of perversion, when we adopted Relativism, the philosophy of Satan, when we turned our backs on the teachings of Christianity and separated and isolated it.

    Now about Christianity and homosexuality. I did not say Christians cannot be homosexuals. Actually, who are you calling Christians? Us? A pervert Western Pagans, with our love of money and all sorts of carnal obsessions? If we call ourselves Christians it does not make us such. We are pervert Pagans. By bringing in the fact that homosexuality disappeared from among Greeks as soon as they accepted Christianity I was implying that homosexuality is strongly connected with Paganism, with love of everything but morality. Which is what we are, Pagans loving money, and freedom to practice perversions, etc. We would be Christians if we loved morality and truth. Again, we are not Christians even if others think we are. Even we, Mormons are not Christians with our love of money, with our love of position in the society, with our love of creating a spotless self image and promoting our pseudo-doctrinal policies and practices, with our hyper-mainstream mentality, with the philosophy of Relativism in the marrow of our bones, etc.

    As for my graphic descriptions of the human body, the aim was to portray on a concrete example that objective reality is independent of our perceptions. Particularly, whether one is numb towards a female body it does not deprive it, the female body, of its sexual receptors, moreover altering the locations of their concentration areas. Maybe homosexuals are not as obsessed with sex as the heterosexuals. But do not tell me that homosexuality is mostly about caring for each other.

    Anyway, whatever the reason behind this movement to legalize homosexual relationships, whatever the causes of homosexuality, notwithstanding even the society's compassion towards homosexuals, it is a perversion and sacrifices (described above), required to enable the homosexual partners to enjoy certain benefits is disproportionately and overwhelmingly huge.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous,

    We may have to agree to disagree on this, since I think we lack a common foundation on which to discuss.

    1. The God you worship is not the God I worship. I mean no disrespect by that, it is just a fundamental difference.

    2. While I don't believe that Homosexuality is genetic, I don't believe it is a choice either. I don't think we fully understand what the reason is at this point, and until then, I'm not going to discriminate against a class of people, purely because I don't understand them and disagree with their practices. Yes the evidence would seem to suggest that it is not natural, but I also had a male dog growing up that was willing to try and have his way with everything... other male dogs, my leg, you name it...

    Perhaps homosexuality has always been around, but those with the physiological disposition towards such a lifestyle were shamed into remaining in hiding. You may think this was a good thing, but I can't imagine having to live with something like that, being forced to live my life contrary to my natural tendencies, being constantly told I was wrong and not being able to confide in anyone.

    3. While I believe that Joseph Smith revealed many incredible truths, there is also credible evidence that he was involved in polygamous relationships, many, if not all of which were hidden from his wife, and many of which were with girls as young as 14 and 15 whom he promised eternal life to, if they were to enter into a spiritual marriage with him. It bothers me that people would be willing to defend him to the death, but do everything they can to prevent recognition of homosexual unions. I don't think it diminishes from his teachings, but it is something which I don't think was right.

    It is wrong for the LDS Church to be supporting Proposition 8, just as it has been wrong in the past when they have opposed basic civil and gender rights reforms. Members of an organization which has been persecuted in the past for beliefs which were different from the norm should really know better. But on the other hand, perhaps the Church would rather alternative marriages stay illegal to prevent a return to the mistake that was the polygamy doctrine (In my humble opinion).

    4. I was very outspoken when the State of Texas violated the rights of the FLDS members in their compound in Texas. I think the attitude of the law enforcement officials showed intolerance, prejudice and a complete lack of regard for peoples rights. I don't agree with polygamy either, but if someones religious beliefs are that it is ordained of God, then they have a right to practice it, be recognized legally and teach it to their children.

    5. I would agree with you that this is not something which should be taught in schools. If morality or religion is to be taught it should be in the home or in a religious setting. I do think however that parents who teach their children to hate a group of people whether on racial, religious or sexual grounds will have a lot to answer for, but that is just my opinion.

    Finally I struggle with the Doctrine and the Church either separate or together. Far to often these have been polluted by men seeking for their own gain. I think you and I both recognize this as a problem and can agree on it. We have however taken different paths in trying to work out the purpose of our existences. This in turn goes back to my initial point, where your understanding of who God is, is fundamentally different from mine. I think that is a wonderful thing and part of the diversity that makes our life here on earth a wonderful experience.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I guess we can never agree on fundamentals.

    1. But why did you bring God into this? I remember you were trying at any cost to avoid mentioning God in our debates. I, on my part was doing my best to comply with the terms. If I brought God into this your arguments would not stand even a minute.

    2.It is good that you believe that homosexuality is not genetic. To this day scientist do not have any idea what causes it. But I said that it is acquired rather than chosen. With all my compassion towards those unfortunate victims of Satan I still believe it is a perversion. Therefore it should not be legalized. Your dog's example says nothing. First, dogs are artificial, often petty breeds. Second, they are pets and are kept in isolation. In their natural habitat animals do not behave like that. In their natural habitat animals practice polygamy. If there was another female dog next to your dog he would do it with the female not with other male dogs or your leg. The same with people. We have created an unnatural environment for ourselves both physical and spiritual. So, men often self indulge because of unavailability of a female. I have heard stories of shepherds doing it with their sheep. Homosexuality is another pathological form of those aberrations of human sexual behavior. Being shunned away is hard to bear, but it is perilous to allow homosexuality to proliferate in the society.

