Lds Persecution Question.

[KevinG]

I don't want this thread to turn into a prop 8 thread.

I know - it just happenst to be the basis of your ongoing issue with the LDS Church.

But the official statement from the church stated that they were getting involved in prop 8 because it was a moral issue. It was their moral issue.

Frankly, I have never had anyone explain to me how preventing gays from being married would make them more moral.

Which side wanted to change the law of the land for over 200 years? The LDS Church is far from dominionist despite its disagreement with those who wanted to redefine the traditional legal and social definition of marriage.

Now tell me - who was forcing whose dogma on whom? It was never about forcing someone to be more moral.

[california boy]

I know - it just happenst to be the basis of your ongoing issue with the LDS Church.

Which side wanted to change the law of the land for over 200 years? The LDS Church is far from dominionist despite its disagreement with those who wanted to redefine the traditional legal and social definition of marriage.

Now tell me - who was forcing whose dogma on whom? It was never about forcing someone to be more moral.

You didn't answer my question did you. How does preventing gay people (or anyone for that matter) from getting married make them more moral. If this is a moral issue, then you should be able to explain how preventing gays from being married will make them more moral.

[KevinG]

You didn't answer my question did you. How does preventing gay people (or anyone for that matter) from getting married make them more moral. If this is a moral issue, then you should be able to explain how preventing gays from being married will make them more moral.

Don't confuse getting an answer you don't like with not answering. Your premise is wrong. Nothing the church or state does "makes people more moral". That is not what is meant by a moral issue. Taking a stand on what the community standard is for marriage is a moral stance. A stance by the way supported by a large diverse group of interested people, not just the Mormons.

Disagreeing with a single issue is far from persecution. Anything that has happened to Mormon community and the Homosexual community in the last several decades would have to be shoehorned into any definition of persecution. Individual hate crimes are the exception, but the community as a whole cannot claim the kinds of persecution they suffered under Missouri mobs (LDS) or Nazi Germany (Gays). Prejudice certainly, but persecution is overstated in the case of both groups.

Political battles where both sides have an opportunity to plead their case is not persecution no matter who wins.

[KevinG]

For the record- I have felt for a long time that Marriage should be defined by churches and unions should be legislated by the state. Monitary advantage or benefits should not be attached to anyones definition of marriage. Dependents of any relationship should be treated the same (straight, gay, polyandrous).

This would separate the financial/moral/political issues and avoid the separation of church and state issues.

However that not being the case - I would expect both sides of the debate to act in their self interest and insist their view be seen as the community standard. Losing a vote is not persecution.

[california boy]

Don't confuse getting an answer you don't like with not answering. Your premise is wrong. Nothing the church or state does "makes people more moral". That is not what is meant by a moral issue. Taking a stand on what the community standard is for marriage is a moral stance. A stance by the way supported by a large diverse group of interested people, not just the Mormons.

So you are saying that the church was not taking a moral stand against immorality. They were taking a moral stand to defend a tradition that actually makes gays more immoral. Wow that was certainly worth asking members to give their time and money for. Amazing.

Disagreeing with a single issue is far from persecution. Anything that has happened to Mormon community and the Homosexual community in the last several decades would have to be shoehorned into any definition of persecution. Individual hate crimes are the exception, but the community as a whole cannot claim the kinds of persecution they suffered under Missouri mobs (LDS) or Nazi Germany (Gays). Prejudice certainly, but persecution is overstated in the case of both groups.

Political battles where both sides have an opportunity to plead their case is not persecution no matter who wins.

I don't disagree with your statement in general. Many gays feel they are persecuted. Many Mormons feel they are being persecuted as well. But for the most part it is just prejudices and bigotry being directed at both groups.

[california boy]

For the record- I have felt for a long time that Marriage should be defined by churches and unions should be legislated by the state. Monitary advantage or benefits should not be attached to anyones definition of marriage. Dependents of any relationship should be treated the same (straight, gay, polyandrous). This would separate the financial/moral/political issues and avoid the separation of church and state issues. However that not being the case - I would expect both sides of the debate to act in their self interest and insist their view be seen as the community standard. Losing a vote is not persecution.

I would agree with you. And I am assuming that if a church wants to marry a gay couple you would be ok with that.

