Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal In Washington State

[frankenstein]

Jeff it is fascinating how much you continue in your lies. Yes Jeff you are a speaker of false hood. You show me your temple recommend I,ll show you mine. You give me your bishops email I,ll give you mine. I don't regurgitate your bigotry so i cant be a active member in good standing, right?

What is interesting is that you confirm my statement, that good is what ever you believe God says or has done, so good is relative to your religious views

[Jeff K.]

Moral relativism denigrates Christ. If you wish to be an adherent to it, that is your right, I don't see how stating that moral relativism which rejects good as merely being a perspective is somehow a lie. Satan would like you to believe that righteousness and good are merely perceptions, and that somehow his perception is equal to Christs, that somehow Lucifer was just the loser, not the less righteous. Feel free to argue that his perspective is accurate. I would not do so.

[Jeff K.]

Mormons aren't supposed to partake in whine kids. Why don't you just give it up. My point remains valid and your charging me with lying simply shows you have no argument.

[Jeff K.]

I noted you weren't a member Frankestein, my mistake. A presumption I apologize for.

[Jeff K.]

Strong calls for diversity in the public sector sometimes have the effect of pressuring those holding majority opinions to abandon fundamental values to accommodate the diverse positions of those in the minority. Usually this does not substitute a minority value for a majority one. Rather, it seeks to achieve “diversity” by abandoning the official value position altogether, so that no one’s value will be contradicted by an official or semiofficial position. The result of this abandonment is not a diversity of values but an official anarchy of values. I believe this is an example of former Brigham Young University visiting professor Louis Pojman’s observation that diversity can be used as “a euphemism for moral relativism.”⁷

There are hundreds of examples of this, where achieving the goal of diversity results in the anarchy of values we call moral relativism. These examples include such varied proposals as forbidding the public schools to teach the wrongfulness of certain behavior or the rightness of patriotism. Another example is the attempt to banish a representation of the Ten Commandments from any public buildings.

In a day when prominent thinkers have decried the fact that universities have stopped teaching right and wrong, we are grateful for the countercultural position at Brigham Young University. Moral relativism, which is said to be the dominant force in American universities, has no legitimate place at BYU. The faculty teach values—the right and wrong taught in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, diversity and choice are not the weightier matters of the law. The weightier matters that move us toward our goal of eternal life are love of God, obedience to His commandments, and unity in accomplishing the work of His Church. In this belief and practice we move against the powerful modern tides running toward individualism and tolerance rather than toward obedience and cooperative action. Though our belief and practice is unpopular, it is right, and it does not require the blind obedience or the stifling uniformity its critics charge. If we are united on our eternal goal and united on the inspired principles that will get us there, we can be diverse on individual efforts in support of our goals and consistent with those principles.

<a href="https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/01/weightier-matters?lang=eng&query="moral+relativism">https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/01/weightier-matters?lang=eng&query="moral+relativism"

Dallin Oaks, Weightier Matters

Beware of Moral Relativism

It is well to worry about our moral foundation. We live in a world where more and more persons of influence are teaching and acting out a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. Many even question whether there is a God.

The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong, is becoming the unofficial creed for many in America and other Western nations. At the extreme level, evil acts that used to be localized and covered up like a boil are now legalized and paraded like a banner. Persuaded by this philosophy, many of the rising generation—youth and young adults—are caught up in self-serving pleasures, pagan painting and piercing of body parts, foul language, revealing attire, pornography, dishonesty, and degrading sexual indulgence.

On the foundation belief in right and wrong, there is an alarming contrast between the older and the younger generations. According to survey data of two decades ago, “79 percent of American adults [believed] that ‘there are clear guidelines about what’s good and evil that apply to everyone regardless of the situation.’”⁴ In contrast, a more recent poll of college seniors suggests that “three-quarters of [them] believe that the difference between right and wrong is relative.”⁵

Many religious leaders teach the existence of God as the Ultimate Lawgiver, by whose action certain behavior is absolutely right and true and certain other behavior is absolutely wrong and untrue.⁶ Bible and Book of Mormon prophets foresaw this time, when men would be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:4) and, indeed, when men would deny God (see Jude 1:4; 2 Nephi 28:5; Moroni 7:17; D&C 29:22).