    3.I am not defending Joseph Smith. We have not even talked about him. You asked a question. I answered it. If you are dissatisfied with my answer, it is a different issue. I do not know how reliable is your information about him, but it is a different issue. If you want to discuss it, direct me to the source and let me do the research for myself. Then we'll talk. You are greatly mistaken to think that because of its past persecutions for being different the LDS Church is obliged to defend any different movement. The issue is not about defending all oppressed. It is rather always defending what is right. I am not saying the Church always defends what is right. But in this case the church is on the right side.

    4. It is good that you were very outspoken when the State of Texas violated the rights of the FLDS members in their compound in Texas. It is also good that you admit that they have a right to practice it, be recognized legally and teach it to their children. But do me favor, answer a couple of questions. Are you fighting for them to be legalized as well, or it is just the homosexuals you are fighting for? Also, can you tell me why do you not agree with polygamy? After all it is ordained of God, while homosexuality is not. Why do you think the doctrine of polygamy was a mistake? So, to you God made a mistake. And you call this a humble opinion. Do you really believe it is humble?

    5. It is good that you agree with me that homosexuality is not something which should be taught in schools. But why do you believe that morality should not be taught either? What should be taught at schools, then. Only languages, and sciences? And, why are you putting religion in the same boat with morality? Are you doing this to ban morality from schools together with it? What do you have against morality? Don't you think it is Satanic to defend immorality while banning morality?

    It is good that we agree on the Church being all corrupt. Save very few. After all my God and yours have something in common. So not everything is fundamentally different between them. Though obviously we have taken different paths in understanding the Doctrine and the purpose of our existence. But there is nothing wonderful in diversity just for the sake of it. There is nothing wonderful about intelligent beings wandering blindly, moreover delighting in their condition. There is nothing wonderful in rejecting coherent reasoning just to keep the diversity. There is nothing wonderful in the diversity of erroneous thoughts and perilous notions. There is nothing wonderful when people bring in half intelligent argumentation.

    On the other hand, it is wonderful when people reason logically. It is wonderful when they cooperate, while striving together to find the truth. It is wonderful when people give up their pride and open their ears to sound logic. It is wonderful when people eventually become one in thought, belief and understanding in their pursuit of truth.

    It seems to me that you are of those deaf students who would not see even when the professor has done most of the job and has displayed everything on a golden plate. It seems to me you have some agenda to destroy everything virtuous, to level all the values, to erase any differences between morality and immorality.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Fundamentals are an interesting thing. Somehow you would seem to have aquired absolute truths from God about those fundamentals, and along with that, irrefutable evidence of the existence of God.

    If you brought God into this, all you would be introducing is another aspect to the discussion that you could not prove nor disprove. Your entire argument against same sex marriage is based on your understanding of God, that he has given an absolute morality to mankind, and that because homosexuality does not fit into that absoulte morality as you believe it, those who practice should be discriminated against. Based on my understanding of morality, homosexuality is a perversion, but I'm not going to imposed my morality on someone else who believes differently from me. Imposing it on someone else conflicts with my perceived understanding of morality as well though.

    Any arguments you have presented go back to your intepretation of God and who he is. Since I obviously do not share a belief in the same being you call God, it's a non-issue. I didn't bring God into the argument, since you cannot debate using something that is not held as a common belief. When I first used the term 'God' I did so in that context, that the debate could not exist without invoking ones personal understanding of a supreme being. I think it is apparent that in that respect I was right.

    Way to avoid the question on Joseph Smith... again! In our previous engagement you kept referencing him as someone who revealed absolute truths, such as polygamy and the law of consecration, but failed to acknowledge that he was just a man as well with normal moral failing. To me that means that I should examine anything he revealed to ensure that it came from God, and was not something he claimed came from God to cover up for his own moral failings. I believe he revealed a number of amazing truths and principles, but I have also done a great deal of research into polygamy as it pertains to the history of the LDS Church. From what I have been able to discover, the revelation commonly known as the revelation on the New and Everlasting Covenant, or Eternal Marriage was revealed for Emma only, and would appear to have been a way for Joseph to justify his infidelity to her. Contrary to popular belief she was not OK with his 'spiritual wives'. It would appear too that he tried to destroy the document prior to his death, but a copy survived and was then used by men like Brigham Young and others to justify their own practices. In my opinion that is a far greater form of immorality than homosexuality - but apparently we differ on that opinion. Fair enough!

