同性婚姻
通过撒迪厄斯 2009年5月28日，
社会按键由Linksku
万一你一直生活在过去几年在月球上的洞穴，这里是一个最新消息：同性恋权利倡导者和社会保守派，最近一直在美国同性婚姻的问题争吵。 它也没有任何秘密，大多数摩门教支持传统的（异性）婚姻的定义。
它是一个艰难的政治立场。 我不知道自己如何处理对我们提出的指控，偏执，如何充分地捍卫自己的立场。
同性恋权利社会已成立了作为一个公民的权利问题的辩论。 这是一种误导，特别是在加州8号提案竞选。 所有的合法权利已被授予多年的同性伴侣。 如果它只是确保医院探视权，或一个额外的免税申请国内的合作伙伴关系的问题，我是赞成在提供这些公民权利，但他们已经可用。 真正的战斗是在结婚证;有权要求对方的“丈夫”或“妻子。”
婚姻不是，在其本身，民事权利。 政府限制涉及的兄弟姐妹，堂兄弟，未成年人，除了同性恋者重婚的婚姻有悠久的历史。 有很好的理由，政府只支持异性婚姻。
正在争取的，是不是公民权利，但合法性 。 社会正在要求批准同性恋行为 ，摩门教徒不能制裁良心的行为。 摩门教徒视同性恋行为不明智和罪恶 。 这是一件事容忍在社会的罪恶，另一种为社会认可正式罪。
摩门教是不是要禁止同性恋。 我们不希望向任何人否认他们的合法权益。 我们当然不支持暴力或向同性恋者或女同性恋者的歧视。 我们的目的仅仅是作为理想的方式，在社会组织，以支持传统婚姻定义的家庭 ，并保持它作为一个审慎的公共政策问题。
我承认，这篇文章可能会掀起一些情绪火药桶。 让我们来讨论这个问题，但你对此有何评论之前，我想你采取了几个深呼吸，阅读我们的评论政策 ，并保持你的语气，你可以礼貌。 我不会回应辱骂或侮辱（对我或我的教会）。
伟大的文章。 我喜欢你如何指出，政府（亦称一个国家的人）一直有权力限制和规管婚姻工会。
我还想指出，在绝大多数情况下，选民们以压倒多数投票，以保持一个男人和一个女人之间的婚姻。 （ http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/ballot.samesex.marriage/index.html ）。 尽管媒体说，你实际上是少数，如果你认为同性婚姻是确定。
我相信，当家庭的失败，国家的失败。 我相信，同性恋是一种罪恶，我不能认同它作为我的社区的一部分。 我可以忍受，但从来没有赞同。
稍后我会发表评论，但我只想说，有许多忠实的，戒律守法，寺庙去摩门教支持同性婚姻。 我们一定LDS教会内的少数群体，但我们确实存在。 其他成员可能支持同性恋权利，但觉得自己有义务“按照先知在他们的行动。 由于这个网站是“什么摩门教徒相信吗？”我将不胜感激，这是一个有争议的问题，教会内外的各种声明。
在页面底部有一个声明。 虽然教会的成员可能会发现，他们不同意与教义原则，赛迪斯链接到这个官方教会采访，其中包括一些深入的话题。
达雷尔，感谢您的意见。 我觉得你说得对，没有票的人，使同性婚姻合法化的国家。 它作为法官的裁决下来。
Sunlize，感谢指出了这一点。 你说得对，教会的成员并没有义务采取相同的教会领袖的政治立场。 有一个在教会的意见广谱，甚至与我的立场，我还是同情同性恋社区;我不想disenfranchise人的基本人权。
这是一个同性恋行为是教会的宗旨，只是罪恶和精神上婚前性行为和婚外情的破坏，使所有成员至少应该有共同的这一点。 这是否限制外教会的关系转换，我认为，个人良心的问题。
好吧，我会不同意有些达雷尔。
同性恋是不是一种罪过。 同性性行为是一种罪过。 我的人可能是生物倾向于很多事情是有罪的。 只要你不参加，一切都很好。
我们都有自己背负的十字架。 这就是我们在这里要克服。
我看来只...里程可能会有所不同。
事先过分冗长的答复道歉。
这似乎排除同性夫妇从结婚你的论点，是基于两个参数。 首先，政府有一个令人信服的利益，在社会传播，因此，婚姻，为国家财政的负担的事情，应仅限于合作伙伴关系，有能力生产的儿童（因此，这些儿童可能成长为生产力，税务支付的社会成员）。 第二，社会不应该被要求批准，在摩门教教会（及其他人）举行的意见，是有罪的行为。
让一旁的宗教论点为几段。 为了排除参数站在断言，政府可以和应该限制生产的夫妇给孩子的婚姻，它必须接受参数的追随者不能存在和不存在任何婚姻存在其他原因。 因此，在儿童的情况下，它是在社会的最佳利益否认“婚姻补贴”指的是支持提高儿童的基础上的婚姻。 此外，人坚持此行的推理的人不能合理的理由支持他们为“隔离但平等”的民权组织，国内的合作伙伴关系，或任何其他国家承认工会，这些安排创建一个国家的财政负担。 这一理念迫使壁成一个全有或全无的位置。
