Lds Church Files Friend Of The Court Brief W/ Scotus Re: Prop 8, Doma

[rockpond]

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Blacks were not accepted because of their skin color. It wasn't about different behavior that blacks engage in; there isn't any, to my knowledge.

To be clear for you, behavior wasn't an issue with the black civil rights movement.

Gays currently have the same rights as everyone else as far as acceptance is concerned. That's where any comparison to black civil rights ends. Gays now want some of their behaviors, which are different from those straight people engage in, to be accepted without qualification. That's a significant difference.

Your last sentence, frankly, appears to be a blatant attempt to misrepresent what I was saying. It is only gay rights groups that are making the demand that gay behaviors be accepted. Other civil rights movements that I am aware of have not made acceptance of behaviors an issue in their movements.

Right. Gays don't look different, they just have different behavior. You have stated that the gay rights movement is somehow more pernicious because it is demanding acceptance of behaviors. In what other way would they gain equality?

I honestly was not trying to misrepresent what you were saying. If I did, I apologize. But I do think this idea of "behaviors" is an odd distinction to make. The civil rights movement was also about acceptance of behaviors, as I noted: education, voting, ability to eat/drink/ride in the same place, ability to marry the person they love.

[jwhitlock]

Right. Gays don't look different, they just have different behavior. You have stated that the gay rights movement is somehow more pernicious because it is demanding acceptance of behaviors. In what other way would they gain equality?

I honestly was not trying to misrepresent what you were saying. If I did, I apologize. But I do think this idea of "behaviors" is an odd distinction to make. The civil rights movement was also about acceptance of behaviors, as I noted: education, voting, ability to eat/drink/ride in the same place, ability to marry the person they love.

How many times do I have to emphasize that gays are demanding that we accept and embrace their behavior? Blacks never did such a thing. Gays already have the right to do what they want. What gay rights groups are demanding - and this is what is different from any other movement - is that we not only accept what they do, but we embrace it as normal and never let those behaviors qualify our acceptance of them or their inclusion in what we do. Our religious beliefs must be subordinated to their behaviors. Who we want to associate with in any situation must include them without regard to their behaviors. There are to be no exceptions.

That is extremely pernicious. I don't know why you seem to think that this is just something benign like riding a bus, but gays already can do what they want. They "just" want to force the rest of us to embrace it as normal.

That demand to control the thoughts and beliefs and rights of others for your own agenda is chilling, and is something absolutely unacceptable to any free-thinking person.

[rockpond]

I don't know why you seem to think that this is just something benign like riding a bus, but gays already can do what they want.

Except get legally married to the person they love.

And you don't have to accept it. Or believe it's normal for them to do it.

Just as some believed it was wrong to let a black man and a white woman get married. It took a supreme court ruling to allow that. And 45 years later you are still permitted to believe it's wrong.

[jwhitlock]

Except get legally married to the person they love.

Which segues right back to the point I was making all along. Leaving aside the special right being demanded by gays in this case, it's not going to stop with just getting married. The BSA situation indicates that gay rights groups are uncomfortable with anything that doesn't include them and what they want to do. Religious exemptions pertaining to SSM will be revoked. Churches will be required to perform them, and the LDS Church most likely will be sued by some gay rights group demanding that it perform sealings of gays in the temple. Gays already demand that our moral strictures pertaining to chastity - which we claim come from God - be modified to exempt homosexual behavior. It's not a matter of gay rights groups wanting just to do their own thing without recrimination. They already have that. Instead, they want to force acceptance of what they do - something that straight males find repugnant - upon us. We have to accept it, embrace it, not speak out against it, and include gays in everything we do without regard to activities that we might find morally reprehensible.

It's not really just as benign as "getting married".

[rockpond]

Which segues right back to the point I was making all along. Leaving aside the special right being demanded by gays in this case, it's not going to stop with just getting married. The BSA situation indicates that gay rights groups are uncomfortable with anything that doesn't include them and what they want to do. Religious exemptions pertaining to SSM will be revoked. Churches will be required to perform them, and the LDS Church most likely will be sued by some gay rights group demanding that it perform sealings of gays in the temple. Gays already demand that our moral strictures pertaining to chastity - which we claim come from God - be modified to exempt homosexual behavior. It's not a matter of gay rights groups wanting just to do their own thing without recrimination. They already have that. Instead, they want to force acceptance of what they do - something that straight males find repugnant - upon us. We have to accept it, embrace it, not speak out against it, and include gays in everything we do without regard to activities that we might find morally reprehensible.