I don't think that the churches activism in prop 8 is persecution, but I do think it is the church pushing its dogma through the political process. I also personally feel there is no point in being a member of the Mormon church if you are gay. Clearly the church is commited to you not having a legal committed relationship among other things.

[KevinG]

So you are saying that the church was not taking a moral stand against immorality. They were taking a moral stand to defend a tradition that actually makes gays more immoral. Wow that was certainly worth asking members to give their time and money for. Amazing.

Why is it any time someone starts with "so you are saying..." it almost always ends up being a paraphrase of what I in fact didn't say at all.

Neither the standard or the law make anyone moral or immoral. Both sides of the debate taking a stand or creating laws for what they think is moral creates community standards. Prohibition didn't make anyone believe in the word of wisdom. It did however cause fewer people to drink. It also had the unintended consequence of increasing mob crime.

[KevinG]

I would agree with you. And I am assuming that if a church wants to marry a gay couple you would be ok with that.

I don't think that the churches activism in prop 8 is persecution, but I do think it is the church pushing its dogma through the political process. I also personally feel there is no point in being a member of the Mormon church if you are gay. Clearly the church is commited to you not having a legal committed relationship among other things.

The Church is committed to having all of God's children learn about His laws and then encourage them to receive the blessings of keeping those covenants. It was not formed over keeping gays from marriage and it is not focused on that today. It just happens to fall on the side of a legal decision you disagree with.

I personally would not belong to a church that did not share my beliefs but I don't accuse any church of not wanting me because I don't adhere to their laws.

[JRM]

Skimmed some.

Isn't there a better way to ignore trolls?

[california boy]

Why is it any time someone starts with "so you are saying..." it almost always ends up being a paraphrase of what I in fact didn't say at all.

Neither the standard or the law make anyone moral or immoral. Both sides of the debate taking a stand or creating laws for what they think is moral creates community standards. Prohibition didn't make anyone believe in the word of wisdom. It did however cause fewer people to drink. It also had the unintended consequence of increasing mob crime.

I would completely agree with you that laws do not make anyone moral or immoral. It is why I have a very difficult time understanding why the church stated publically that the reason they were getting involved in prop 8 was because it was a moral issue.

Prohibition may have caused fewer people to drink, but preventing gays from marrying is not going to make them straight. They are still going to be gay, whether they can marry or not. There seems to be no end result that the church was trying to accomplish. Maybe you can suggest what the church wants as an end result of their political activism.

The church could have said they were defending a traditional definition of how a marriage has been recognized in the past. (Of course there is that whole history of polygamy that seems to confuse things a bit for the Mormon church.) But their official reason for getting involved in politics is because it was a moral issue. Certainly they do not get involved in other propositions that are changing how the public defines something.

[CV75]

Many religions have suffered persecutions for their beliefs.

I think it is rare that any follower of Christ would not face some sort of persecution at some time in his life for living his convictions.

It would be interesting to see who would persecute which Christian or what church if they had the wherewithal or the opportunity to do so.

[LeSellers]

I have never had anyone explain to me how preventing gays from being married would make them more moral.

You seem to assume that the question of homosexual "marriage" has anything to do with making homosexuals "more moral". There is nothing about homosex that is or ever could be moral. "Marriage" would not change that fact.

Opposition to same-sex "marriage" is about protecting the family, an institution crated by God, wherein men and their wives raise children and assist in raising grandchildren and great-grandchildren. More or less by definition, homosexuals cannot have children and grandchildren.

The points raised by homosexuals and their defenders and advocates in support of same-sex "marriage" are of two general types. First the legal question. Homosexuals claim (groundlessly) that they are not allowed to do a variety of things that married couples routinely do: leave each other estates, visit each other in the hospital when they're dying of AIDS or another hideous disease, and so on. Second, they want societal recognition for their "loving" "commitment" to each other. Again, this derives from a a false premise.

The governmental preferences for marriage are all based on children, the state arrogating unto itself the right to dictate in matters of intimate import. It claims to have an interest in children, but that interest is in increasing the numbers of taxpayers and potential soldiers. Neither of these positions is valid, but the state, having more guns, bigger guns, and better guns than any individual or group of individuals, the state gets to claim what it wants to.

These preferences, in any case whatsoever, can be circumvented using legal forms. Trusts and wills, contracts and corporations, and a host of other entities and documents can get any two (or more) people all of the rights and "privileges" accorded a married couple.