虽然这是最喜爱的之间婚姻exclusionists的说法，这种说法使我们的结论是不容易下咽的宗教权利。 如果国家承认，并提供婚姻的金融激励机制，根据国家的生产儿童婚姻的利益，任何国家承认的婚姻在没有儿童是不合理的昂贵的状态。 婚姻不应该被授予直到孩子已经怀孕。 这将确保按国家规定为鼓励子女抚养的利益不被授予直到排位赛的情况下已经实现了。
你的第二个参数，它是违宪的政府立法与宗教倾向。 因此，任何参数呼吁宗教原则（例如，调用一个动作罪孽深重），是一条走不通的说法。 此外，我不认为任何理性的人会认为，因为法律允许，或提供的实践活动，是一种宗教，或宗教组，意见相反，这些津贴是无异于这样的社会认可，做法。 随着你的推理，社会认可的酗酒，烟草，色情，赌博，离婚，等等。
短，1），而宗教应该和是否有权利以反对同性恋的做法，为或对公共政策的论据宣讲，呼吁宗教或宗教信仰时有不我们的法律框架范围和，2）结婚已经不是和能不能成为定义限制的人士有儿童产生的可能性。 婚姻的目的之一是建立生产和抚养子女的框架，但直到同性婚姻的辩论进入公众意识，社会大从来没有被视为手段，生产儿童的奇异年底结婚。 婚姻可以为其他有意义和有益的，在宗教的思维定势，不能单独定义或限制性别或其他目的。
史蒂芬，谢谢你的回应。 我很高兴你保持冷静的头脑和良好的合理的反应。 我也希望你不要看到攻击我的话。 我尝试尽可能的尊重。
当我写了这个，我充分认识到提供与公务员工会的合法权益和资助养育子女为理由对政府采取的婚姻之间的差异。
我同意你的说法，养育孩子是不是结婚的唯一原因，但我链接，强调这是一个大型组件的原因。 如果得到批准，同性婚姻是公共利益，应列举，特别是如果考虑到成本。
我不主张形成只对宗教原则为基础的公共政策。 我们的政府其权威来自人民，公共政策应该要密切联系，以市民的意愿。 我们是我们的良心投票。 这是我想说的。
随着你的推理，社会认可的酗酒，烟草，色情，赌博，离婚，等等。
社会容忍这些放纵。 从来没有一个负责任的政府应该积极推动他们或给他们最惠国待遇地位。 同性恋行为是合法的，但不应坐床。
婚姻可以为其他有意义和有益的，在宗教的思维定势，不能单独定义或限制性别或其他目的。
这的确是问题的症结，我认为。 目的是什么，婚姻服务？ 一些人认为它作为一个批准从社会上1夫妻“爱的邮票。 别人看到来自上帝的邮票。 其他人离开爱它，看到更多的经济关系。 有些人只是想公民。 最摩门教它是一个快乐，健康的家庭的基础和基础。
史蒂芬，没有什么目的的婚姻为您服务吗？
撒迪厄斯，
我不明白作为攻击你的话 - 我从来没有。 一个健康文明健康的辩论和争论是必不可少的。 我非常非常尊重你和你的意见。
我们已经没有足够深入的谈话，让你了解，只是因为我认为一个点并不意味着我完全同意我的立场主张。 这部分是因为我里面的东西不会让在一个开放的论坛争论听之任之，部分原因是因为我要来一个诚实的结论，在导航辩论火灾。 ，真正做到，我可以诚实地说，我还没有完全决定，我在这个问题上的立场。
社会容忍这些放纵。 从来没有一个负责任的政府应该积极推动他们或给他们最惠国待遇地位。
这个我同意。 我说明你的论点是不好的构建。 不能被视为一个参数，其影响和接受（或拒绝）单独。 如果你真的相信，同性婚姻合法化是相当于认可同性婚姻，你必须真正相信合法化酒精相当于赞同酒精中毒。 你真的愿意接受吗？
我不相信，结婚的目的，个人的看法是问题的症结所在。 事实是：婚姻作为一个法律构造的存在。 作为一个法律构造，它的应用是受美国宪法的界限，限制和指引。 由于宪法没有定义婚姻，婚姻中的应用，必须从宪法中来自其他规定。 在此框架内，有非常有力的论据，给予同性伴侣的婚姻。 我不会在这里列出它们 - 你可以在Google上花费30秒。
我要耍赖回避与否同性婚姻的福利社会的问题（即使我觉得我在这方面可以安装一个像样的防御）。 我觉得这个问题是没有实际意义的宪制性法律，在查看时。 有一个不完美的（因为你知道，在这个世界上，有没有其他种类）政府的伟大和可怕的后果之一，是什么应该不应该凭借什么是“道德”并不总是配合法律什么应该和不应该是合法的，凭借我们的法律构造。 碰巧的是（谢天谢地），大部分的时间，法律和普遍认为“道德经”是一回事。 可能有人会说，为了保持一个有序的社会，我们在法治的信念，必须取代我们在道义上的权利是什么信念。 摩门教徒相信在“服从，敬重和维护法律”，但很少了解什么是真正的，我们需要哲学。