    The reason Joseph Smith was on trial prior to his matyrdon, was because he destroyed the printing press in Nauvoo. He destroyed the press because it was in the process of publishing an article about his polygamous relationships, which were not in harmony with his teachings, and were not common knowledge to the body of the Church - Which if it was some great revelation from God, you would think they would be, since are we not all equal in the sight of God? By destroying the printing press he was violating the right to freedom of speech. It is regrettable that some sought to end his life because of it, but I do believe that he should have been on trial and was guilty of a very grievous offenses, by virtue of his violation of others basic rights. That is my problem with polygamy as it pertains to the history of the LDS Church. I don't believe it came from God, and I don't believe it is a true doctrine. I believe it to be a false doctrine, conjured up by a man who had moral failings the same as all of us, but rather than learning to control them, he blasphemed and invoked the name of God to justify it. I don't believe it has ever been ordained of God, and it was ironic that Joseph would do this, especially after revelations in 2 Nephi that it is an evil practice.

    Many years ago, the Church was persecuted and driven from place to place, because they practiced a form of marriage which others believed to be immoral and not normal. The absolute hypocricy that they would now try and legally prevent others from doing the same is in bad taste as far as I am concerned. Perhaps if the early saints had merely had "civil unions" and not tainted "traditional marriage", I would see things differently.

    As for secular polygamy - I have no problem with consenting adult choosing to live their lives how they choose -they can even call it marriage, and obtain for themselves all the 'Benefits' that I receive in my marriage. I would consider it only fair, and perfectly in harmony with the Constitution. I don't think I would be obligated to adopt it myself, nor that it would afect my children. I believe that polygamy has an effect on the children they raise, but my beliefs have an effect on my children too. It's part of life. I personally do not choose that lifestyle, but I'm not going to teach my children that polygamists are evil children of Satan. They're doing what they believe to be right, and in harmony with their understanding of God. I'm taking the same approach to homosexualiy. I would have a problem with polygamy being taught to my kids as a norm in school, just as I would have a problem with homosexuality being taught, in that same vein why would traditional marriage and heterosexual relationships need to be taught either. I also have a problem with any specific religion being taught, even if I were to agree with it, because public school is simply not the place. Morality as far as right and wrong in a way that pertains to all mankind should be taught. I cannot limit your freedom, take away your property or destroy your freedom. I cannot supress your freedom of speech, steal your property, or kill or injure you. That is morality without the influence of religion. Morality with the influence of religion is something that should be reserved for the home and Church. The only danger I see from homosexuality towards my family is that which I perceive. It may be cliched, but the only thing I really have to fear is fear itself.

    It is interesting that you claim to value logical reason, but then resort to calling me a 'deaf student', a defender of immorality, and obviously you would include me as one of those who bring in half intelligent argumentation.

    As I have said before, you would appear to any who do not share your specific view of the world and religion as incredibly arrogant, and self righteous.

    We disagree on the issue of homosexuality and specifically same sex marriage based on your definition of fundamentals and mine. You have brought in arguments that animals don't practice homosexuality, but then give a set of justification when I point out that they do in some cases - unless of course I accept your argument that a dog isn't a 'real' animal, or that inspite of him being owned in the presence of 2 female dogs, and having owners that didn't practice homosexuality, he still committed those horribly immoral acts, thereby scarring me for eternity - Maybe this is why I see things differently - I witnessed my male dog try to have sex with another male dog while on a walk...

    You compare us to animals who have no form of marriage, but then use my wife sleeping with strangers to somehow how make a point about my view of morality and then unsuccessfully try to relate that to homosexuality.

    You do know that in the animal kingdom, in many species the males roam free, only to find whatever female they can to mate with in the breeding season. Right? And perhaps you are unaware that in many cases (humans included) the male sexual organs have been designed/evolved to ensure that their semen is given the advantage over the semen from other males by either removing semen already present, or irritating the female organs to prevent further mating - Right?

    If we were indeed a creation of God, and we and animals were all to share your version of morality, why would we have been created in such a way as to indicate that a female having sex with multiple partners could be a possibility? Perhaps we're both wrong, and we should just be living our own lives, only to hook up with random females in the Spring and impregnate them?

    Humans are not the same as other animals, we have developed a civilization based on mutual cooperation, forging of companionships and open and honest debate. In this discussion it is apparent that I have been unable to present an case for my view of the world which you believe is reasonable, however neither have you.

    I think it's wonderful that we have differing opinions and can discuss them openly, I believe it is integral to our civilization as a whole. You obviously don't.

    I'm not sure I see any point to continuing this discussion, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  28. About having aquired absolute truths from God. Why is it so unbelievable?

    You are right that bringing God into our debate would be futile. Although it is a common knowledge that when God created animals He created them male and female. He did the same when creating men. Additionally He created men in his image. Although we have a lot in common with animals, at the same time we are way different. And the difference stems from our unlimited intelligence and morality. Aprivilege which the anymals do not have.

    If male dogs in particular, may be attracted to other male dogs, it does not necessarily make it normal. Abnormal things are still part of the nature. Mutations, abberations and all sorts of deformities are constant occurances in nature. But none of them survive because of their abnormal nature. Natural selection works perfectly well. My explanations of your dog's and other humans' abnormal sexual behaviors were to show that they are mostly due to unnatural environments.

