United States Supreme Court To Take Up Prop 8 And Doma

[Linda]

Elder Christofferson's video seems very careful to always say "homosexual activity" while making it clear the attraction is not a sin.

If life of homosexual feelings is the problem for the church; why does she not forbid any left-handed persons? Or work with flour?

Some people cannot work with flour because they have an allergy. One cannot make any right-handed person from a left-handed person without causing heavy damage at him. It is natural to be a left-handed person. And it is also natural to be homosexual, transsexual or a hermaphrodite.

And everyone has a right to live in accordance with their feelings and conditions. If they didn't harm anybody Therefore, e.g. pederasts are not part of it for me.

Would it make sense to forbid left-handed persons? Or homosexuality and transsexualism? Or hermaphrodite? No!

[Linda]

Do you think the bible or scripture in general could ever condone SSM?

I have a little dealt with the known quotations from the Bible about homosexuality. I have read the context; when also context occupies me with the historical one. And I have dealt with the original words.

I have found out; the Bible never homosexuality had condemned (as we understand it today). It always saw "homosexual actions" in connection with an averting of the God of the Israelites or the Christians; mated with a turning to heathen gods. And sometimes like in the letter to Timothy and the Corintians; it was not even about homosexuality but about pederasts about these "dirty old men".

I had written even an article about this (unfortunately in German) once.

[The Nehor]

If life of homosexual feelings is the problem for the church; why does she not forbid any left-handed persons? Or work with flour?

Some people cannot work with flour because they have an allergy. One cannot make any right-handed person from a left-handed person without causing heavy damage at him. It is natural to be a left-handed person. And it is also natural to be homosexual, transsexual or a hermaphrodite.

And everyone has a right to live in accordance with their feelings and conditions. If they didn't harm anybody Therefore, e.g. pederasts are not part of it for me.

Would it make sense to forbid left-handed persons? Or homosexuality and transsexualism? Or hermaphrodite? No!

As a gay left-handed transexual hermaphrodite with strong flour allergies I commend you for defending me and my people.

Next time add in crossdressing and clubfooted people so my other afflictions can also be defended.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll avoid commenting on the thread in question as American policy/constitution is no business of mine.

But... I couldn't resist pausing to celebrate your diligence to correct spelling/grammar. My mum and I salute you.

(He says, pausing to scrutinise the same in his own post)

I try to hold it in check, because I'm aware of how annoying it can be to others, but I'm afraid my vocation (writing and editing) has given me an acute sensitivity to linguistic infraction.

I am most critical of my own work, which is why you will see an editing stamp at the bottom of nearly all of my posts. It seems I'm incapable of noticing all my errors until after the message is posted, and, unlike Pahoran and Daniel Peterson, I lack the talent to pour out immaculate prose on first draft.

[DavidB]

Cdowis, a right with restrictions does not make that right any less of a right. A right with restrictions also does not put that right on same level as a privilege.

Edited December 9, 2012 by DavidB

[cinepro]

All this fuss over the separation between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity, seems to disregard the idea that we can and will be judged by our thoughts.The Church leaders may not be able to read thoughts and judge but that does not mean God cannot.

You might believe that, but the Church doesn't and God definitely doesn't. Otherwise we would all pay tithing and do home teaching by

Ya gotta do it or it doesn't count.

[thesometimesaint]

It is simple...God will fight our battles, delivering us even if by fire. The scriptures could not be more clear; only question is, do we believe?

Belief is one thing, knowing how it will happen is another.

[blackstrap]

You might believe that, but the Church doesn't and God definitely doesn't. Otherwise we would all pay tithing and do home teaching by

Ya gotta do it or it doesn't count.

Methinks you are selective in your reading of the scriptures. God can judge a man by the INTENT of his heart. There may be a significant difference in the degree of sinning,but it's still a sin.No unclean thing can enter into the Kingdom of God. So ,you figure that a man who constantly THINKS about murder but doesn't is still clean?

[thesometimesaint]

Methinks you are selective in your reading of the scriptures. God can judge a man by the INTENT of his heart. There may be a significant difference in the degree of sinning,but it's still a sin.No unclean thing can enter into the Kingdom of God. So ,you figure that a man who constantly THINKS about murder but doesn't is still clean?

I think the key there is in the word constantly. The passing whim or idle thought probably won't damn us. But if we dwell upon the ideas, and give serious contemplation on how to achieve it. Even if we don't carry it out we need serious repentance.

[Saints Alive]

If you really want to know the answer to that question, I might suggest viewing the video post #2 by Jeremy on this thread Then decide for yourself and let us know what you think.

Yeah you probably right, the church should just release official declaration 3 tomorrow and start same sex sealings. (Sarcasm)

[Erin15]

And it is also natural to be homosexual, transsexual or a hermaphrodite.