As to the "love" and "commitment" questions, it is really very confusing to me why a homosexual (or anyone else, for that matter) would ever want the legal entanglements connected with a state-sanctioned "marriage". Homosexuals, especially, are not committed to monogamy. I readily admit that many marriages suffer from adultery, but even the most egregious adulterers (Dominique Strauss-Kahn comes to mind) do not "cheat" on their spouses as often nor with as many extra-marital "partners" as homosexuals. I put "cheat" in quotation marks because "married" homosexuals fully expect to be unfaithful to each other on the one hand, and, on the other, for their "spouses" to disregard their "marital" obligations.

Whether homosexuals or others, making government the third party in the family (and the one with the most power, and least commitment) is logically a very illogical move. Government,as in everything it does, makes things worse, not least because it keeps changing the standards and requirements, without the consent of either of the other parties. Even couples who have, for instance, a prenuptial agreement regularly see the courts throw them out and imposing a different "solution" to the problem that the couple had freely agreed to when cooler heads were involved. Government is a miserable partner in any partnership, and all the more so when that partnership is a family.

Further, "love" does not require "marriage", as any number of hippies from my generation will gleefully tell you. John Denver's line, "it's knowing I'm not shackled by forgotten words and bonds, and ink stains that are dried up on some line, ... that keeps you ever gentle on my mind" illustrate this concept.

With all of the prytaneogenic (government-created) problems connected with "legal" marriage, it seems amazing to me that any homosexual would want to be involved with it. As I insinuated above, it is equally confusing that any intelligent person would, except where his religion dictates he do so, as ours (LDS) does. I do not recall which homosexual "leader" (self-appointed, no doubt) and "spokesperson" (again, self anointed) siad it, but his words, as I recall them, were, "What's the use of being queer if you're just like everyone else?"

Finally, one of the stated goals of many supporting same-sex "marriage" is the destruction of the traditional family—of marriage itself. Those of us who cherish marriage and family simply cannot run the risk that same-sex "marriage" threatens. And, for us who believe that "marriage is instituted of God", that threat is not just against marriage, per se, it's against God Himself.

In short, each and every argument raised in support of destroying the family through homosexual "marriage" is a phantom. Each one can be overcome without resort to same-sex "marriage". Same-sex "marriage" will not make homosexuals happier (except those who ardently desire the destruction of traditional family, and I cannot calculate how many of these there may be), and will most likely result in greater unhappiness for them.

The answer is not "more government", but less. Anyone advocating for same-sex "marriage" either has not thought about the ramifications, in which case I pity him, or he has, in which case I fear him.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

From a nonreligious perspective marriage is society's permission for sex. There is nothing special about "government" in that regard.

[LeSellers]

From a nonreligious perspective marriage is society's permission for sex. There is nothing special about "government" in that regard.

It's abundantly clear that "society" doesn't care who has sex, when he has it, nor, within a very few limits, where in the modern world.

"Marriage", as a governmental construct, should simply disappear. All "preferences" governments give married people should go away. The vast majority of arguments (by category, not necessarily by individual assertion) in favor of same-sex"Marriage", are about government "benefits". I assert that there are no benefits in the sense of a cost/benefit analysis: the costs of having government involved in any marriage vastly outweigh any benefit. Homosexuals who want same-sex "marriage" imposed on society are being grotesquely foolish, unless there is an ulterior motive, which I strongly suspect in most cases.

Lehi

[california boy]

You seem to assume that the question of homosexual "marriage" has anything to do with making homosexuals "more moral". There is nothing about homosex that is or ever could be moral. "Marriage" would not change that fact.

Opposition to same-sex "marriage" is about protecting the family, an institution crated by God, wherein men and their wives raise children and assist in raising grandchildren and great-grandchildren. More or less by definition, homosexuals cannot have children and grandchildren.

The points raised by homosexuals and their defenders and advocates in support of same-sex "marriage" are of two general types. First the legal question. Homosexuals claim (groundlessly) that they are not allowed to do a variety of things that married couples routinely do: leave each other estates, visit each other in the hospital when they're dying of AIDS or another hideous disease, and so on. Second, they want societal recognition for their "loving" "commitment" to each other. Again, this derives from a a false premise.