In this troubled circumstance, we who believe in God and the corollary truth of absolute right and wrong have the challenge of living in a godless and increasingly amoral world. In this circumstance, all of us—and especially you of the rising generation—have a duty to stand up and speak up to affirm that God exists and that there are absolute truths His commandments establish. In doing so, we Latter-day Saints rely on the truth we sing in the hymn I quoted earlier:

The pillar of truth will endure to the last,

And its firm-rooted bulwarks outstand the rude blast

And the wreck of the fell tyrant’s hopes.⁷

As I face this audience of committed young people, I know that some of you may be wondering why I am speaking about what is obvious to you and what, you might assume, is obvious to others. Recall the survey data I mentioned earlier, suggesting that about three-quarters of all college seniors believe the difference between right and wrong is relative.

I have chosen to speak about truth because teachers in schools, colleges, and universities are teaching and practicing relative morality. This is shaping the attitudes of many young Americans who are taking their places as the teachers of our children and the shapers of public attitudes through the media and popular entertainment. This philosophy of moral relativism denies what millions of believing Christians, Jews, and Muslims consider fundamental, and this denial creates serious problems for all of us. What believers should do about this introduces the second of my twin subjects: Tolerance.

This is a harder question for those who affirm the existence of God and absolute truth than for those who believe in moral relativism. The weaker one’s belief in God and the fewer one’s moral absolutes, the fewer the occasions when the ideas or practices of others will confront one with the challenge to be tolerant. For example, an atheist has no need to decide what kinds and occasions of profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. Persons who don’t believe in God or in absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant of persons. For them, almost anything goes. “You do your thing, and I’ll do my thing” is the popular description. This belief system can tolerate almost any behavior and almost any persons. Unfortunately, some who believe in moral relativism seem to have difficulty tolerating those who insist that there is a God who should be respected and certain moral absolutes that should be observed.

Dallin Oaks

<a href="https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2011/10/truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng&query="moral+relativism">https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2011/10/truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng&query="moral+relativism"

Truth and Tolerance

You can now begin dissembling the truth of these talks.

[Daniel2]

I love ya, Jeff. (not that I'm not advocating you leave your wife for me or any other man, or anything... ).

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

I appreciate the hug, but what you advocate is still horribly wrong.

[california boy]

Now back on topic.

It is interesting to note that in states where gay marriage has become legal, the public is still widely supportive of keeping those rights in place. Here is the latest poll from Iowa, where support for gay marriage continues to be amazingly strong

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120227/NEWS09/302270022/-1/SPORTS12/Iowa-Poll-Majority-opposes-ban-same-sex-marriage

Iowa Poll: Majority opposes ban on same-sex marriage

56% against passage of state constitutional amendment; 38 percent favor such a move

A majority of Iowans oppose passage of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows.

The poll found that 38 percent favor a legislative initiative to pass a constitutional amendment, while 56 percent are against. Six percent aren’t sure.

[Stargazer]

Now back on topic.

Thanks for dragging it back to its roots. cb.

[Jaybear]

Now back on topic.

It is interesting to note that in states where gay marriage has become legal, the public is still widely supportive of keeping those rights in place.

...

A majority of Iowans oppose passage of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows.

The poll found that 38 percent favor a legislative initiative to pass a constitutional amendment, while 56 percent are against. Six percent aren’t sure.

Wow. Jeff was right after all. Gay marriage undermines the moral fiber of communities where its practiced.

[frankenstein]

It is telling that those who suggest that ssm leads to incest and other banned acts, have failed to show the reasoning.

I issue a challenge to all, use the rulings by judge walker and the 9th circuit to show that the reasoning in either case can be used to legalize incest or pedophila.

I do not know of any state where incest is legal nor pedophila. I do not know of any state that provides all the legal rights of marriage to incestual or pedophila relationships.

