The Nehor Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 If you don't "work" in the temple does the stipulation still hold? As far as I know no one is paid at the temple (at least not at the smaller ones without cafeterias or distribution centers)Security guards and some of the cleaning staff and maintenance staff.
blackstrap Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 Oh,there are a few more than that. There are full time paid positions that run temple administration.
Saints Alive Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 Security guards and some of the cleaning staff and maintenance staff.Oh,there are a few more than that. There are full time paid positions that run temple administration.That must be unique to the larger temples. I would think it would be possible to run temples without paid staff.
california boy Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 That's why everyone will first be married legally by the state. Then a church can privately marry according to its own rules in a separate ceremony which the state would not recognize as binding.You seem to be against gay marriage, but I am sure you realize that if the state had civil unions for everyone and then allowed churches to perform marriages, then gay marriage would also be the law of the land since there are plenty of churches that would allow for gay marriage. So are you saying that you really have no objection to gay marrriage? Or just gay marriages performed by civil authority. 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 CB:I don't approve of SSM, but I can think of no rational legal reason why it should be prohibited. Just like I don't personally approve of drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, or hitting yourself in the nose.
Bart Burk Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 You seem to be against gay marriage, but I am sure you realize that if the state had civil unions for everyone and then allowed churches to perform marriages, then gay marriage would also be the law of the land since there are plenty of churches that would allow for gay marriage. So are you saying that you really have no objection to gay marrriage? Or just gay marriages performed by civil authority.I object to gay marriage. But I'm especially against churches being compelled to administer gay marriages.
Bart Burk Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 CB:I don't approve of SSM, but I can think of no rational legal reason why it should be prohibited. Just like I don't personally approve of drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, or hitting yourself in the nose.It is really about what the proper role of government is in regards to marriage. I suspect the rationale in the past was based on a perceived need to protect wives and children from abusive and deadbeat husbands. Maybe that is no longer necessary.
Saints Alive Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 I object to gay marriage. But I'm especially against churches being compelled to administer gay marriages.Unfortunately the number of churches opposed to administering to gay marriages is shrinking. Besides us and Catholics, there arent many denominations that dont have at least some of their ministers preforming gay marriages.
california boy Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 I object to gay marriage. But I'm especially against churches being compelled to administer gay marriages.Like you I am also against churches being compelled to administer gay marriages. I actually am also against the government not allowing churches to legally marry gay people if they so wish. 1
california boy Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 CB:I don't approve of SSM, but I can think of no rational legal reason why it should be prohibited. Just like I don't personally approve of drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, or hitting yourself in the nose.Thank you. I wish more Mormons could have that attitude. It seems more in fitting both with what this country stands for and the free agency given to us by God. 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 Thank you. I wish more Mormons could have that attitude. It seems more in fitting both with what this country stands for and the free agency given to us by God.CB:We are always responsible for our own actions after about 8 years of age, but as sexual orientation seems to come pretty early in life. I don't know how much Agency is involved in orientation.
cdowis Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 Thank you. I wish more Mormons could have that attitude. It seems more in fitting both with what this country stands for and the free agency given to us by God.How do you feel about legalized prostitution or drugs?
Vookman Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 This is probably too simple, but the reason marriage is to be sanctioned between a man and a woman is because that is how children should be raised. Telling frisky roommates they can now raise children is not a good idea. Civil Unions for everyone.Marriage for a man and woman.Children have a right to both of their parents. To me, that is the only real issue at stake here, since SSM will then define a right of those SSM to children. 1
Walden Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 How do you feel about legalized prostitution or drugs?I can't speak for california boy, but personally, I am of the opinion that what two consenting adults do behind closed doors and which does not cause harm to others is their own business, not mine.Prostitution is legal in Nevada, and from my knowledge, I have not seen it have any statistically significant effects on the population there with regard to family stability, divorce rates, abuse of women, etc., etc.And drugs? Personally, I will never see the logic of condoning alcohol use while forbidding drug use. Alcohol is infinitely more deadly and poisonous than marijuana, yet anyone 21 years of age can go to any local corner store and purchase as much alcohol as they can afford. Again, I am of the mindset that if you are a consenting adult who uses drugs recreationally and you are not causing harm to others, then that is your business, not mine.As you can see, I am essentially a libertarian when it comes to social issues. 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 How do you feel about legalized prostitution or drugs?As long as it between freely consenting adults, that means no pimps/alcohol/drugs, then it should be between the prostitute and her/his customers.Remove most drugs from the Schedule One class, except for Heroin, and put them into the Schedule 2 class. Offer free to low cost treatment programs for those that want to get off drugs entirely.