The governmental preferences for marriage are all based on children, the state arrogating unto itself the right to dictate in matters of intimate import. It claims to have an interest in children, but that interest is in increasing the numbers of taxpayers and potential soldiers. Neither of these positions is valid, but the state, having more guns, bigger guns, and better guns than any individual or group of individuals, the state gets to claim what it wants to.

These preferences, in any case whatsoever, can be circumvented using legal forms. Trusts and wills, contracts and corporations, and a host of other entities and documents can get any two (or more) people all of the rights and "privileges" accorded a married couple.

As to the "love" and "commitment" questions, it is really very confusing to me why a homosexual (or anyone else, for that matter) would ever want the legal entanglements connected with a state-sanctioned "marriage". Homosexuals, especially, are not committed to monogamy. I readily admit that many marriages suffer from adultery, but even the most egregious adulterers (Dominique Strauss-Kahn comes to mind) do not "cheat" on their spouses as often nor with as many extra-marital "partners" as homosexuals. I put "cheat" in quotation marks because "married" homosexuals fully expect to be unfaithful to each other on the one hand, and, on the other, for their "spouses" to disregard their "marital" obligations.

Whether homosexuals or others, making government the third party in the family (and the one with the most power, and least commitment) is logically a very illogical move. Government,as in everything it does, makes things worse, not least because it keeps changing the standards and requirements, without the consent of either of the other parties. Even couples who have, for instance, a prenuptial agreement regularly see the courts throw them out and imposing a different "solution" to the problem that the couple had freely agreed to when cooler heads were involved. Government is a miserable partner in any partnership, and all the more so when that partnership is a family.

Further, "love" does not require "marriage", as any number of hippies from my generation will gleefully tell you. John Denver's line, "it's knowing I'm not shackled by forgotten words and bonds, and ink stains that are dried up on some line, ... that keeps you ever gentle on my mind" illustrate this concept.

With all of the prytaneogenic (government-created) problems connected with "legal" marriage, it seems amazing to me that any homosexual would want to be involved with it. As I insinuated above, it is equally confusing that any intelligent person would, except where his religion dictates he do so, as ours (LDS) does. I do not recall which homosexual "leader" (self-appointed, no doubt) and "spokesperson" (again, self anointed) siad it, but his words, as I recall them, were, "What's the use of being queer if you're just like everyone else?"

Finally, one of the stated goals of many supporting same-sex "marriage" is the destruction of the traditional family—of marriage itself. Those of us who cherish marriage and family simply cannot run the risk that same-sex "marriage" threatens. And, for us who believe that "marriage is instituted of God", that threat is not just against marriage, per se, it's against God Himself.

In short, each and every argument raised in support of destroying the family through homosexual "marriage" is a phantom. Each one can be overcome without resort to same-sex "marriage". Same-sex "marriage" will not make homosexuals happier (except those who ardently desire the destruction of traditional family, and I cannot calculate how many of these there may be), and will most likely result in greater unhappiness for them.

The answer is not "more government", but less. Anyone advocating for same-sex "marriage" either has not thought about the ramifications, in which case I pity him, or he has, in which case I fear him.

Lehi

Great rant. But nothing we haven't heard before. You have given me a lot of examples how gay marriage would be different than a straight marriage, but honestly, what two marraiages are alike now. It isn't like there is some written in stone formula that a couple has to follow. Some marriages have children in them. Some do not. Some may live together, some may not. Some both partners are faithful. Some are not. Some are based on a religious foundation. Some are not. Some have their children through a suragate, some do not. You can go through each and every one of your ansers and your statements would be true for straight marriages as well. When you get to the end of your rationalizations, in the end, you have not given any reason why society will be better off without gay marraige.

For that reason, I am going to keep my answer simple so as not to bring in unrelated facts.

1. Gay marriage will not make gays more moral. you have admitted to that.

2. If gays are allowed to marry, it will not make straight people more moral. If you think otherwise, please address why straight people will become more immoral if gaays are allowed to marry.

3.If this is not a moral issue, why is the church involved.

4. Gay marriage will not weaken existing and furture straight marriages. There is absolutely no evidence of this. If you think it will weaken marrriages or families, you are going to have to explain how a gay persons marriage will weaken anyone's marriage or family.