，我想，这是为什么同性婚姻往往要通过法院诉讼颁布。 我承认，我精神上呛这些话，我键入它们，但却总人口是由各自的“道德”的信念蒙蔽。 这使我回什么是合法的说法，因此应受法律保护，不应该一定是多数人认为是“道德经”。
我想提醒你，法院通常被定义或形成公共政策违背“道德经”的地位在当时的一般民众（见“公民权利”，在1900年）。 明智地根据这些裁决，法治，和盲目的大多数人的道德信念。
顺便说一下，并非所有的合法同性婚姻的州这样做，通过法院提起诉讼。 佛蒙特州是第一个制定保护立法，将很快被新罕布什尔州和纽约。
史蒂芬，
我非常尊重你的意见，也。 有趣的是，其实我知道一个人的网上讨论。 添加尺寸和深度。
如果你真的相信，同性婚姻合法化是相当于认可同性婚姻，你必须真正相信合法化酒精相当于赞同酒精中毒。 你真的愿意接受吗？
我觉得你错过了我的观点。 合法化同性婚姻合法化同性恋。 它会更像政府赠送威士忌拍摄免费或减少对啤酒厂的税收。 饮酒是合法的，但因为它的道德模糊，不应该被授予特殊地位。
如果此事是由宪制性法律的决定，然后形成一个对此事的意见是没有实际意义。 选择你喜欢的任何配偶的合法性将决定， 尽管我们的人民这样说。 当然，我可以看到你的观点，但多数不应该有权力去压制少数人的权利。 我不相信，在这种情况下适用，但我不是一个宪法学者。 我仍然认为，政府有，将继续限制配偶选择，负责任的大国。
免得我违反了自己的意见政策，我想回到我的目的。 我不是想证明我是正确的。 我写这篇文章表明什么，我相信（我希望它代表其他大多数摩门教徒的意见 - 如果不是，让我们来听听）。 捍卫我的立场，我只是想表明，这是站不住脚的，亲传统婚姻的世界观，不一定是出于仇恨。
一切教导我们在这个网站，我们邀请我们的读者调查与主祈祷所有的问题和律师双方，以帮助他们自己知道什么是正确的。
这是一个很大，我曾想过，因为很多人有问题。 我已阅读怀着极大的兴趣和辩论意见。 有几件事情，我想说，我希望其他人，尤其是我们教会的成员，将采取心脏和想一想。 我想呼应赛迪斯年底，他的最后评论说，我会邀请你的问题进行调查，然后祈祷，知道什么是正确的。
在大会一年一次，然后每隔一年一次，我的教会领袖会面时，我要声明，我值得去寺庙，我有机会公开承认，我认为，当前的先知，托马斯·S孟森在这种情况下，是神的先知在地球上，我相信耶稣基督的领导和指导，通过这个先知，他的教会。 我还维持十二使徒先知，先见，revelators第一总统的法定人数。 给予这个公众的肯定，我强烈地感到，不管啦，我现在说，我会支持任何和所有决定他们，因为他们都输送教会作为一个整体的神的旨意（见ð＆ç1:38;ð＆C 21 :1-6）。 难道这不是我应该做的，如果我认为他们是先知，先见，revelators？ 这并不意味着，不时我没有不同的意见最初，但它并不意味着什么，当出现这些差异时，我有责任进行搜索，思考，祷告，直到我明白为什么先知或使徒是教他们教什么，然后我的意愿和意见符合神的旨意。
从史蒂芬的评论而回：
“这是违反宪法的政府立法与宗教倾向。 因此，任何参数呼吁宗教原则（例如，调用一个动作罪孽深重），是一条走不通的说法。“
这是一个声明，我发现通常过分强调。 宪法说没有立法“宗教倾向”，并在宪法中涉及的唯一连接是在第一修正案，我觉得有义务指出，它只是说：“国会不得制定任何法律，尊重宗教的建立，或禁止自由的行使“。 该声明说，没有人能立法与宗教倾斜，这需要相当长的舒展。 事实上，第一修正案较抽象的解释实际上是赞同使用的宗教原则，以指导合理的政策，因为它包含宗教的自由运动的一部分。 是否你不觉得人应该带有宗教色彩的倾斜立法，宣布这种行动违反宪法，是非常“死参数”比“呼吁宗教原则”。
史蒂夫：
我想我应该炮轰“宗教动机”法律违宪的那句“宗教倾斜”，而不是使用。 我恨借用直接维基百科 ，但我认为这是良好的措辞。
“建立条款通常被解释为禁止1）由美国国会建立一个国家的宗教，或2）另一个偏爱的一个宗教或一个没有识别世俗目的的宗教观念的支持。”（强调）。