wenglund Posted December 12, 2012 Posted December 12, 2012 From what I have read, the legalizing of gay marriage for the entire country is not what is before the court.Correct. If the two cases before the court are ruled as unconstitutional, then at best California will allow SSM and the federal government will be obliged to extend federal benefits (tax deductions, etc.) to SSMs in the states where it is has been legalized. All the state DOMA laws and constitutions will remain standing (at least for now), and because of past federal rulings regarding "full faith and credit," the states in which SSM is not legalized will not be obliged to recognize the SSMes of those states where it is legalized.However, if the two cases are ruled unconstitutional, the legal precedence set thereby may well have a domino effect on the laws of the 40 or so states where currently only traditional marriage is legal.The only way I can see this being reversed is through a federal constitutional amendment.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
RobertAC Posted December 13, 2012 Author Posted December 13, 2012 All the state DOMA laws and constitutions will remain standing (at least for now), and because of past federal rulings regarding "full faith and credit," the states in which SSM is not legalized will not be obliged to recognize the SSMes of those states where it is legalized.I was surprised by that. I thought for sure that DOMA was being challenged under the FF&C clause. I did not know that it was being challenged as a benefits case and that whether DOMA violated the FF&C clause was not at issue. Learn something every day.
wenglund Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) I was surprised by that. I thought for sure that DOMA was being challenged under the FF&C clause. I did not know that it was being challenged as a benefits case and that whether DOMA violated the FF&C clause was not at issue.Learn something every day.It is my understanding that the DOMA in question is the federal law, not state DOMAs. The FF&C applies between the states ("Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."), and not to the federal government. But, I could be wrong. The courts have, over the years, taken such latitude with the Constitution that it is possible the the FF&C clause is now being used in ways it never was originally intended.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited December 13, 2012 by wenglund
The Nehor Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 How do you feel about legalized prostitution or drugs?I think we need to legalize pederasty and a eugenics programs first.
california boy Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) How do you feel about legalized prostitution or drugs?I am more of the consenting adult frame of mind as well. Edited December 13, 2012 by california boy
california boy Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 Correct. If the two cases before the court are ruled as unconstitutional, then at best California will allow SSM and the federal government will be obliged to extend federal benefits (tax deductions, etc.) to SSMs in the states where it is has been legalized. All the state DOMA laws and constitutions will remain standing (at least for now), and because of past federal rulings regarding "full faith and credit," the states in which SSM is not legalized will not be obliged to recognize the SSMes of those states where it is legalized.However, if the two cases are ruled unconstitutional, the legal precedence set thereby may well have a domino effect on the laws of the 40 or so states where currently only traditional marriage is legal.The only way I can see this being reversed is through a federal constitutional amendment.Thanks, -Wade Englund-You might want to look at my post #19 as well as post #132, The rulings could be very narrow, but there is also a possibility for the rulings to be much more broad. I would love it if you had a conservative analysis of what is before the court for a comparison.
california boy Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 I was surprised by that. I thought for sure that DOMA was being challenged under the FF&C clause. I did not know that it was being challenged as a benefits case and that whether DOMA violated the FF&C clause was not at issue.Learn something every day.There are actually 6 DOMA cases that have been struck down by both state judges and federal judges before the Supreme Court. Only one of them has to do with benefits. The one that the Surpreme Court actually picked up has to do with unfair federal inheritance taxes. But the application of that case will undoubtably strike down all federal DOMA laws. Few people believe that DOMA will be upheld.
thesometimesaint Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 There are actually 6 DOMA cases that have been struck down by both state judges and federal judges before the Supreme Court. Only one of them has to do with benefits. The one that the Surpreme Court actually picked up has to do with unfair federal inheritance taxes. But the application of that case will undoubtably strike down all federal DOMA laws. Few people believe that DOMA will be upheld.Just when I think I have the USSC figured out they go and amaze all over again.
AddamS Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 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.I would offer there is a difference between biological attraction and lust.
thesometimesaint Posted December 13, 2012 Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) There is...http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=3232 Edited December 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Recommended Posts