That is irrelivant to the topic. The Lord requires everyone to obey his commandments regardless.

And everyone has a right to live in accordance with their feelings and conditions. If they didn't harm anybody Therefore, e.g. pederasts are not part of it for me.

You may believe that, but The Lord disagrees with you. Right behavior and wrong behavior exists eternally and independantly of feelings and preferences. "Do no harm" is a mortal philisophical concept, not an eternal commandment.

[DavidB]

That is irrelivant to the topic. The Lord requires everyone to obey his commandments regardless.

You may believe that, but The Lord disagrees with you. Right behavior and wrong behavior exists eternally and independantly of feelings and preferences. "Do no harm" is a mortal philisophical concept, not an eternal commandment.

What the Lord thinks is not a legally sufficient basis for upholding a mortal law.

[cdowis]

Cdowis, a right with restrictions does not make that right any less of a right. A right with restrictions also does not put that right on same level as a privilege.

OK, you concede that a right can be controlled by certain restrictions, so I am puzzled by your logic, then,

Educate me how your argument turns on that a right can have restrictions. For example, a father wants to marry his daughter. Does he have a "right:" to have that request granted? We agree that he does not. because we simply add a restriction with a right, in this case marriage. We have restrictions based on medical conditions.

So we can maintain that ancient, almost universal restriction that the couple must be of different genders It is merely a restriction on that right. Restriction is not denial of a right, one which has been well established in common law, and almost universally applied.

A state may, of course, be free to remove that restriction. That is their choice.

Sirrah, may I now add, QED.

Edited December 10, 2012 by cdowis

[DavidB]

OK, you concede that a right can be controlled by certain restrictions, so I am puzzled by your logic, then,

Educate me how your argument turns on that a right can have restrictions. For example, a father wants to marry his daughter. Does he have a "right:" to have that request granted? We agree that he does not. because we simply add a restriction with a right, in this case marriage. We have restrictions based on medical conditions.

So we can maintain that ancient, almost universal restriction that the couple must be of different genders It is merely a restriction on that right. Restriction is not denial of a right, one which has been well established in common law, and almost universally applied.

A state may, of course, be free to remove that restriction. That is their choice.

Sirrah, may I now add, QED.

you are not puzzled by my factual legal statements.

You are disgruntled and do not agree with the factual legal statements and standards.

To honor your request to "educate" you, Read in this order:

Maybury v. Madison,

5th Amendment,

14th Amendment,

publications on Equal Protection,

publications on Rights v Privileges,

publications on Judicial Standard of Review in equal protection cases,

Loving v Virgina

Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a well settled fundamental right in the United States. (How universal is this Fundamental Right is yet to be settled)

Rights, even Fundamental Rights can and do have restrictions; however those restricted Fundamental Rights are still guarded as Fundamental.

Edited December 10, 2012 by DavidB

[cdowis]

PART 2

Let's get down to the basic, fundamental issue here. What specific, legally protected class or category of citizen is being discriminated against? Not race, religion, etc.

So, let's assume that sexual preference is a protected category. How is this restriction discrimination against such a class of citizen. Tell me specifically.

Well, we are not testing for sexual orientation. A homosexual man or female has the right to apply and be granted a marriage license (assuming the other requirements are met) as long as it is one make and one female. Homosexual males are free to marry a female and it happens all the time. Are you now creating a new "joint" classification of protection? These classifications are specific to protecting individuals, or together as a group. I simply do not see a protection for "male marrying a male" as a protected class, where the individuals are already protected and granted a license, but the discrimination occurs only on a joint basis (male-male).

[cdowis]

you are not puzzled by my factual legal statements.

You are disgruntled and do not agree with the factual legal statements and standards.

Really. I guess calling me "disgruntled" allows you to ignore my logic and argument.

To honor your request to "educate" you, Read in this order:

Maybury v. Madison,

5th Amendment,

14th Amendment,

publications on Equal Protection,

publications on Rights v Privileges,

publications on Judicial Standard of Review in equal protection cases,

Loving v Virgina

Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a well settled fundamental right in the United States. (How universal is this Fundamental Right is yet to be settled)

Yawn.

I agree that it is a right. You are just covering old ground, and we are in agreement.

Rights, even Fundamental Rights can and do have restrictions; however those restricted Fundamental Rights are still guarded as Fundamental.

We agree that rights have restrictions. Now what? This particular restriction has its roots not only in common law, but has been universally applied in all cultures throughout the centuries, including both secular and religious societies, dating previous to Christianity itself.

Considering its history, I would consider it fundamental to allow the local authorities to decide whether to continue to apply this restriction, rather than forcing compliance to some strange, unique, and untried legal doctrine of "single sex marriage partners" as a protected class of citizens.

But I guess you will respond that I am just being "disgruntled".