这种解释是，我来自任何宗教思想没有世俗目的而成立的法律是违宪的。 我不觉得这丝毫的抽象结论 - 其实，我相信是相当纯粹的字面解释。 因此，法律还没有了解什么是“罪”是盎司。 “仙”是宗教观念。 法律不考虑谋杀，例如，“罪”。 生产纯粹的基础上被认为是“罪恶”的公共政策是违宪的。 这是一个地方，我相信许多教会成员在冲突中，持有不合理的意见。 如果你同意上述解释第一修正案，你还必须了解为什么宗教原则或理想创立的参数有没有地方在公共政策的辩论。
至于有关法律，婚姻是一个法律构造，而不是宗教的理想定义了一个联盟。 至于宗教理想和世俗的目的一致，通过各种手段，调节相应。 但是，当没有足够的世俗目的的宗教理想，他们没有在辩论的地方。 这是我看来，不包括由国家认可的婚姻同性恋者是一个纯粹的宗教思想没有足够的世俗理由（或至少没有足够的世俗理由超过亲的同性婚姻参数）。 这种情况下（假设有没有具体的美国宪法规定，禁止同性婚姻）的情况下，如果法院可以确信，法庭是有道理的，不仅如此，责任和约束，发出这样说的裁决。 由于婚姻是由法律界定的，它需要站起来的法律相同的宪法标准。
我不判断或爆炸为“自己的良心投票”的任何人。 公民可以作为宗教动机，请他们在投票。 如果适当通过的美国宪法修正案禁止同性婚姻，我很失望，但会说，因为土地的法律已适当修订毫无疑问，法治要求禁止同性婚姻。 由于这样的规定在美国宪法中不存在，我想说明为什么人们不应该哭，犯规时，赞成同性婚姻法庭规则，为什么这样的判决不仅合理，但不可避免的。
赛迪斯：
同性恋已经是合法的。 同性恋夫妇已经过着幸福的生活在一起，与社会（取决于你住的地方）是多少，好吗。 我想我明白你想说，虽然因为婚姻是诱因，同性婚姻合法化，将迫使政府提供奖励同性恋结婚的夫妇，效果“赠送威士忌出手”，否则应保留子产，直民间。 这不是一个新的或单独的参数，可以考虑在自己的权利 - 这是您现有的参数进行重新包装，你应该已经猜到了，现在，我完全不同意与
。
恐怕我可能已经超越了我的界限，虽然。 我想我说什么，而我觉得我还是同意我写什么，我已经意识到，这个特殊的论坛可能没有这种辩论的地方，特别是因为这个博客的目的不一定是辩论的问题，而是要陈述和讨论中的地位和信仰的耶稣基督后期圣徒教会。 关于这一主题，教会是很清楚的。 对于这个网站的目的，确实应该是很少讨论。 如果你觉得我已经被劫持的主题或超越边界，我真诚地道歉。
斯蒂芬
我很喜欢读你的意见。 当然，我欣赏你走近主题的情报和尊重。 我没有太多添加到讨论中，除了在回应有关罪的最后一点：
因此，法律还没有了解什么是“罪”是盎司。 “仙”是宗教观念。 法律不考虑谋杀，例如，“罪”。 生产纯粹的基础上被认为是“罪恶”的公共政策是违宪的。
I tend to think that drawing a line between calling something “morally wrong” (ok to legislate) and calling something “sinful” (not ok to legislate) is splitting a particularly thin hair. It almost seems like a matter of solely semantic preference between people who believe in God and people who don't.
Also, in a culture whose morals are informed by a belief in a higher power, it's going to be extremely hard to convince people that their morals have “no identifiable secular purpose.”
Let me begin my comment by saying I am StePHen, with the eternal and true spelling of the name, not SteVen with the (hmph) *other* spelling. So, Dave, thank you for the complement, but I think your comments should be directed elsewhere.