[thesometimesaint]

JeffK.:

All due deference to Elder Oaks, but what parts of the 10 Commandments would he have as law for the US, other than those against murder and theft?

[Jeff K.]

It is telling that those who suggest that ssm leads to incest and other banned acts, have failed to show the reasoning.

I issue a challenge to all, use the rulings by judge walker and the 9th circuit to show that the reasoning in either case can be used to legalize incest or pedophila.

I do not know of any state where incest is legal nor pedophila. I do not know of any state that provides all the legal rights of marriage to incestual or pedophila relationships.

The reasoning? Do you mean how for years NAMBLA took part in the SF Gay Pride Parade knowingly allowed to do so by the parade leaders, that is until the press uncovered the scandal? Or that San Fran remains NAMBLA headquarters even as its laws become more outrageous including full nudity now being allowed in public, passed by a local council that is repleat with gay men and women?

I do not know of any state where incest is legal nor pedophila. I do not know of any state that provides all the legal rights of marriage to incestual or pedophila relationships.

At one time you could have said that about gay marriage. I guess in a few years you will have to shave your list down a bit. I am sure you will still advocate and claim there is no impact, regardless of what the prophets and apostles tell us. How far do a people have to be separated from the church until one realizes they are no longer a part of it? One has to wonder at the members who are such huge advocates or moral relativism.

Apparently you feel the gay lifestyle enhances families, brings communities closer to God, and allows more people to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

Allow me to issue this challenge. Tell us all how the gay lifestyle makes people better Latter-day Saints or brings more people closer to God.

[Jeff K.]

JeffK.:

All due deference to Elder Oaks, but what parts of the 10 Commandments would he have as law for the US, other than those against murder and theft?

Perhaps you can issue that challenge to Elder Oaks. I would be interested in the answer.

[Jeff K.]

One day people will have to choose sides, who they are choosing to support, whether to their kingdom is the kingdom of God, or man. What people don't realize is that they are outlining their territory they claim as theirs now.

[frankenstein]

Jeff thank you for admitting that you are unable to show how the rulings on prop 8 pave the way for pedophiles marriage and incest marriage.

And as I have made claims concerning homosexual lifestyle. And as often as occurs in your posts - false accusations and other falsehoods, I will ignore your challenge, because the false claims and accusations need not be addressed

[Jaybear]

It is telling that those who suggest that ssm leads to incest and other banned acts, have failed to show the reasoning.

I issue a challenge to all, use the rulings by judge walker and the 9th circuit to show that the reasoning in either case can be used to legalize incest or pedophila.

I do not know of any state where incest is legal nor pedophila. I do not know of any state that provides all the legal rights of marriage to incestual or pedophila relationships.

The argument is based upon the false premise that the constitutional argument in favor of gay marriage begins and ends with the assertion that one has the constitutional right to marry whoever or whatever he/she pleases.

This argument is either based on ignorance of the real underlying constitutional issue or made to appeal to the fears of ignorant people.

[Daniel2]

The argument is based upon the false premise that the constitutional argument in favor of gay marriage begins and ends with the assertion that one has the constitutional right to marry whoever or whatever he/she pleases.

This argument is either based on ignorance of the real underlying constitutional issue or made to appeal to the fears of ignorant people.

Excellent post, Jaybear. Yours as well, frankenstein.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Now back on topic.

It is interesting to note that in states where gay marriage has become legal, the public is still widely supportive of keeping those rights in place. Here is the latest poll from Iowa, where support for gay marriage continues to be amazingly strong

http://www.desmoines...me-sex-marriage

Iowa Poll: Majority opposes ban on same-sex marriage

56% against passage of state constitutional amendment; 38 percent favor such a move

A majority of Iowans oppose passage of a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows.

The poll found that 38 percent favor a legislative initiative to pass a constitutional amendment, while 56 percent are against. Six percent aren’t sure.

Another new poll in California is also worth noting:

Support for gay marriage takes dramatic leap in California, new poll shows

By Dan Smith and Torey Van Oot

The Sacramento Bee

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012 - 12:00 am | Page 1A

A new poll shows gay marriage has arrived in California – in public opinion if not in state lawbooks.