It's not really just as benign as "getting married".

Well, yeah, the BSA is a great program. I don't fault them for wanting to be included.

Similarly, if someone is raised in the church and has a testimony I think it makes perfect sense to want to find ways to remain in the church without giving up on the reasonable desire for a committed, deep, and meaningful relationship.

That they want all that does not seem pernicious to me. That you feel it is repugnant doesn't seem particularly relevant. You can hold to that opinion no matter what. Although, if you could find within you the ability to let that feeling go -- gay marriage might seem a bit more benign to you.

And, considering that our church went for over 130 years excluding black couples from getting married in the temple... and were never forced to change that policy until our prophet received the revelation permitting it... I don't find your slippery slope argument particularly compelling.

Finally, if that did ever become the case, and our religious ordinances did ever become the subject of judicial scrutiny, I'd rather that we could look at our history and say our church fought for the rights of homosexual citizens rather than having this Prop 8 brief and others (like the Romer v Evans brief by Eyring, IIRC) weakening our moral stance, in my opinion.

Edited February 9, 2013 by rockpond

[Chaos]

This thread is going to be closed if there is arguing about gay marriage or race baiting. As an FYI, mods are not going to read pages and pages of posts to determine who is in the right or wrong asking for CFR so drop that as well.

[Kenngo1969]

I agree, JWhitlock. Once gay marriage is widely accepted in the United States (i.e., once it is accepted by more than the mere handful of jurisdictions which have legalized it to date), it will only be a matter of time before the "no-sex-outside-of-marriage" tail starts trying to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" dog where gays, lesbians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are concerned. (Yes, I know we have a First Amendment to the United States Constitution which is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but given the evolution of court decisions with respect to the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, I'm not sanguine that the Free Exercise clause will be enough to prevent it from happening eventually.)

Yes, I know I'm making a slippery-slope argument, and I know slippery-slope arguments are disfavored by the erudite. I hope I'm wrong, but I suppose that only time will tell.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[jwhitlock]

Well, I've made the point that I wanted to. The BSA situation is a clear indication of where gay rights groups are headed. Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will be warned. The battle lines are being drawn, and I suspect strongly that all these protestations that the church and its policies will remain unaffected by increasing special rights demanded by gay groups will eventually be shown for the kind of spin they really are.

[jwhitlock]

Finally, if that did ever become the case, and our religious ordinances did ever become the subject of judicial scrutiny, I'd rather that we could look at our history and say our church fought for the rights of homosexual citizens rather than having this Prop 8 brief and others (like the Romer v Evans brief by Eyring, IIRC) weakening our moral stance, in my opinion.

Our religious ordinances have already been the subject of unrighteous judicial scrutiny, and I'd rather look back and find that the church took a strong moral stand in a time when right was being labeled as wrong, and that which was evil was being labeled as good. I think the church has positioned itself to do so, under the direction of God, and will let the chips fall where they may. Righteous principles will not be compromised by demands from those who want us to conform.

[rockpond]

Our religious ordinances have already been the subject of unrighteous judicial scrutiny, and I'd rather look back and find that the church took a strong moral stand in a time when right was being labeled as wrong, and that which was evil was being labeled as good. I think the church has positioned itself to do so, under the direction of God, and will let the chips fall where they may. Righteous principles will not be compromised by demands from those who want us to conform.

When you say that our religious ordinances have already been subject to judicial scrutiny, are you referring to polygamy back around the turn of the century or something else that I'm overlooking?

And strong moral stands are great and important, but would you agree that sometimes we've been wrong and had to correct ourselves or do you not see that in our history?

[jwhitlock]

When you say that our religious ordinances have already been subject to judicial scrutiny, are you referring to polygamy back around the turn of the century or something else that I'm overlooking?

And strong moral stands are great and important, but would you agree that sometimes we've been wrong and had to correct ourselves or do you not see that in our history?

Frankly, my primary concern is being on the right side - with what the Lord wants - here and now. The church's position on all this not only makes sense to me but feels very right.

[rockpond]

Frankly, my primary concern is being on the right side - with what the Lord wants - here and now. The church's position on all this not only makes sense to me but feels very right.

Same here, my primary concern is what the Lord wants.

So were you gonna come back to those last two questions or are you done?

Edited February 10, 2013 by rockpond

[jwhitlock]

Same here, my primary concern is what the Lord wants.

So were you gonna come back to those last two questions or are you done?

I've made my point.

[semlogo]

Why should jwhitlock have to explain your own false premise?