[KevinG]

California Boy,

You have failed to grasp the concept of taking a moral stand on an issue of importance to the community at large, regarless of that stand forcing or influencing a single individuals morality.

For example - liquer laws don't force anyone to be sober. What they do is limit the access to alcohol to the community in general influencing behavior and standards of the community.

It has been explained to you several times. I'm not sure you will ever understand it.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Mariage is NOT a government construct. It has existed long before governments more complex than family existed. Cain took a WIFE. Remember.

Why should governments care who has sex? Like I've already said I don't care if you do it with a tree, but don't try to justify it as getting married. We'll have a nice long talk about it.

My only concern is how any resulting offspring of sex with a member of the opposite sex are treated. If there is a dissolution of marriage it becomes the responsibility of the society(goverment) to insure that those children are taken care of by their parents if the parent(s) are unwilling to do so.

The Church sure isn't going to step in and do it, and legally can't. At best it can only apply a limited type of "spiritual pressure" to its members.

[LeSellers]

1. Gay marriage will not make gays more moral. you have admitted to that.

I do not believe I “admitted to that.” I rejected the assumption you seem to have made that those who support the destruction of marriage when same-sex “marriage” is imposed on society do so because they believe that same-sex “marriage” will make homosexuals more moral.

Same-sex “marriage” will not and cannot change the fundamentally immoral nature of homosex. Nothing can or will.

2. If gays are allowed to marry, it will not make straight people more moral. If you think otherwise, please address why straight people will become more immoral if gaays are allowed to marry.

Because, as many homosexual leaders and advocates have admitted, the ultimate goal of legalizing same-sex “marriage” is the destruction of traditional families.

Satan has been working on that for millennia, although not always using same-sex “marriage” as his tool. Whenever he has succeeded in weakening and destroying the family, the civilization and culture of that people has dissolved, either by war or “peaceful” invasion by a neighboring people.

3.If this is not a moral issue, why is the church involved. [sic]

It is an issue of societal morals. It is not an issue of specific individuals’ morals.

Cultures share a common moral code; it’s essentially the definition of a culture. When any influence, whether foreign or domestic, threatens to radically change that moral code, the culture must either commit suicide or resist.

Since the Church is all about morals, both societal and individual, and because societal morals affect individual morals, she must, to be true to her calling, resist the destructive forces that assault either class of morals. In the case of societal morals, the only effective path is legal/political. She did not choose the battleground, you all did.

4. Gay marriage will not weaken existing and furture straight marriages. There is absolutely no evidence of this. If you think it will weaken marrriages or families, you are going to have to explain how a gay persons marriage will weaken anyone's marriage or family.

There is an abundance of such evidence. The most telling is the explicit statements of your own “leaders” and other advocates for same-sex “marriage”. We have read and heard them say that one of the goals they have, and one of the most important to them, is the destruction of the traditional family and the redefinition of marriage to include any kind of coupling, however temporary or outrageous. Some have gone further and aligned themselves with pædophiles and equally offensive orientations. Please tell us what “chicken” means in homospeak.

A single homosexual “marriage” will not affect anyone’s legitmate marriage or family. It is the institution of same-sex “marriage” that changes the entire game. The playing field is completely reoriented, and the rules altered beyond any recognition.

The core elements of marriage are sexual fidelity, the defining of children as the legal offspring of a specific man (their mother is not hard to identify), the financial entity for which both are responsible, and the mutual responsibilities defined by millennia of successful implementation. Same-sex “marriage” would alter nearly all of these, but not just for these sham: all marriages, honest marriages as well as the homosexual ersatzes.

It is weird, to my way of thinking, that any spouse would wink at his spouse’s infidelities. Many do, but that does not change the legal basis for a less “tolerant” spouse’s using those indiscretions to call the offender to task. I pity Hilary Clinton (and more so her daughter), but she chose to ignore Bill’s tomcatting. That doesn’t mean every wife in the same situation should be denied the confidence in her marriage the vows her husband made to her demand. Same-sex “marriage” would change that principle.

No longer would a spouse be able to rely on the contractual obligation of fidelity because the law would not support him. Same-sex “marriage” advocates would eventually eliminate that moral and legal expectation from the framework of marriage. Men would no longer be considered the fathers of the children in their homes because, as the courts have already started to opine, the mere establishment of a homosexual “family” means that either “parent” has equal rights to the child, irrespective of which one (if either) is the biological parent. Because homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous, and contract VDs in far greater numbers than most people do, more and more “public” resources will be diverted to get them well again. These higher taxes will impair real families from raising their children because more money confiscated by government means less money for food, clothing, and shelter in the wealth-creator’s home.