I agree with what Dave said, and continue by saying that the very existence of law is based off of a fundamental assumption of what is good and what is not good. Our nation is founded on this concept. Discussion of any policy centers around basic concepts of right and wrong. Even by arguing that you think religion shouldn't be part of the equation, you admit morality. The whole idea of “should” necessitates the belief on the part of the arguer that something is somehow “good”, never mind how it became so. You must realize that by arguing that religion has no place in politics you are arguing that expressing personal beliefs of basic right and wrong is inappropriate in certain situations, which I find very hard to defend. You are also arguing that religious definitions of right and wrong are inferior politically to secular definitions of right and wrong, and I challenge you to devise a good meaning for that last idea.
史蒂芬，
Your argument depends on the assumption that marriage is a basic human civil right. Why do you believe that?
Having been around longer than the rest of you, what I find interesting is that in the early 80′s when gays started coming “out of the closet” there was a major debate about whether gayness was a natural or a learned condition. Although no conclusion was ever scientifically reached, suddenly the accepted truth was that all gay people are naturally disposed to their appetites and desires. That makes the argument equating their struggle comparable to the civil rights movement more tenable….but I'm still struggling with the basic tenet of the argument. If it is a learned behavior then it's a choice which makes the argument closer to that of an alcoholic or kleptomaniac.
“In order for the exclusion argument to stand on the assertion that government can and should limit marriage to child producing couples, it must be accepted by the argument's adherents that there cannot and does not exist any OTHER reason for marriage to exist.”
Sometimes OTHER reasons exist, certainly, but these reasons alone don't always sufficiently add up to actually justifying the cost of marriage.
“If the state recognizes and provides financial incentives for marriage based on the state's interest in marriages producing children, any state recognition of marriage in the absence of children is unjustifiably costly to the state. Marriages should not be granted UNTIL a child has been conceived.”
The problem here is the difference between principle and just a particular circumstance. A heterosexual couple can, in principle, procreate. A homosexual couple, in every circumstance, cannot procreate. We create laws in our society based on principles of our reality and less on particulars. I hope this makes sense.
戴夫，
I don't believe at all that separating morality from the notion of sin is splitting a thin hair. One of philosophy's purposes is to reach an understanding of morality, and much, if not most, of defensible philosophical thinking defines morality without the concept of God. I think, also, our lives are filled with such distinctions. What the LDS Church considers sinful is not necessarily what the Catholic Church considers sinful (wine, anyone?). The concept of sin is by no means universal. And while “secular morality” is not universal either, it is infinitely more so than “sin”. I maintain that sin and righteousness, and morality, are two, distinct concepts that happen to share the same space a lot of the time.
I agree that my position is a hard sell in this crowd. I don't think I can sway the opinion of anyone here, but I believe one comes to better conclusions if he is forced to publicly defend his. I hope that you, and others here as well, feel that this discussion serves that purpose. If I have not convinced you to take my side, than I hope you've at least understood it.
Bus,
Learned behavior presupposes the existence of a teacher, or some mechanism for teaching that behavior. I think it is fairly well accepted that straight, religious, “good” families still produce gay children, and gay couples raising children still produce straight kids.
There is no reason why we shouldn't believe gay people have been part of the human race since the “beginning” – some of Christianity's (Judaism's) oldest literature speaks of the existence of gay folk, at least indirectly. Where, when, and how did the alleged teaching of homosexuality take place, and how is it perpetuated?
在问这个，我很慢，比较同性恋权利的民权运动，美国黑人社会的奋斗忍受。 I think on the surface we find some interesting commonalities, but I'm inclined to believe the comparisons end there.
Thad,
I don't think I've made the argument that marriage is a basic human civil right. My arguments were based on the legal construct of marriage. As it exists (a construct of secular law), I believe it cannot be limited by gender. Marriage in and of itself is not a human right. So far as marriage is a secular institution, it is a right generously (but prejudicially) granted by government.
ceejay,
So far as government grants marriage without children, it recognizes these reasons as sufficient to extend the marriage subsidy. My argument is that if the government recognizes that these other reasons exists, and willingly grants benefits because of these reasons, it cannot choose to grant or withhold these benefits based on gender.
Society in general also acknowledges that other reasons exist. The principle of that matter is that the law doesn't really care whether or not a couple produces children. I argued that in the absence of children, the government shouldn't grant marriage to illustrate the futility of relying on the possibility of procreation as the foundation for the current legal construct of marriage. If the law cared about procreation, it would need to go to the extreme of limiting marriage to couples with a child (doing so would be FAR less costly to the government). If the law didn't care about whether or not a couple could procreate, it couldn't limit marriage to opposite gender couples. I think in the world of law, these would be the two most rational positions.
In the world of religion, however, I am a firm advocate for the rights of churches to deny their institution of marriage to whomever they please. The LDS church should not be forced to recognize, perform or in any way condone same sex couples.
