Immigration & Prop 8 from an Apostle

[TripletDaddy]

It looks like this debate may have ended, and I probably should've just let it die.

Listen to your feelings.

[Eddie]

Listen to your feelings.

I must admit that I love a good arguement. I don't even have to believe what I'm arguing a lot of the time - so long as it makes some sort of logical sense (to me) and should be considered as a plausible position.

[Eddie]

What he said.

Sure - there is a difference in consent. Great.


But that doesn't answer the question.

Leaving homosexuality out of it alltogether - it appears clear that you are saying that a person who is sexually attracted to children is going to just have to suck it. They aren't ever going to have their sexual relationship "needs" fulfilled. If that is what it takes for them to be happy, then they will never be happy.

So - at least it seems to me - it is unreasonable to expect that it will be possible for everyone to have happiness if happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in having.

And with that in mind - I'm not sure that the arguement of saying it is ludicrous to expect some folks to live a chaste life while not marrying is valid. For some folks, it might have to be.

The arguement you are making about who can consent and who cannot is a completely different theme.

[SoCalCoug]

Sure - there is a difference in consent. Great.


But that doesn't answer the question.

Leaving homosexuality out of it alltogether - it appears clear that you are saying that a person who is sexually attracted to children is going to just have to suck it. They aren't ever going to have their sexual relationship "needs" fulfilled. If that is what it takes for them to be happy, then they will never be happy.

So - at least it seems to me - it is unreasonable to expect that it will be possible for everyone to have happiness if happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in having.

And with that in mind - I'm not sure that the arguement of saying it is ludicrous to expect some folks to live a chaste life while not marrying is valid. For some folks, it might have to be.

The arguement you are making about who can consent and who cannot is a completely different theme.

And someone who has a strong compulsion toward beating others up, or towards murder, also will not be happy unless they can satisfy these compulsions.

There are lines we draw as a society. We agree on where some of these should be drawn, and disagree on where others (gay marriage) should be drawn.

[Jeff Lebowski]

"Don't feel bad, gay people. Pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, and guys who enjoy sex with dogs can't be happy in this life either."

[Indy Coug]

"Don't feel bad, gay people. Pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, and guys who enjoy sex with dogs can't be happy in this life either."

Is sex the only way to find happiness?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is sex the only way to find happiness?

How important is your relationship with your wife in terms of your overall happiness? Not just the sex, but the marriage, partnership, everything.

[Indy Coug]

How important is your relationship with your wife in terms of your overall happiness? Not just the sex, but the marriage, partnership, everything.

Are heterosexual single people consigned to a mortality of misery and woe?

[Mrs. Funk]

Sure - there is a difference in consent. Great.


But that doesn't answer the question.

Leaving homosexuality out of it alltogether - it appears clear that you are saying that a person who is sexually attracted to children is going to just have to suck it. They aren't ever going to have their sexual relationship "needs" fulfilled. If that is what it takes for them to be happy, then they will never be happy.

So - at least it seems to me - it is unreasonable to expect that it will be possible for everyone to have happiness if happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in having.

And with that in mind - I'm not sure that the arguement of saying it is ludicrous to expect some folks to live a chaste life while not marrying is valid. For some folks, it might have to be.

The arguement you are making about who can consent and who cannot is a completely different theme.

Yes. People who want to have sex with kids can suck it. Nobody is arguing that it is possible for "everyone to have happiness is happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in happening." It appears to me you are employing the parade of horribles or slippery slope argument that has been so popular in discussions surrounding legalizing homosexual marriage. If we allow homosexuals to get married, where's the limit to what we'll legalize? Polygamy? Incest? Sex with children? Sex with ducks?

[YOUTUBE]EXPcBI4CJc8[/YOUTUBE]

[Paperback Writer]

Are heterosexual single people consigned to a mortality of misery and woe?

There's also the possibility that some may have been more "happy" before marriage.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Are heterosexual single people consigned to a mortality of misery and woe?

You didn't answer my question.

[Indy Coug]

You didn't answer my question.

Your question was a nonresponse to my question, so I don't feel obligated to answer your question.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Your question was a nonresponse to my question, so I don't feel obligated to answer your question.

Sounds good. This is burned-over territory anyway.

[Eddie]

"Don't feel bad, gay people. Pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, and guys who enjoy sex with dogs can't be happy in this life either."

I suppose that is one way to look at it.

Yes. People who want to have sex with kids can suck it. Nobody is arguing that it is possible for "everyone to have happiness is happiness comes from living out the kind of sexual relationship you are most interested in happening." It appears to me you are employing the parade of horribles or slippery slope argument that has been so popular in discussions surrounding legalizing homosexual marriage. If we allow homosexuals to get married, where's the limit to what we'll legalize? Polygamy? Incest? Sex with children? Sex with ducks?

No - I'm not making a slippery slope arguement. And I'm not talking about the societal perspective of legalizing gay marriage. I'm talking about the religious aspect. You have to separate the two.

From a strictly religious perspective - I'm simply disagreeing with the arguement that because the Gospel is also called the "Great Plan of Happiness", and gay people need to have a same sex relationship to be "Happy", then gay marriage should be accepted by the LDS church. Because God wants us to be happy. I don't think that arguement works. For the reasons I've already stated - there are other people with other attractions that aren't going to be accepted and therefore those folks aren't going to be happy. So we can't simply say that gay marriage should be accepted religiously for the long-term happiness of the people.

There are certainly reasons for gay marriage to be OK. Some are from a societal perspective and others are from a religious perspective. There are also reasons for gay marriage to not be OK. From both perspectives.

For instance, the "consenting adults" idea may fly from a societal perspective, but it doesn't from a religious. If all it takes in consenting adults, then why is the church against fornication or adultery, which both also include consenting adults?

I'm not sure if this is any more clear. And you are correct - lines do have to be drawn somewhere. Please understand - I'm not saying WHERE those lines should be drawn. I'm simply removing one of the arguements that says a person's happiness should be a determining factor given much weight in the religious discussion of where those lines are drawn.

[TripletDaddy]

From a religious perspective, you are probably correct....gays should not be allowed to marry and they are all probably going to hell.