    About roaming males and females in the animal world. I did not bring the example of polygamy in the animal world to show that we are, or should be identical with them. The only thing I was saying was that polygamy is more prevalent than homosexuality. I brought that example to show that homosexuality is ubnormal, therefore is perversion. It is good that you finally agreed with it thought. Roaming female animal practices do exist (remember though that I specifically emphasised "mammals and some birds" while talking about prevalent polygamy among animals). But it does not mean that in one mating season female animals do mate with many male animals (some snakes do it though). The female animal usually chooses only one male during one mating season (and this often after a vicious, often bloody competiotion between males).

    I did not mean that humans are the same as other animals. It is true that we have developed a civilization, but it is not true that it is based on mutual cooperation, and the forging of companionships has definitely a male oriented foundation.

    It is true that in our debates we were unable to present our views of the world. It was not possible due to space and time limitations.

    About Joseph Smith and pilygamy. So, to you it is okey for FLDS or any other group of people to practice "secular polygamy" as you put it, but it was not okey for Joseph Smith to do it? Is it okey that "spiritual polygamy" (as opposed to your "secular polygamy") was Joseph Smith's religion? Why is it that contemporary polygamy is constitutional while early Church polygamy was not? So, to you if polygamy is the religion of any group today, they have all their rights to practice it, to be legalized and to teach it to their children, but for some reason the early LDS Church had not. Is it okey that FLDS have retained the same Polygamy Doctrine which LDS have trecherously abandoned? What I am saying is that on one hand you do not have problem with FLDS to practice polygamy because it is their religion (in other words gven by their God), but on the other hand you have problems when early LDS Church practiced polygamy (according to their religion)? It seems to me that you have a complex of prejudices. For some reason you have respect towards the FLDS polygamy doctrine, while utterly denying the early LDS one. As a matter of fact, LDS do not have a revelation from their God banning polygamy. It is an eternal law. So is the Law of Consecration.

    In general, you are persistently running away form the main topic. The main topic was the legalization of the homosexual relationships. You were for it, while I was against. I explained that I was against homosexuality because of it pervert nature, because its legalization would convey that it was normal, thus opening way to more perversions, eventually proliferation of all sorts of perversions in the society, which is perilous for all. You argued that homosexuals should enjoy the same benefits as the normal couples. I said that the society is not supposed to pay a huge price (meaning the danger of the proliferation of all sorts of perversions and immorality) for some homosexuals to enjoy benefits. While ignoring these main points you prefer to dig into other issues (although somewhat related). We need to concentrate and resolve an issue at a time. Otherwise I too do not see any reason to continue our debates.

    Thanks and good luck

    ReplyDelete
  29. I didn't say it was unbelievable to receive absolute truths from God, it's just that your absolute truths seem at odds with the truths I believe I have received. It's very subjective and cannot be used as a basis for an argument. You however have presented the truths which you believe you have recieved from God as absolute facts which they are not, nor could be, unless you have verifiable evidence that your God exists in the way that you believe he does. So we can throw out all of that.

    We'll also throw out all the comparisons to animals, birds and focus on one issue. Legalization of Homosexual Marriage.

    Do I believe homosexuality is a perversion? Based on my interpretation of morality, yes. But I don't understand the cause or reasons for it ( and neither do you ), and therefore I have absolutle no grounds to deny those who practice it basic rights, or to support benefits for heterosexual couples who choose to practice it, whilst denying them from homosexual couples, or indeed those who choose to practice polygamy.

    Do I believe polygamy is a preversion? Based on my interpretation of morality. Yes. Do I believe it is ordained of God, absolutely not, but I do belive that some people believe it is. I would suspect that those who opposed it when it come into being in the early 1800's used many of the same arguments you are using to oppose homosexual marriage. I bring Joseph Smith into the argument, because his behaviour would seem to indicate that he did not receive the revelation from God, and by his taking 14 and 15 year old girls to wife, I think is further evidence that it was not ordained of God, but is as I stated a false doctrine. That doesn't mean you or other don't have the right to believe and treat a polygamous relationship as though it were. I just believe it is a perversion of morality as I see it.

    I did not once say that I was against Joseph Smith practicing polygamy. I was however against his manipulation of young girls and taking them as wives. I would defend his right to marry as he saw fit, as long as it was between consenting adults. Same as I would defend any member of the FLDS Church who wanted to practice it, and the same as I would defend any homosexual couple who wanted to enter into marriage.

    The fact that people would happily defend polygamy, whilst persecuting homosexual unions appears to be nothing other than pure hypocrisy.

    Just for the record so you don't misunderstand. Based on my personal beliefs, both practices are morally wrong, but both practices should be treated with the same right to freedom.