Finally, teaching children, as it has become a quasi-governmental monopoly, means that a parent’s choice in teaching his child that homosex is evil will be limited, or disallowed at all (which we are seeing even with same-sex “marriage” being voted down time after time). This is a direct abridgement of parental rights and responsibilities.

Same-sex “marriage”, when imposed by the potentially lethal power of the state will inevitably weaken families, and will cause incalculable disruptions in people’s lives. But most of all, the effect on the public morality of wide-spread acceptance of what is, at its core, evil, will make al forms of wickedness more rampant. Just as the “War on Drugs” has been a failure by making more and more people into criminals, and exposing them to the corruption of the criminal class in prison, widespread exposure to homosex and the inherent perversions it entails will make people more susceptible to additional corrosive behaviors.

By its very concept, same-sex “marriage” refines the meaning of “marriage”. It broadens it to the point of meaninglessness. On that basis alone, we must reject it because stable marriages are the critical element of any culture. Communist Russia discovered this too late to save itself. Communist China recognized it earlier in their process. Chinese leaders started a strengthen-the-family program (they called it “family home evening”). That staved off Chinese national collapse for a decade or more. Purposefully weakening families, as same-sex “marriage” will do, is cultural self-destruction. (The Chinese have since introduced a different family-weakening program, “One Child”, that will accomplish the same thing, but I have little concern for the. If they chose to act stupidly, there is nothing I can do about it.)

Strong families are the foundation of any culture, and anything that weakens that foundation is cultural suicide. I can do something, however little, about what is happening here in USmerica, and I will do whatever I can.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Mariage is NOT a government construct. It has existed long before governments more complex than family existed. Cain took a WIFE. Remember.

Indeed I do remember. But that's not what I was saying, so your objection is invalid.

"Marriage, as a government construct" does not mean that marriage is a government construct, but "the government construct of marriage ...". The comma is significant.

Why should governments care who has sex? Like I've already said I don't care if you do it with a tree, but don't try to justify it as getting married. We'll have a nice long talk about it.

As I recall, it was you who said that marriage is societal permission to have sex. I merely pointed out that society doesn't give a rat's earlobe who, when, or where.

My only concern is how any resulting offspring of sex with a member of the opposite sex are treated. If there is a dissolution of marriage it becomes the responsibility of the society(goverment) to insure that those children are taken care of by their parents if the parent(s) are unwilling to do so.

Drug addicts aside, which parents would decide to take care of their children? And, if all society (an artificial concept in any case) was to compel the parents to be responsible fo rhteir child, I'd have no problem with it (providing the compulsion was minimal).

Why is it society's responsibility? No individual (except the parents) had anything to do with conceiving or bearing that child. On what rational basis did I become responsible for him in any way?

Does the child have no grandparents, uncles, aunts, or cousins? Is their no one who would care for him without coercion? There are tens of thousands of couples in USmerica who desperately wnat to adopt. Society has no need to care for the child: people are lining up to do so. Society (government) actually stands in their way.

The Church sure isn't going to step in and do it, and legally can't. At best it can only apply a limited type of "spiritual pressure" to its members.

The church certainly would and does "step in". That's what LDS Family Services (including the Welfare Program) is all about.

Lehi

[Ares]

Back on topic please. This is not a prop 8 thread.

[LeSellers]

Back on topic please. This is not a prop 8 thread.

Aw, c'mon! Everything's a Prop 8 "thread".

Lehi

Edited October 14, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

A distinction without a difference. My point still stands.

It is society permission to have sex. It is also permission to have children; to make and enforce contracts, and a host of other implicit and explicit actions.

By in large society(government) will leave you alone as long long as you provide for physical safety, sufficient food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for your offspring. The degree to which you also provide educational, and religious(ethical) training is more variable, but still a requirement. It's a BIG DEAL to become a parent. We assume a whole lot of responsibilty when we do. I have my grandnephew living with us because his mother was/is unable to fulfill that responsibility.