This should answer your previous question to me.

[semlogo]

It is not that they want equality and inclusiveness, but they demand acceptance of every perversion known to man.

Hysteria.

[semlogo]

You continue to ignore my point that gay acceptance is demanded of their BEHAVIOR - something which no other group has ever demanded to the extent they are. It is intended to supersede rights to religious freedom and association, as clearly shown by the BSA situation. Until you address that point, and quite dancing around it, the rest of what you posted is irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscegenation

[semlogo]

You are avoiding the reality and I think you know it. Are you seriously telling me that you cannot fairly critique the gay culture as a whole? This board is not the place, nor would it be allowed, for anyone to draw the distinctions that you know very well exist. I am not talking about the entire culture, but I am most definitely addressing the dark, evil underbelly that you know exists. Why deny it? It always surprises me that you dodge this very issue repeatedly. You have seen my posts before, you know that I support SS marriage, but that does not mean and should not be interpreted to indicate that I support the gay culture "carte blanche". This whole issue would be very different if we were only discussing Tom and John getting married; that is not what is being asked for (dang, this sounds like a broken record and you seemed to have blanked it the first time); it is not. Tom and John have friends that cannot keep from having thousands of partners doing a broad range of things that any sane doctor would shout STOP. I do not need to list them; you know them yourself and it is highly deceitful for you to play the word game when you know we will not list them here.

Straight people don't have a dark underbelly? Just the gays?

[The Nehor]

Straight people don't have a dark underbelly? Just the gays?

Swingers and threesome havers are some of the most upright people on earth. Of course straight people are all pure as snow.

[AddamS]

DELETE - Wrong Thread

Edited February 11, 2013 by AddamS

[Kevin Kirkham]

For a thorough examination of Civil Same-Sex Marriage and LDS doctrine, please visit lds4gaymarriage.x90x.net

We are working on posting commentary on the Friend of the Court brief.

Civil comments are always welcome.

[Kevin Kirkham]

Legally, a gay person has the same ability to marry a person of the opposite sex as a non-gay person. I think you are wrong to suggest otherwise. A gay person may not have the desire to marry a person of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they do not have the right to do so.

Denying that the rights of gays to marry is infringed because they can marry someone of the opposite sex is little different than claiming that the religious rights of Christians in Saudi Arabia are denied because if they want to worship in public, they are free to attend a mosque like everyone else. Why should gays and Christians be granted "special rights"?

[Kevin Kirkham]

Legally, a gay person has the same ability to marry a person of the opposite sex as a non-gay person. I think you are wrong to suggest otherwise. A gay person may not have the desire to marry a person of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they do not have the right to do so.

Denying that the rights of gays to marry is infringed because they can marry someone of the opposite sex is little different than claiming that the religious rights of Christians in Saudi Arabia are denied because if they want to worship in public, they can attend a mosque like everyone else. Why should gays and Christians be granted "special rights"?

[smac97]

Denying that the rights of gays to marry

First, I am not denying "the rights of gays to marry." Gay people have the exact same access to marriage as everyone else.

Second, I do not believe there is a "right" to same-sex marriage (in a constitutional sense, that is).

is infringed because they can marry someone of the opposite sex is little different than claiming that the religious rights of Christians in Saudi Arabia are denied because if they want to worship in public,

It's a lot different.

they are free to attend a mosque like everyone else.

Apples and oranges. Religious observance and marital contracts are too dissimilar for an apt comparison. Nice try, tho!

Secular recognition of marriage is based on incentivizing procreation. Gay marriage does not, cannot, lead to procreation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

Denying that the rights of gays to marry is infringed because they can marry someone of the opposite sex is little different than claiming that the religious rights of Christians in Saudi Arabia are denied because if they want to worship in public, they can attend a mosque like everyone else. Why should gays and Christians be granted "special rights"?

I completely agree with you. Saying that there is no discrimination agaist gays marrying is like plugging your ears and yelling lalalalalalalalalalal. It would certainly be a laughable defense in a court of law.

Edited February 12, 2013 by california boy

[rockpond]

Secular recognition of marriage is based on incentivizing procreation. Gay marriage does not, cannot, lead to procreation.

And it's good that we, as a nation, continue to support such logic because what we really need is to encourage gay men to marry straight women and have kids.

Similarly, we wouldn't want to encourage homosexual couples to make life-long commitments to one another (and their God) because that would... ummm... nevermind, I can't think of anything bad that might come of that.

Edited February 12, 2013 by rockpond