Golden State registered voters now favor same-sex unions by 59 percent to 34 percent, a 25-point gap that is the largest margin of support for the issue in the three-plus decades the Field Poll has been asking the question.

The new Field survey shows support has leapt markedly in the three and a half years since California voters approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.

The poll showed increases in support virtually across the board – among voters under 64, non-white voters, Catholics, Republicans and nonpartisans.

Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said the move to a 25-point gap goes beyond the gradual increase in support that has been expected as young voters age and "replace" older voters in the electorate.

"This is now showing that opinions are changing irrespective of generational replacement," DiCamillo said. "This is real change."

As more states approve same-sex marriage – Washington and Maryland this month became the seventh and eighth states where legislatures have given their OK – the legal battle in California continues.

Proposition 8's marriage ban was overturned by a federal judge in San Francisco, and his ruling was upheld by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month. But the appeals court is weighing a request from gay marriage opponents for a larger panel of judges to review the decision, and ultimately, the matter could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, with a decision years away.

DiCamillo said voters still hold the judiciary in relatively high regard, and years of gay marriage court battles in California are likely contributing to the opinion shift.

"The winds of change are blowing in other states (and) when judges start ruling the same way, I believe that has an influence," he said.

Citrus Heights college student Matthew Boyd, who is in favor of same-sex marriage, said he believes the growth in support stems from increased exposure to gay relationships and the public spotlight on the issue.

"I think as the years have gone on, people are getting more used to the idea," the 24-year-old Democrat said. "There's more and more openly gay people every day, public figures, people's friends. You can see that they love each other and it's not something the government should be able to say, to tell them what to do."

In 2008, the poll showed 51 percent of voters in favor of gay marriage with 42 percent opposed – a nine-point gap – but Proposition 8 still passed later that year after supporters' television ads raised concerns that children would be taught about gay marriage in public schools. The 25-point gap in the current poll, DiCamillo said, would be "a tall order" for gay marriage opponents to overcome should it be put to a vote again.

Still, gay marriage advocates have suspended efforts to put the matter before voters this year.

Eric Harrison, the interim executive director of Love Honor Cherish, said the group – dedicated to overturning Proposition 8 – suspended its campaign to qualify for the November ballot earlier this month because it could not raise the more than $1.5 million needed to collect enough voter signatures. He blamed uncertainty surrounding the 9th Circuit ruling and fractures within the gay community, not poor polling, for the lack of contributions.

"Our position was always that yes, if this was to go back to the ballot in 2012, we would win marriage equality," he said. "It's not a question of that."

Love Honor Cherish and other gay rights advocacy groups have focused since 2008 on building support in religious and minority communities that exit polling showed backed Proposition 8.

Sacramento Republican La Toya Harris, who opposes same-sex marriage and homosexuality for religious reasons, said building support among black, Christian voters such as herself will be a tough sell, particularly when it comes to voters with ties to the Pentecostal faith.

"We believe that when things like that happen, the wrath of God is going to come from somewhere," she said.

Louis "Thumper" Rodriguez also cited religion in his opposition of same-sex marriage. While he is OK with civil unions and spousal rights for same-sex couples, he called the marriage push a "direct attack on my moral values and beliefs and religious beliefs."

"Honestly, what offends me is a group of minorities are trying to impose their non-religious views upon religious groups," the 35-year-old Madera Republican said. "As a voting Christian, I find it offensive that they would attack the religious act of marriage."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.co...l#storylink=cpy

[california boy]

I was posting the same poll. Looks like you beat me to it. Here is an article in the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/29/MNGN1NDIRP.DTL&feed=rss.lgbt

The very false arguments that Jeff tries to bring up were the exact fear tatics that were used in the Prop 8 campaign. I think people now see them for what they are, baseless. Fear and ignorance are the only weapon those that fight against equal rights for gays have. In the end, equality matters to Americans more than unfounded fears. The more people are informed about gay marriage, the more they support it.

[Minos]

This thread is so infused with character assaults it has nowhere to go but down.