In the end, marriage has always been a religious institution. If it is brought into the realm of public policy and law, this debate is inevitable, and I think in the end, the pro-gay supporters will win.
My questions for you (ceejay) are:
What are these “OTHER” reasons for marriage that you think exist? Are these reasons embedded in sexual identity? That is to say, are these “other” reasons for marriage dependent on the partnership being made of a man and a woman exclusively?
I recognized I've spammed this topic with, now, 5 consecutive posts. I apologize and thank you for your patience, but there were several posts to respond to, and doing so in a single, long post seemed cumbersome.
StePHe (a deliberate misspelling, since “steve” doesn't reflect the “true” spelling – how would it be pronounded? Steef?
）。
I guess a good portion of my response to you can be found in my response to Dave (June 15th 1:48 pm). Just a few more notes:
I think my position is very defendable. I think history (and current events) has shown that a government based on religion is unstable, unsafe, and unsustainable.
What is good and what is not good is not what is sinful and what is righteous. Our government's framework for what is “good” is more or less established by the US constitution. I wholeheartedly believe that this framework is superior to any religious notion of right and wrong. If it were not so, rule of law would not exist, mayhem would ensue, and our nation would be wholly ungovernable.
You're free to vote your religious conscience. Do so! But understand that unless the laws you enact are rational and defendable outside the realm of religion, and inside the realm of constitutional law, the system will eventually correct itself and strike them down.
The choice/genetics debate creates a false dichotomy. There is more than one kind of decision and more than one biological response.
Choice:
1) The direct selection: Mary chooses to vacation in Mexico.
2) The indirect selection: Garth chooses to rob a convenience store, which impels him to flee to Mexico to avoid arrest.
Genetics:
1) Fatalistic biology: Hugh is born with Down Syndrome.
2) Adaptable biology: Wayne is born with an inherited predisposition to high blood pressure, which can be mitigated with exercise and a careful diet.
If homosexual attraction is a choice, then it is likely an indirect selection in which the attraction is a consequence or outcome of other decisions, including consideration of external environmental factors. A “teacher” is not required, since the attraction could be a natural result of a conglomeration of choices.
If it is in the genes, I see it as highly-adaptable. As Steven noted, homosexual attraction has likely been around forever and thousands, if not millions, have successfully integrated into heterosexual society. This is not to argue that all gays should be forced to remain in their closets, but that each has the capacity to adapt and change.
Incidentally, the Church does not care what brought it on. Same-gender attraction is not sinful. It's the sexual intercourse itself that is unwise. And it is always a choice whether to give in to lust or to abstain.
Some might counter that denying one's sexuality is akin to “living a lie,” but the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about denying the natural man ; overcoming mortality's trials through faith , and becoming a saint. Everyone has a cross to bear . This one might seem too heavy to lift, but that is only the case when you lift alone. Jesus Christ lifted one much heavier, and He has promised to make our own burdens light if we turn to Him.
I, for one, do not believe that denying one's sexuality in the name of religion is “living a lie.” I admire those who are examples of such devotion. Homosexuals are not the only group of people to be asked to do so. The Catholic Church has long asked its priesthood to live a life of celibacy. If the decision to live a life contrary to his or her desires for compatible companionship truly affords the person more joy and happiness, then I am glad for their choice and support them wholeheartedly.
史蒂芬，
I still disagree with your position that our collective morality is nonreligious (whether or not it ever could be is debatable, but I don't think it is ). Our system of laws is built upon the constitution, which was written by men whose morality was very informed by belief in God, or based on a system of English common laws which are likewise informed by religion. The basic idea that all men are created equal, for instance, which underlies many of our most moral laws, is a very religious idea. It's very unscientific and not at all universal. In any case, I don't see any inherent advantage of philosophy without a God over philosophy with a God. In fact, maybe the worst atrocities of the twentieth century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) suggest the opposite.
It is important for the government and science and everything else that requires objectivity to remain neutral in regard to the existence and nature of God. I agree that there needs to be a separation of church and state. But I don't think the government is required to operate in the world under the assumption that there is no God.
An atheist government oppresses the religious.
Government policies and scientific theories must officially leave the answer to the questions of God's existence and nature “unknown.”
And while Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion , I don't think the founding fathers envisioned a government entirely uninformed by religion. In a republic, representatives are to make decisions informed by the desires of their constituents along with their own personal convictions. Popular desires and personal convictions are usually inseparably and heavily influenced by religious faith (or, as the case may be, irreligious atheism).
I admit that it introduces some bias, but it is inevitable. Representatives are human, and the right to govern comes from the people (also humans). No one ever claimed the Republic would be perfect.
Maybe someday we will have the calm, dispassionate leadership of neutral robots , guided only by logical analysis.