I think you meant (NOT) take care of their children. Most drug addicts want to take care of their child. It is the effect of the drug(s) that limits their abilities to do so. Once clean/sober, and with emotional support they actually turn out to be pretty good parents.

Of course "society" is an artificial concept. It happens any time 2 or more nonrelated individuals decide to work as one. Force should be minimal, the problems come in when that minimal force doesn't result in positive actions. IE; Most of us pretty much follow the traffic laws while driving on the public roads. So we pretty much can come and go as we please. Tickets(fines) are for those occassions when we either mess up, or worse yet deliberate violate the law. Further violation can result in loss of driving priviledges, all the way up to imprisonment for the most serious of violations. Same with how we treat our children. Within pretty basic ground roles you can raise your children how you please. It is the times we mess up, or worse yet deliberate violate the rules that society does intervene.

Because we collectively form a society. We, at least in the US try to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare... . Because what someone does to another individual is my business. If what you do only effects you throw yourself into a volcano. I consider it a stupid idea, and try to talk you out of it. However if that's what you really want to do, and you don't burn others in your stupidity. Knock yourself out.

Most of the time yes they do. Some will assume the responsibility. While my own children are grown and have their own family's. I'm the only one in my niece's family capable of assuming the financial burdens of another child. He is now 16 almost 17 so the bills are considerable. But I glad to do it, and he's a great kid, I should say young man. I don't like to think about what would have happened to him without my wife's and my support. We really did rescue him from a BAD situation.

Church food, and financial resouces are designed to be a short term fix to a short term problem. All do deference the Church Social Services, and they do a great job. Their job isn't to provide the level of support the family can. Its purpose is to support, not take over the functions of the family.

[AddamS]

How are LDS supposed to handle polls that indicate the vast majority of Americans would never vote for a Mormon? Is that fact a result of persecution or a mindset of socially acceptable persecution? What type of person so blithely admits to such a position?

The same type of person that believe Obama is a Muslim. When push comes to shove, they'd vote LDS over Islam any day.

I'm not advocating the position, just providing my take on the mindset.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Expositor

[california boy]

Like the moderator said, this is not a prop 8 thread so I don't want to extend this discussion much. Your rants are not defensible in the least. They are just homophobic rhetoric we have heard time and time again. Now that my rant is done, I will simply ask you for a few CFR's

Because, as <strong>many homosexual leaders</strong> and advocates have admitted, the ultimate goal of legalizing same-sex “marriage” is the destruction of traditional families.<strong>Satan</strong> has been working on that for millennia, although not always using same-sex “marriage” as his tool. Whenever he has succeeded in weakening and destroying the family, the civilization and culture of that people has dissolved, either by war or “peaceful” invasion by a neighboring people.

CFR this inflammatory statement and who are these <strong>leaders</strong> of the gay community.

<strong>There is an abundance of such evidence.</strong> The most telling is the explicit statements of <strong>your own “leaders”</strong> and other advocates for same-sex “marriage”. We have read and heard them say that one of the goals they have, and one of the most important to them, is the destruction of the traditional family and the redefinition of marriage to include any kind of coupling, however temporary or outrageous. Some have gone further and aligned themselves with pædophiles and equally offensive orientations. Please tell us what “chicken” means in homospeak.

CFR who these LEADERS of the gay community who are advocating these positions.

No longer would a spouse be able to rely on the contractual obligation of fidelity because the law would not support him.

Are you talking about adultery here which is rampant in straight marriages today?

Finally, teaching children, as it has become a quasi-governmental monopoly, means that a parent’s choice in teaching his child that homosex is evil will be limited, or disallowed at all (which we are seeing even with same-sex “marriage” being voted down time after time). This is a direct abridgement of parental rights and responsibilities.

Give me a break. CFR where any government laws are being passed that would prevent PARENTS FROM TEACHING THEIR KIDS anything that they want.

There are many views presented to children that parents don't agree with. My children were taught in my home what our beliefs were and why they were important. No government agents ever broke in and took me off to jail for teaching my children anything about the gospel of Jesus Christ even though it OFTEN conflicted with what the world was teaching.

I will leave it at that. Your rants have absolutely no credibility. Perhaps you can try and justify some of the remarks you have made here. Or perhaps you just want to believe these inflammatory statements to feel better about your own prejudices.

Edited October 15, 2011 by california boy