Gay Marriage At Scotus: One Wedding Ring Thread To Rule Them All...

[rodheadlee]

 

Mosiah 3:19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

 

Thank you.

[Damien the Leper]

Really?How do we reconcile these two statements?Very easily: in true Orwellian style, we narrowly define "religious freedom" to include only those things the law permits. Are people no longer free to not associate themselves with deviant sexual practices? Very well; such disassociation is defined -- by non-believers, of course -- as being no part of anyone's religion.What the immoralists want is for religious freedom to be restricted to being free to quietly pray however we like in our holy places, and silently believe whatever we please -- and that's it.For now.Demanding that all churches (and LDS temples) be forced to open their doors to same sex "marriage" is not on the list.At least, not on that part of the list that they are prepared to announce just yet.But it will be.

Nice try.

[Damien the Leper]

Let's be clear here about what you're demanding, Val: You don't want religions, or those whose worldview is informed in any way by religion, to even have seats at the table or voices in the debate, do you?

Religion has no place in secular government.

[Damien the Leper]

On the contrary. John Adams was right when he said:

And it's still true today, notwithstanding the increasing trends toward religious pluralism, irreligiousness, immorality, and amorality in our society.

To which I cite: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm

But go ahead and cherry pick. It'll look adorable on you.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Valentinus

[california boy]

Really?

How do we reconcile these two statements?

Very easily: in true Orwellian style, we narrowly define "religious freedom" to include only those things the law permits. Are people no longer free to not associate themselves with deviant sexual practices? Very well; such disassociation is defined -- by non-believers, of course -- as being no part of anyone's religion.

What the immoralists want is for religious freedom to be restricted to being free to quietly pray however we like in our holy places, and silently believe whatever we please -- and that's it.

For now.

Demanding that all churches (and LDS temples) be forced to open their doors to same sex "marriage" is not on the list.

At least, not on that part of the list that they are prepared to announce just yet.

But it will be.

What is there to reconcile? Religious believers are free to try and pass any law they want. If it passes then it becomes the law of the land

However either side can challenge any law passed if they feel it impinges upon or contradicts their civil rights. The courts rule on that law

For example say a law is passed that requires public access to temples. The church would have the right to challenge that law in the courts

Or laws could be passed allowing discrimination against gays. The gays could challenge that law in the courts The courts would have to determine how that squares with the civil rights laws

In any case neither group is entitled to break the law based on their religion or whether they are gay

Every America learns this in school. You probably are not taught U.S. Law in NZ. So I can understand your lack of understanding. I hope that clears things up for you.

[rodheadlee]

I knew my statement would be misconstrued, knew it!

So you have no desire for a male right? Well, that's what a gay man feels about a woman. Get it now?

  19 For the ^anatural ^bman is an ^cenemy to God, and has been from the ^dfall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he ^eyields to the enticings of the Holy ^fSpirit, and ^gputteth off the ^hnatural man and becometh a ⁱsaint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a ^jchild, ^ksubmissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

 

I totally get it. Do you?

Edited June 30, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Meadowchik]

Religion has no place in secular government.

 

Any group that spends time and resources administering to the social and material needs of inhabitants of our nation can have something valuable to say on our public square.  It would be foolhardy to ignore a group just because it is religious in nature, or special-interested, or of a political persuasion we don't like.

[thesometimesaint]

This is nothing but well poisoning.

 

If you have to use your religion to impose your ideas on others. You've lost the argument. That is why the US was founded to try to get away from such nonsense that had raked Europe for centuries.

Edited June 30, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[omni]

This makes no sense, why would God command Mormon not to include something so basic and fundamental to our theology as marriage?  Marriage and eternal families aren't the "meat" of the gospel, in fact that's generally how we led our 30 second door pitch as missionaries.  And I would hardly consider the saints being driven from town-to-town as acceptance of the "lesser portion of the word".