戴夫，
Interesting that you would bring up the atrocities of the twentieth century as evidence that philosophy absent of God is a recipe for mass murder, genocide, oppression and dictatorship. I think history has shown over and over again, and will continue to show, that mass murder, genocide, oppression and dictatorship happen more often in the name of God and religion (or at least use these ideas as justification) than for any other reason.
It's true that many of the men who had a hand in the creation of the constitution had a belief in a higher power. The wording of the constitution does not necessarily reflect these beliefs. The statement that “all men are created equal” is from the Declaration of Independence. Also, the word “God” or “god” does not appear in the constitution. In fact, virtually all “official” references in our government to God were put in place very much after the fact (the vast majority taking place in the 1900s).
Further, I think you'd have an interesting challenge indeed to show English common law was formed around the basis of religion. It would be much easier to show that the formation of the British Parliament, and its governing rules, to be decidedly ANTI established religion, being a departure from rule under God's chosen king.
“All men created equal” is not an exclusively religious idea by any means. Again, I think you'll find the opposite to be true. Judaism and Christianity are no strangers to the idea of racial entitlement and racial inferiority. Until recent history, religion, specifically Christianity, has been used as much as a justification for racial repression as it was a device for “salvation”. Many religions still operate in such a way. Unfortunately, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not free from this history, but that topic is not a matter for discussion here (and probably is not one I'd ever touch anyway).
The origins of the idea of all men being created equal might be attributed to Thomas Hobbes (refer to the opening paragraph of Chapter 13 of The Leviathan ). Interestingly enough, religion was absent in the formation and construction of Hobbes's framework of morality and political governance.
霍布斯花， 在讨论基督教利维坦 1空间的好交易，但它是可笑的不清楚，如果他是试图来说明如何他的哲学框架是与基督教兼容，或者如果他是刚刚试图破坏他的读者的宗教信仰[“霍布斯的道德与政治哲学“，2002年2月，主编。 沙伦·劳埃德和Susanne Sreedhar， http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ 。
在任何情况下，霍布斯认为，一个主权国家成员有义务向既定的政府，并建立，或多或少，优于神和宗教。
相反，许多宗教界人士之间的民间信仰，宪法成立得多，周围的霍布斯和哲学家，他的作品（最显着的约翰·洛克），比它周围的宗教是扩大政治和社会框架。
有趣的是，我想你会发现霍布斯的工作非常难吃的原因有很多，其中最重要的，他主张国家管理宗教事务的权力和权威，有效地将上述神状态。
历史已经表明了一遍......，大规模屠杀，种族灭绝，压迫和独裁更经常发生在上帝和宗教的名义...比任何其他原因
我不知道，如果我们想打开这个一罐蠕虫，但在这里我们处理这一断言。
史蒂芬，
我带来了二十世纪的暴行的目的是为了说明我的信仰，无神论道德哲学没有任何超过道德的先天优势，在上帝的信仰通知。
此外，无论在哪里“所有的人都生来平等”的术语，通过“独立宣言”的写作时间，这个想法似乎很宗教的：
“我们认为这些真理是不言而喻的，即所有的人都生来平等的，他们是由赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利造物主。”
我不想加入了我们的国家是否是明确基督教或不辩论。 我只提供它作为一个明显的宗教通知这个国家的政治和道德理想信念的例证。 和我仍然持有，而它是明确的，我们的社会是明确反对1国家资助的宗教，是很难以尝试我们社会的道德和尝试，以提取和放弃，是任何一种信仰通知在神的部分。 ，正如我之前提到的，即使你能，我怀疑这将是比以前更道德。
戴夫，
我误解您的文章，关于20世纪的暴行。 我的理解是，你是想表明，有一个比另一个理念是没有优势。 我相信你指出，通过在一个更高的力量的信念不知情的理念是道德低劣的哲学。 我在我的理解是错误的，我道歉。
我站在我的话，然而，特别是关于你在历史问题声明倾斜。 我相信你的结论，基于问题的句子，是一个逻辑上的谬误的结果。 出现这种“真理”的“真理”的名单中，尽管只有两个真理，其他的“真理”，男人被造物主赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利。 假设A和B是真实的，一个是哲学的一个声明，可能会或可能不会是一个宗教的想法，B是一个宗教的想法，它不遵循，必须是一个宗教的想法，只是因为B是。 你的论点，得到了更好的真理在这个列表上的第二个真理，而不是拖我们通过这个漫长的切线讨论，重点服务。 （我接受继续漫长的切线讨论的怪）。
在年底，这个讨论的目的，一般民众的理念可以作为通知，我们可能会请尽可能宗教。 这不会改变政府的基础（宪法），这是决然不会在一个更高的力量的信念（至少，你没有提供可防御证据支持你的位置，它是如此告知）。 先例，将继续（如果我们想保持稳定的状态），没有世俗的目的或理由，法律是根据宪法第一修正案违宪。