    As I have stated before Freedom is not only available for those who choose to live their lives the way that you see fit. Freedom extends to both sides of the moral spectrum, as long as it does not interfere with anothers freedom. A couple entering into a same sex marriage or a group entering a polygamous marriage affects neither your rights, not mine. It shouldn't be taught in public school, but that is a completely separate argument. The freedom that allows you and I to engage in the relationships we engage in, enjoy the benefits we enjoy and worship and believe as we will, should also extend to those who believe differently from us, even if you believe it is a perversion.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Your first paragraph is a total absurdity. On the one hand you allow the possibility for any one to receive absolute truths from God, and then turn around and reject that it could be the case with me, just because my absolute truths are at odds with yours, which you yourself do not classify as absolute (you only believe you have received, you do not know). Then you make an absolute statement claiming that my truths are subjective, (again, based on yours about which you do not have a perfect knowledge, which you only believe you have received). Additionally, that they could never be objective unless I had a verifiable evidence of my God (Do you have verifiable evidence of yours?). Then without waiting to be presented with that evidence you conclude that "we can throw out all of that", presumably all my truths. By the way, why are you so sure I am with you on that. I knew that you are taking all these very emotionally, but it is a revelation to know that you have stepped out of your mind. But returning back to your argumentation. Once I said it was half intelligent. I guess I was not entirely accurate. I should have said unintelligent. I guess after all it is a waste of time to continue talking to you. Although there was some notable progress.

    You finally admitted that homosexuality was a perversion. Actually you believe, you are not sure, or are you? So, if we do not know what causes it, it is enough ground to allow a perversion like homosexuality to be legalized and to proliferate in the society? There is absolutely no logic in that.

    Why are you so sure that polygamy is not ordained of God. Do you really believe you are the only one who receives truths from God? Is any one's behavior superior to Joseph Smith's. Has anybody come up with "incredible truths" as Joseph Smith did? How verifiable is your information that he married 14 or 15 year old ladies? Is marrying young women a worse perversion than homosexuality? Current laws of many states allow young women of that age to marry if their parents give their consent. Why are you so sure that Joseph Smith married them without the consent of their parents?

    I guess your judgments are still subjective. Because you believe that polygamy is a perversion then it is hypocrisy for others to condemn homosexuality while defending polygamy. I am afraid you are not allowing the possibility that those others do not consider polygamy as perversion, while considering homosexuality as such. Your accusation of others in hypocrisy is based on nothing, but your personal belief, which is actually subjective, i.e. lacking any objective ground.

    There is no moral spectrum. There is only either right or wrong, either moral or immoral, either true or false. I hope you still believe Jesus is your God. No effort is needed, I hope, to remember Him saying "either you are for me or you are against me." So, there is no spectrum at all. Either you work for morality or against it.

    And, despite you I do not use spineless statements. Without any trace of fear I define right from wrong, morality from immorality. You rather choose obfuscation. Again, your first paragraph is a typical example. For example here is what you wrote, "just that your absolute truths seem at odds with the truths I believe I have received." So, you don't know, it just seems to you. Or, you don't know, you believe you have received. You are not sure whether you know or you don't. You may, of course, speak of yourself without expressing any firm knowledge, obviously because you do not have any. But do not speak about me as you do about yourself. I did not say I believe I have received. I always indicated that I know. I do not claim I was able to cover every aspect of the issues, again because of space and time limitations, but I never doubted in what I said.

    I am right after all that Relativism, the philosophy of Satan, is in the marrow of your bones. I do not have time to waste with you.

    Good bye

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yikes! With all the philosophy of Satan in the marrow of my bones, I apologize that my statement of personal belief so obviously offended you, although I would like to point out that no where in my previous response, nor any prior did I say you did not have a right to believe or know what you know nor did I indicate in anyway that I didn't think you did. I was merely pointing out that our religious beliefs were different enough, that a discussion of "God said this" and "God said that" could not be constructive. I'm not saying you don't know, it's just that you and I don't know or believe the same things.

    My information on Joseph Smith's marriages comes from books research in the Church Archives and actually sold in Church Bookstores. Fanny Alger was the first spiritual wife of Joseph at age 16 while she was living with the prophet as a nanny. There is no record of their marriage as it would seem that only Joseph and Fanny knew about it, which I find interesting.

    Chauncey Webb recounts Emma’s later discovery of the relationship: “Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house”. Book of Mormon witness, Oliver Cowdery, felt the relationship was something other than a marriage. He referred to it as “A dirty, nasty, filthy affair...”

    Joseph later married, Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Winchester both aged 14. In Helen Mar Kimballs case she was given 24 hours to consider it after being told by her father that the prophet wished to marry her.

    The next morning Joseph visited the Kimball home. "[He explained] the principle of Celestial marrage...After which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred. This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart-when Joseph asked her if she was willing...She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come...; but it was all hidden from me.”

    If you "know" that it's OK to marry 14 year old girls under that pretext, I guess you are entitled to that. I've also heard the excuse given that the New and Everlast Covenant was given so women could own property, but that would seem to conflict with the fact that Joseph also married 11 other women who at the time were already married to other men, all of whom were living at the time. I haven't seen that permission spelled out in any Church doctrine, but I believe the term most commonly used is adultery, but perhaps you have received additional revelation that I am not party too.