Edited December 10, 2012 by cdowis

[california boy]

PART 2

Let's get down to the basic, fundamental issue here. What specific, legally protected class or category of citizen is being discriminated against? Not race, religion, etc.

So, let's assume that sexual preference is a protected category. How is this restriction discrimination against such a class of citizen. Tell me specifically.

Well, we are not testing for sexual orientation. A homosexual man or female has the right to apply and be granted a marriage license (assuming the other requirements are met) as long as it is one make and one female. Homosexual males are free to marry a female and it happens all the time. Are you now creating a new "joint" classification of protection? These classifications are specific to protecting individuals, or together as a group. I simply do not see a protection for "male marrying a male" as a protected class, where the individuals are already protected and granted a license, but the discrimination occurs only on a joint basis (male-male).

We often hear this argument brought up on this issue. Can you honestly not see how this is not a solution for the right to marry for gay citizens of this country?

You are right, the government does have a right to restrict marriage. The question before the court is if this restriction is reasonable against gay citizens of this country? We will soon see if our judicial system thinks such a restriction is reasonable or not. The state and federal courts have both determined that restricting gays from marrying is unreasonable and as such the government does not have the right to restrict those marriages. They use legal arguments and case law to arrive at that verdict. Will the supreme court agree with their legal arguments? Maybe, we will see.

[cdowis]

he court has demonstrated that it can do whatever it wants, regardless of the Constitution and existing law. Even in the use and application of foreign laws.

1. The restriction on SS marriage is fundamentally not a "religious" issue, but an issue of state's rights to administer and set rules as they see fit. This restriction has been applied in secular societies, predating Christianity.

2. The current laws do not "discriminate" against individuals, but restrict their choice of a partner in a formal marriage arrangement. Gays have the choice and made the choice to marry a heterosexual partner. Choice of partner is already a standard restriction.

3. To disallow the state to control the choice of a partner based on "discrimination" would create a new category of protected class of citizens, based not on their individual characteristics -- race, sex, nationality, etc-- but on some sort of oddball "joint characteristic", which extends beyond their individuality but on their joint relationship. I think this would be a very dangerous and unwise precident.

Now, you can decide for yourself whether I am merely "disgruntled", or whether I have given this thoughtful and careful consideration.

Edited December 10, 2012 by cdowis

[canard78]

Do you think the bible or scripture in general could ever condone SSM?

Same sex marriage? I don't think the scriptures say anything on SSM. I believe and accept the LDS definition of marriage being between a man and woman. I believe and accept the LoC restricts sexual activity to married couples. But I also believe and accept AoF:

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I presume the current marriage definition will always be so. But then Peter probably wasn't expecting to get his revelation in Acts 10 either.

While it's the current status I'll sustain the Brethren.

[canard78]

Where is the line drawn between SSA and lust thoughts about someone of the same sex and sexual activity with someone of the opposite sex?

From a heterosexual perspective,we have been taught to think pure thoughts, to avoid lustful thoughts. We are told that as a man thinketh,so is he. Christ says that lusting after a woman can be the same as commiting adultery just as being angry with your neighbor can be considered sinful.

All this fuss over the separation between being homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity, seems to disregard the idea that we can and will be judged by our thoughts.The Church leaders may not be able to read thoughts and judge but that does not mean God cannot.

The fact that I know my thoughts , will condemn me as unrighteous and requiring the atonement .

The line should be drawn exactly where the Brethren have clearly, recently, drawn it. Whether straight or gay, being attracted to people is no sin. It's entirely natural.

If we are to be judged for lusting (which the scriptures suggest we will), both gay and straight will be judged in the same way.

Being homosexual doesn't make you more 'lustful' - people seem to be pretty good at that whatever their orientation.

It's this mis-perception of homosexuals that I think this website is trying to address. I repeat, being homosexual or heterosexual is not the issue. That is an unchosen orientation.

[canard78]

Yeah you probably right, the church should just release official declaration 3 tomorrow and start same sex sealings. (Sarcasm)

I'm glad you added the label I've made bold. Otherwise I might have never noticed based on the rest of the content of your post. (Not not sarcasm)

[Saints Alive]

I'm glad you added the label I've made bold. Otherwise I might have never noticed based on the rest of the content of your post. (Not not sarcasm)

You just blew my mind with that label. But seriously, I am less concerned with DOMA being upheld than a number of other more important issues.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

God will deliver the Saints who follow his law and establish Zion. Maybe I am a pessimist but I imagine that is a third of the Church at most and I am not sure if I am in that third.

Isaiah said a 10th of a 10th.

[The Nehor]

Isaiah said a 10th of a 10th.

So two people out of my ward. I may have to take a few people out so that the average righteousness level of my ward is lower so I have a chance. Where is my assault rifle?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So two people out of my ward. I may have to take a few people out so that the average righteousness level of my ward is lower so I have a chance. Where is my assault rifle?

In my gun case...you're late.