因此，我们真的有去一个无用的切线，并采取有我道歉。 如果有为什么同性夫妇不应该被授予国家认可的婚姻的世俗原因，有辩论所在。 如果没有世俗的原因，为什么不应当结婚的同性夫妇，实在没有辩论。 牢固地放置在世俗的讨论和推理的宪制性法律和公共政策的事项领域这个问题，我不觉得有真的是对我的任何理由继续在宗教线程的辩论。 如果你或其他人要讨论或反对同性婚姻的世俗推理，我们可以继续讨论其他地方。 赛迪斯知道我的e-mail地址。
然而，我要纠正你两个错误的假设（或影响）：
1）虽然我主张，我们剥夺立法， 纯粹是基于对宗教思想和缺乏合理的世俗目的，我承认，存在一些法律可能已经宗教最初的动机，但仍然有合理的世俗目的。 我支持这些法律。
2）我与萨德斯主张，政府不必（确实不应该）是无神论。 我也需要你暗示，我的道德理念，奠定了在这个线程，在本质上是无神论的轻微罪行。 只是因为我想分开道德，从道德作为宗教教的国家立法并不意味着我，或我所主张的理念，否认神的存在。 不知情由对上帝的信仰是一个道德哲学不是哲学，否认神的存在，即使哲学不符合您的特定理解或信仰的神是谁或什么他教。
你为什么那么在乎其他国家的人民的生活吗？ 同性恋的人不要尝试，并告诉你谁可以或不能结婚，他们甚至不关心。 为什么你不在乎，如果有人想结婚，并开始与他们所爱的人一个家庭吗？ 时代在变，你和你的教会必须认识到，事实上，事情并不总是发生的方式，你希望他们克服。
龚如心，请仔细阅读开幕后，了解在这个问题上我们的立场。
我不同意你的意见，最后一件事：事情并不总是你想让他们的方式发生。 他们并不意味着。 这是生命的目的 。
为来访的感谢！
你带了一个重要的一点，关于基督教神学。 基督告诉他的门徒去，直到世界上所有的宣讲到每一个国家，舌头和亲属。 当人们找到真正的福音，他们的第一本能是要告诉他们的家人和朋友，他们知道什么。 它一般不这样做，企图与其他人的生命，它类似于通过一个珍贵的礼物更拧。 发现幸福的人希望别人也一样能快乐，就像同病相怜。
当涉及到公共政策，教会认为负责，就像老先知，警告人们对罪。 教会一般保持政治事件，除非他们与道德问题的处理。 他们将涉足尝试和避免公共政策的位置尽可能接近福音原则。
I would like to point out, that even though you say “marriage in and of itself is not a right” and that is is “a battle of legitimacy”, the mormon belief system isn't the oldest religion out there, and cannot claim to be anything more than just another interpretation on the subject of marriage. The main reason I say that, is because the concept of “marriage” has long been in existence before ANY religions were invented, including yours, so it is arrogant to say that because of what you believe, others should be dictated to follow an idea of marriage which you did not invent in the first place.
Quick example: Someone long ago invents the car. People can travel in any direction they want, and everyone is good, until one day a person comes along and says “These cars are very special, and should only be used to travel in this direction” when you want to go a different way. Why should I feel inclined to listen to that person, someone who had nothing to do with the inception of the car in the first place? Would you listen to that person? Is your name really Thaddeus?
Chuck,
It sounds like you're arguing that marriage as a social, religious, or political institution has (since time immemorial) been a thing that applied to any two people, whether gay or straight, and that only recently have some people wanted to restrict it (make it smaller) to apply to only straight people. Is that what you're saying?
Because don't get me wrong, I like your point about who has the right to change things and historical precedent and all that. I just think it supports the exact opposite opinion as the one you're getting at.
I am glad to hear someone who doesn't believe it is an abomination. However, why are they not aloud to have they're rights just like everyone else? The bible shuns adultery more than homosexuality, so you are saying that they should not prevented from being legally married, (really just a handy piece of paper that has been proven to keep couples together, so you are also encouraging remarriage, which the bible shuns as well i think…) and therefor promoting adultery. I do not understand your logic, I'm sorry. Especially if you are saying you don't think gays are evil.
This is a semantics issue. We can seek to change the definition of a word but then what does the word really mean? In this world of “google”, “wikipedia” and dozens of other creative terms added to the dictionary each year I wonder why a new word hasn't been created to respectfully describe the union between same gender couples. All “rights” rest on the power of the definition of one word?
I disagree with anyone. Men are not equal to the eyes of God. I am not equal to you or anyone here on earth. I am different than you. We are not the same culture, customs, ideas, level, class, and race. 就是这样。 I am not like anyone here on earth.