    Those reasons among others are why I am highly suspect that the revalation on polygamy did not come from the God I worship, and why I personally consider it a false doctrine.

    I didn't say the prophet wasn't allowed to "receive" and act on that "revelation" but personally I find it disgusting that he chose that path. My opinion though, which you are free to disagree with. I don't think it diminishes any of what he taught other than to show that not all he taught may have come from God and each person needs to exercise their judgement to determine what was from God and what wasn't.

    Most of this information today I got from http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/. It would appear to be a site compiled by a faithful member of the Church who doesn't want the stories of Josephs wives forgotten. It's not an anti-mormon site by any stretch of the imagination, and the author has provided references whereever possible.

    I defend homosexual marriage because at some point in the future I may believe in doing something that the majority of the nation may not accept as normal. Perhaps they will decide that entering into the Temple of the Lord and performing ordinances on behalf of my kindred dead is an abomination and a perverse practice. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS!!! But, if we can legislate against same sex marriage, I'm sure a case could be made against Mormon temple worship, and I guarantee you that enough fear and mistruths could be compiled about it to allow such a law to pass.

    As for your question about my belief that Jesus is my God... Actually I don't. I believe that he is the Son of God and played a vital part in the creation of this earth and in the plan for us to come to earth to learn and to grow. My allegience to God goes to his father, our Heavenly Father and father of the Universe.

    Actually on the subject of Christ... When he came across the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned, and requested that "He without sin should be the first to cast a stone" and when that had the effect it did, he told the woman to go her way and sin no more.

    Which part would you have played in that drama? Just so you know that's a rhetorical question, and I don't expect an answer, actually I'm not expecting any kind of response from you, although I will no doubt receive one, since you won't be able to control the urge to try and impose your views on me, even though you consider it a waste of your time :-)

    I'm not angry or bitter about our discussions. I think you had some valid points, but nothing I didn't agree with already. I think people will see you for the person you are and me for the person I am, something which I am perfectly comfortable with - Philosophy of Satan in the marrow of my bones notwithstanding!

    All the best to you, although I suspect this time tomorrow, I will no doubt find myself responding to more accusations that I have claimed you don't know what you know, or have no logic in my arguments!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. I was not intending to write to you back. I really do not have time. I am writing to say that I am sorry for hurting your feelings. This does not mean though that I am taking back any content. I am sorry for the ruthless wording only. I confess that I did it intentionally. It is because the way of the message to the mind passes through the heart. In other words, it is almost impossible to get a message through without hurting feelings. As a matter of fact, any truthful word hurts however soft it may be spoken. I am writing also because you are reaching out to be heard. I know how difficult it is when you have something inside and there is nobody to share it with.

    I am not offended. I am not playing offended either. I just cannot bear when people speak softly, in a "neither-nor" manner, when people are stuck to fuzzy ambiguities, when people are afraid to state their mind clearly. I cannot bare when people put weighty arguments on top of shabby (I believe I have received) foundation.

    I'll look into the matter of Joseph Smith and his wives more seriously. Although polygamy was not invented by Joseph Smith. It was practiced by Abraham, Isaak, Jacob, etc. It was practiced before Abraham. Actually it is still being practice by some other religions. According to some accounts even Christ had several wives. Even if Joseph Smith practiced adultery, it does not diminish the significance of the principle of polygamy. Once again, it is a very serious and important doctrine. I myself used to think about it as a blasphemy but some five or six years after my conversion I got a revelation about its importance. But this is a topic of longer and calmer conversation.

    I understand your motive behind your vigorous support of the rights of homosexuals. But please, homosexuality is incomparable with religion. In order to secure your or your children's freedoms I would suggest to fight for Constitutional rights rather than for legalizing a perversion like homosexuality.

    There is absolutely no difference between the Father and Christ. They are ONE in spirit (this is actually Doctrinal). Also, what did Christ do wrong to deserve to loose his Godhood to you?

    In the case of stoning the woman, who was caught in adultery. I am not sure where you are going with that question, but suffice it to say that in the D&C there is an explicit commandment to destroy women caught in adultery. I hope you are not intending to rewrite the D&C.

    It is good you have agreed with some of my points. But please refrain from using "neither-nor" definitions like valid. Why is it so hard to say either right, or wrong, or partially right or wrong?

    Also, it is dangerous to be comfortable with one's self (moreover with the philosophy of Satan in the marrow:­-). It halts the progress and predisposes to stupor.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Did you even read my response?!?

    When did I say my feelings were hurt? When did I say I had something to say but no-one to listen? Quit thinking you think you know what I'm thinking and then trying to use big impressive words to communicate your skewed perceptions.

    Fuzzy Ambiquities, neither-nor definitions - What are you even talking about??

    You don't understand my motives for supporting homosexuality, you're still obsessing with it being a perversion and that people different from you should have no rights. The Gospel of Christ isn't about imposing your views on others. It's about living your life in accordance with the principles of the Gospel. If others choose differently, so be it.

    Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet or not? Perhaps this is where your "fuzzy ambiguities" come in. If he was a prophet, he claimed to see God the Father and Jesus Christ. Two distinct beings - or perhaps you are missed that part of Church history like you missed the pedophilia, adultery, bigamy and all of that.

    I never said Jesus had lost his Godhood. I just don't worship him as God the Father, because he isn't God the Father, even though they may be one in purpose. The D&C that you claim gives you the right to stone an adulterous woman also talks about God and Jesus having separate bodies, but maybe that part isn't important to you because it doesn't support your version of the gospel.

    So what if Abraham and Isaac practiced polygamy... One of the old testament prophets had sex with his daughter too. That doesn't make it right. If you had a personal revelation, then obviously that would mean something different to you, but as far as I am concerned it is not ordained of God, and the only reason I can see for practicing it, aside from a cultural acceptance of the practice (which is not how it was practiced in the early 1800's), is because one woman is just not enough to satisfy a man's lustful urges.

    Like I said you can't resist the urge to impose your views, you don't appear to know your Church history, unless it supports your narrow minded views, and quite frankly being told that I have the Philosophy of Satan in the Marrow of my bones is something I wear with honor, especially when it comes from someone as intolerant and bigoted as yourself. It must mean I'm doing something right.

    My intent of sharing the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery was to see where you sat - as Christ who didn't necessarily accept the woman's sins, but loved her enough to allow her to go about her life with some gentle council. Or as the very different pharisee's who were obviously all with sin, yet who were willing to stone the woman. So I guess that would make you a pharisee....

    I'm not offended, just shocked at the complete lack of compassion for your fellow man and understanding of key principles of the gospel from someone who claims to be a Christian.

    How about you study your Church history, read the Bible and other texts on Christ, and then say what you believe/know instead of trying to attack my beliefs and prove me wrong by appeals to ludicrous arguments and detailed descriptions of unrelated topics.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It is interesting. So, your feelings were not hurt? I think you are not completely honest.

    But let's see who is not reading. I did not say Christ and The Father are one in flesh, but rather in spirit.

    Also who do you call a prophet, Lot? Additionally, he was drunk, he was unconscious when his daughters did it. You better read the Old Testament again.

    Maybe I do not know the Church history in all it details, but you do not know the Doctrine. Your wishful thinking has created a convenient god for you to feel comfortable in your own .... Your assertion about your righteousness is not worth a thing unless you can support it with THE Doctrine not YOURS. According to YOURS all, including adulterers and perverts will be pardoned. Are you preparing a way for yourself to be pardoned too.

    You do not still consider homosexuality as a perversion, do you?

    Be careful though when declaring, "the Philosophy of Satan in the Marrow of my bones is something I wear with honor." You may not get pardoned for that. Also, with Postmodernism in the marrow why are you so tolerant to all the rest of the ideas but mine?

    And do not call me Pharisee unless you have a verifiable evidence that I have similar to theirs sins.

    The lack of compassion? I merely have unfolded for you some pages of the CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, which you probably despise. Do you think that the commandment to destroy women caught in adultery is given to not follow it. To you probably all the inconvenient parts of the Doctrine are given for that purpose. Compassion towards our fellow men is not the only point of the Doctrine. If for you compassion of Christ and His all pardoning approach is the Doctrine then you are the one who is missing the point.

    I visited the site about Joseph Smith's wives. Take a look what I found in Helen Mar Kimball's biography.

    "Eventually she was converted to polygamy and recovered from her illness, “I fasted for one week, and every day I gained until I had won the victory...I learned that plural marriage is a celestial principle, and saw... the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lord’s annointed”. Helen later summarized her experience with plural marriage in a poem: Which immediately follows the statement. Even though Helen was too young to understand the law of plural marriage in the beginning, she later became fully converted to the Doctrine. It appears that you have overlooked this particular passage. Focusing on her age probably has prevented you to see her conversion. Due to voluntary or involuntary insufficient sampling you have left out that all of the wives of Joseph Smith entered into marriage voluntarily and were not unhappy with their choices.

    Here is the confession of Emily Partridge: "I have never repented the act that made me a plural wife...of Joseph Smith and bound me to him for time and all eternity.”

    How a bout Lucy Walker's testimony: "Lucy prayed more fervently for an answer. She couldn’t sleep the entire night. Just before dawn, and Joseph’s deadline, she “received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of the marriage covenant called 'Celestial or plural marriage'” and "I afterwards married Joseph as a plural wife and lived and cohabited with him as such." Also: "Of the relationship, Lucy said, “It was not a love matter, so to speak, in our affairs, -at least on my part it was not, but simply the giving up of myself as a sacrifice to establish that grand and glorious principle that God had revealed to the world.”

    The following passage is about Olive Frost: “She seemed to realize and appreciate the magnitude of the great and important mission allotted to woman in the perfect plan of this Gospel dispensation, and she desired to do her part in the good work. She freely accorded to man the title of king, and joyfully accepted the place of queen by his side. It was at this time that the principle of plurality of wives was taught to her. She never opposed it, and, as in the case of baptism, soon accepted it to be her creed, in practice as well as in theory. She was married for time and all eternity to Joseph Smith...” Also, “When the dead bodies arrived at Nauvoo, the spiritual wives of the late prophet, before unknown with certainty, now disclosed by cries, and a general uproar, their secret acceptance of the new doctrine. One of them, Olive Frost, went entirely mad...”

    I also noticed that you have somehow overlooked that Joseph Smith (in his late thirties) married more old women (47, 50, 56 and 58 years of age) than young ladies of 14 (only two) years of age. Nancy’s marriage to Joseph is undocumented and there is no evidence that they had a sexual relationship. There is also no evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relationship with Helen Mar Kimball (another 14 year old). I am sure Celestial Marriage was not about the urge of having sex with young women. It definitely is not about pedophilia. What pedophile would have sex with older women over 50. The sealing of these women was definitely for the time of their exaltation not for having sex.

    After studying the content of the site I came to realize that behind all these marriages there was something other than a regular desire to quench one's sexual appetites, something more important than the Church, something way bigger than anything else in the world, something truly Celestial. Once again, all the wives of Joseph smith had voluntarily submitted to the idea after receiving personal revelation of the truthfulness and the importance of the principle of the Celestial Marriage.

    Thanks a lot for directing me to the site. it was very challenging, and at the same time very edifying. I used to think about polygamy as a useful principle on a temporal level. Now I have some idea about higher "grand and glorious" reasons behind that principle.

    Best regards

    ReplyDelete
  35. In the words of the great Scott Adams...

    Dance Monkey, Dance!

    ReplyDelete
  36. I must say, reading all of the above posts has been very educational and interesting. In my opinion, both of you have some very good points. I am not sure if the two of you are checking in on this discussion any more, but just in case you are, I have a question. If I remember correctly, both of you claim you do not want homosexual marriage taught in schools. I also remember Anonymous saying he wanted morality taught. Anonymous talked about his wish for his children to not see homosexual couples holding hands in public. My question is, why are you so afraid for your children to be educated. Being educated about things such as homosexual marriage doesn't mean that you or your children have to accept it as moral or like it what so ever. The beautiful thing about education is that then your children have the knowledge to choose for themselves what they think, instead of blinding agreeing with whatever their parents teach. Please correct me if I am getting your position wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Miranda,
    You are addressing an important question. I may have missed to fully cover it though.

    The point is that children are very impressionable creatures. Also, they are eager to know things. Additionally they are inherently inclined to accept any information coming from their parents and other adults as unquestionable knowledge. In other words, we adults are authorities for our children. Such as television and books are authorities for us. It is later, in their teens, when they start looking for authorities elsewhere and start questioning things.

    The many questions children ask are not intended to question the received information but are aimed to clearly perceive it and to find its place in the ever growing jigsaw puzzle. That is why we adults often hold from them back any information that cannot be put next to a previously existing one. In general we need to be very careful in choosing what we teach them.

    Homosexuality issue is something they cannot handle yet. Even scientists do not have any clue what it is and what causes it. I am not saying we must teach intolerance to homosexuals or anybody else.

    By saying “to educate them” you do not mean to teach them both right and wrong things without differentiating between them, I hope? Also, how are we going to educate them when we ourselves do not know much about homosexuality? I would agree to teach them that homosexuality is a perversion (which it is), but only after certain age, let's say late teens, but never in the kindergarten. We should not leave it to the children's judgment to decide what is right and what is wrong. They do not have that ability yet. It comes later, after they finish their education. As I previously said, to teach them wrong stuff without defining it as such is like infecting an embryo with a virus. I also indicated previously that one must be tested only after finishing his/her education. It is not fair to put anyone through a test beyond one's abilities. In general it is satanic to interfere with the children's education. Let them learn what is right and virtuous, then come on them with tests. Our misfortune is that we consider it infringement of the children's rights, a violation of their free agency when we tell them what is right and what is wrong. We erroneously consider it freedom to allow them to judge for themselves. If they were able to judge for themselves why did they need their parents. Why did they need to be educated. Again, education implies teaching right things as right, rather than wrong things as right. Unsuspecting children inherently expect us, the adults to teach them right things. Metaphorically speaking, to be fed honey. When we feed them a mixture of dirt and honey they accept it as pure honey. Later on it will be impossible for them to distinguish dirt from honey. For them the admixture of dirt and honey will always be honey.

    Children may exercise their free agency only after reaching the age of full accountability. It differs from person to person. But is generally around twenty years of age. Actually it is only after 21 that one is not consider a minor dependent any more.

    Now about homosexuals or other perverts holding hands or doing something else in front of my children, also yours. Children will certainly ask questions, since they always ask questions. How are you going to explain them what they are seeing? It will be extremely confusing and even traumatic for them to learn about it. They will not be able to put it anywhere in the system of their knowledge. As a matter of fact there is no place to put it. It is an anomaly, whatever causes it.

    Sorry. I was in a hurry. Feel free to come up with more questions.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog