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

[ERayR]

The discrimination arises when one person loves another person and wants to legally name them as their beneficiary or heir, and cannot because the legal system prohibits their association as spouses, which is presently the only legally recognized relationship granting those rights to so-designate.

.

Just noticed this. It is not accurate that they can not be named as beneficiary. You can name anyone you want as beneficiary even a comple stranger or ones pet animal. What is prohibited is the spousal tax benefits.

[Kenngo1969]

. . . There are clear and real dangers associated with providing special privileges and rights based on behavioral traits. The government has and will enforce whatever agenda it feels is politically expedient for it to do so, without regard to religious or other exemptions.

The lame claim by SSM supporters that we are imposing our religious beliefs on others is a sham. Opening the door to SSM from a government licensing and recognition standpoint will eventually lead to government mandates concerning marriages by religious organizations. . . .

Yep. And to anyone who claims, "Oh, the federal government, via the courts, will never attempt to dictate religious practice to a church because we have a First Amendment which contains a Free Exercise clause," I say, "It already has. Anyone remember Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)? Once same-sex marriage gains legal recognition in most jurisdictions (all U.S. jurisdictions but one, perhaps), an "otherwise-devout" same-sex couple will proclaim, "We have as strong a testimony of the events of the Restoration as anyone. We are as faithful as anyone [in all respects but one, perhaps]. There's no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to be sealed for time and for all eternity in one of the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

They will seek to have their union so solemnized. The Church of Jesus Christ will refuse. They will then turn to the courts for redress. Since same-sex marriage will then be legal almost everywhere (in all jurisdictions but one, perhaps), the trial court will do what trial courts do: it will weigh the (now ample) precedent in favor of the couple's position and the (now ample) precedent against the Church's position ("Every jurisdiction but one . . ."), and it will rule in favor of the couple. The Church of Jesus Christ will appeal. The appellate court will do what appellate courts do: it will weigh the (now ample) precedent in favor of the couple's position and the (now ample) precedent against the Church's position ("Every jurisdiction but one . . ."), and it will uphold the trial court's decision in favor of the couple. The Church of Jesus Christ again will appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court (and who knows what the Court's composition will look like then, after several Obama appointees are named to it, along with those of several of his like-minded successors), will do what courts do: it will weigh the (now ample) precedent in favor of the couple's position and the (now ample) precedent against the Church's position ("Every jurisdiction but one . . .") and will uphold the decisions of the courts below.

And, although it will have taken awhile, we'll then have the federal government (via the courts) to thank that we now have gay sealings in the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

Since you keep tap dancing around the real issue, which is that this social experiment will impinge upon our (not only in our church, but others) religious rights and the rights of association, I'll note that your loose interpretation of "doing the right things" doesn't apply in this case. It is not the right thing to support SSM. It is not the will of the Lord. Your speculation about whether the Prophet will start receiving revelation from Satan is irrelevant. There are clear and real dangers associated with providing special privileges and rights based on behavioral traits. The government has and will enforce whatever agenda it feels is politically expedient for it to do so, without regard to religious or other exemptions.

The lame claim by SSM supporters that we are imposing our religious beliefs on others is a sham. Opening the door to SSM from a government licensing and recognition standpoint will eventually lead to government mandates concerning marriages by religious organizations. Enshrining homosexual behavior in our society as privileged and not subject to any discrimination of any sort - and that discrimination will be determined by the government and gay rights groups, thank you - will lead to economic, political, regulatory, and other types of sanctions against churches. There is a clear and real danger here, and simple denials of that agenda in the face of what's going on with the BSA, with government licensing, with past government sanctions against churches for purely religious beliefs that it didn't agree with, are disingenuous.

Social experimentation, while necessary, has its limits, and we are going to find that this particular social experiment is going to have some severe consequences, some intended, and some unintended.

Whoa - I did not suggest that the prophet would start receiving revelation from Satan. I posed a hypothetical. A reasonable hypothetical and one that you dodged.

Your argument continues to hinge on a prediction that granting marriage equality would lead the government to taking away religious liberties. So you are suggesting we deny those liberties to homosexuals as a means of making sure our liberties are protected. I fundamentally disagree with such an approach.

You want the marriages in our temples to be legally recognized by the state. Yet you want marriages by other churches, those who believe in same sex unions, to not be recognized by the state. You are committing the act that you don't want committed upon us. You want a special privilege for our church that you are not willing to grant others.

[california boy]

Well there you go. You've admitted we have a precedent for the government to force a church to do something that's outside of its constitutional authority. That eliminates your slippery slope misdirection.

Despite your dismissive claims that we're just "fear mongering", clear evidence of what's going on today indicates otherwise. You basically want us to stick our heads in the sand and act as if nothings going to happen, while gay rights groups run roughshod over our religious and associative rights. That's where we're headed, and I'd rather believe my lying eyes with what I see and what I read, rather than your ridiculous emotional responses.

Gay rights groups want religious and associative rights subordinated to inclusion and embracing of their behavior and lifestyle. That's clear from the BSA situation. If they can't take control of an organization and force change, then they will use legal means to do so. Religious exemptions (or any other promise) written into law aren't worth the paper they're written on, as evidenced by the church's experience with polygamy, and Indian treaties. Gay rights groups have already set the stage for punishing the church; you just need to go look at Affirmation's web site to get an idea of how they really feel about us.

Face it. Those who run gay rights groups are diametrically opposed to everything we as Latter-day Saints stand for. Their agendas are incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ. They do not want to co-exist with us. They want to punish us for our opposition to their agendas, and they will not forget that once they get the upper hand. How soon you want us to forget the vitriol heaped upon us by your people after Prop 8 was passed.

We raise valid concerns, you dismiss them with demeaning emotionalism. At every opportunity, you use race baiting to demean the church and to make invalid comparisons with what gay rights groups are demanding - an elite status that was never the object of the black civil rights movement. There's plenty of evidence out there for the way this is headed, and simply trying to dismiss it in they way you do isn't going to change that direction - though I'm sure that you'd like us to ignore what's happening behind the curtain over there.

There is not a single law that has been passed that someone could not come up with a slippery slope argument to predict the spiral downfall of society. You think that coming up with a slippery slope arguments proves or predicts any facts? It does not. It is sheer speculation. I especially find the fantasy that gays are fighting against EVERYTHING the church stands for laughable. Oh brother.

[jwhitlock]

Whoa - I did not suggest that the prophet would start receiving revelation from Satan. I posed a hypothetical. A reasonable hypothetical and one that you dodged.

It was an unreasonable speculation, given the clear history of what the Lord has said on the subject, and hence I posed the only possible explanation for how that could happen.

Your argument continues to hinge on a prediction that granting marriage equality would lead the government to taking away religious liberties. So you are suggesting we deny those liberties to homosexuals as a means of making sure our liberties are protected. I fundamentally disagree with such an approach.

Again, nothing is being denied to homosexuals that is available to anyone else. I have been very clear that the granting of elite privileges to gays would result in religious and associative freedoms being subordinated to those privileges. I'm not making that up; that is the agenda being pursed currently by gay rights groups, as evident with the BSA situation.

You want the marriages in our temples to be legally recognized by the state. Yet you want marriages by other churches, those who believe in same sex unions, to not be recognized by the state. You are committing the act that you don't want committed upon us. You want a special privilege for our church that you are not willing to grant others.

I'll clear up your confusion. I want marriage to remain structured as something between a man and a woman. No special privilege there, since it is not restricted to just certain groups. I do not want special privileges to be made available to gays that will eventually result in my religious and associative rights being changed. It's as simple as that.

[cdowis]

Marriage was declared a fundamental civil right by SCOTUS (Loving v Virginia). That fundamental civil right is denied to a homosexual if you restrict it to someone of the opposite gender because they lack the ability to enter into a meaningful heterosexual relationship.

We agree that marriage is a fundamental right, but the law places "reasonable" restrictions on that right. It does not address the issue on whether the marriage itself has to be a "meaningful" relationship. Marital satisfaction and adjustment is not a matter of Constitutional law.

[jwhitlock]

There is not a single law that has been passed that someone could not come up with a slippery slope argument to predict the spiral downfall of society. You think that coming up with a slippery slope arguments proves or predicts any facts? It does not. It is sheer speculation. I especially find the fantasy that gays are fighting against EVERYTHING the church stands for laughable. Oh brother.

I've explained rather clearly what I think is going to happen, and why. Gay rights groups' stated agendas have supported what I think is going to happen. Evidently, all you can do to respond is to denigrate the clear evidence I have, and dismiss it with inane responses like this.

You seem to be prone to inaccuracies about my position. My concern is with gay rights groups and those that promote gay behavior as normal and demand that we embrace it - not with gays in general. I have been clear about that; I would suggest that you be accurate in your responses with that in mind. With that clarification, it is very true that the agendas of gay rights groups and the restored gospel are diametrically opposed to each other. They are and will always be incompatible, and gay rights groups want nothing less than to subordinate religious faith and rights of association to their demands and agendas. Homosexual behavior is to be accepted and embraced, and there should be no restriction of inclusion by gays in anything, according to such groups, based on that behavior. Religious beliefs, doctrines, religious exemptions don't matter. Those are to be subordinated to the politically correct concept that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and those who believe otherwise are to be punished.

Anyone who wants to can come to the same conclusions if they take the time to read what gay rights groups themselves are stating. No speculation needed. Apparently, your knee-jerk dismissals of any evidence that brings that to light indicates that you don't want people to think too deeply about the consequences of this social experiment, and instead just blindly accept the mantra that it's only about "committed relationships" and doing what's "fair" and "right". While that probably works with lots of people, it doesn't work with anyone who actually studies what is going on.

So how about actually engaging in a discussion about those stated agendas, rather than just dismissing clear evidence contrary to your position?

[rockpond]

We agree that marriage is a fundamental right, but the law places "reasonable" restrictions on that right. It does not address the issue on whether the marriage itself has to be a "meaningful" relationship. Marital satisfaction and adjustment is not a matter of Constitutional law.

Fortunately, fewer and fewer people are seeing that as a reasonable restriction.

[rockpond]

It was an unreasonable speculation, given the clear history of what the Lord has said on the subject, and hence I posed the only possible explanation for how that could happen.

Again, nothing is being denied to homosexuals that is available to anyone else. I have been very clear that the granting of elite privileges to gays would result in religious and associative freedoms being subordinated to those privileges. I'm not making that up; that is the agenda being pursed currently by gay rights groups, as evident with the BSA situation.

I'll clear up your confusion. I want marriage to remain structured as something between a man and a woman. No special privilege there, since it is not restricted to just certain groups. I do not want special privileges to be made available to gays that will eventually result in my religious and associative rights being changed. It's as simple as that.

What precisely has the Lord said on this subject? Mine is a reasonable hypothetical which you have still dodged.

The ability to legally marry the person of their choosing is denied homosexuals.

The BSA situation is evident of nothing since SCOTUS has upheld their right of association. That certain gay rights groups are asking or even demanding for things does not grant any validity to what they want.

And yes, I realize that you want marriage to be legally defined in such a way that privileges you as a heterosexual and continues to deny homosexuals the fundamental right of marriage to a person of their choosing (Loving v Virginia).

[jwhitlock]

Fortunately, fewer and fewer people are seeing that as a reasonable restriction.

Probably because more and more people aren't thinking beyond the five second sound bites that society feeds us nowadays.

Here's a question for you. Why should the reasonable restriction on same gender marriage be lifted, while leaving other reasonable restrictions in place? What makes SSM eligible for treatment as a special privilege, while leaving other restrictions in place?

[rockpond]

Probably because more and more people aren't thinking beyond the five second sound bites that society feeds us nowadays.

Here's a question for you. Why should the reasonable restriction on same gender marriage be lifted, while leaving other reasonable restrictions in place? What makes SSM eligible for treatment as a special privilege, while leaving other restrictions in place?

Again, I'm not asking for special privileges for homosexuals. Just the same privilege to marry the person of their choosing.

Should that choice continue to be restricted to a consenting adult? Yes. Is that the restriction to which you are referring?

Or are you referring to polygamist marriages? I don't have a problem with those being legal and I struggle to understand why any Latter-day Saint would be against the legalization of polygamy.

[jwhitlock]

What precisely has the Lord said on this subject? Mine is a reasonable hypothetical which you have still dodged.

I gather you aren't familiar, then, with the basics of what the Lord has commanded concerning moral chastity. Do a little more study and come back with your own answer on that.

And I haven't dodged anything. It won't happen. The Lord won't give any kind of revelation that contradicts what he has clearly and consistently commanded in the past. Evidently you have a low standard for determining what "reasonable" speculations are.

The ability to legally marry the person of their choosing is denied homosexuals.

Lots of people are restricted by law as to what marriage relationships they may enter into. Why should any restrictions remain in place? There is no compelling reason to alter the current arrangement in the name of some social experiment.

The BSA situation is evident of nothing since SCOTUS has upheld their right of association. That certain gay rights groups are asking or even demanding for things does not grant any validity to what they want.

Irrelevant to the point I'm making. The BSA situation is a clear indication of what the real agenda of gay rights groups is. That agenda needs to be considered when looking at their demands for SSM - and how they're going to want it enforced in the future.

And yes, I realize that you want marriage to be legally defined in such a way that privileges you as a heterosexual and continues to deny homosexuals the fundamental right of marriage to a person of their choosing (Loving v Virginia).

If this is the rationalization that you use to justify your dismissive attitude towards those who have problems with SSM, then I can understand why you're confused. Perhaps you should tell us why gays should be allowed to marry persons of the same sex, while other people should remain restricted in their "fundamental" right of marriage to a person(s)/objects of their choice.

[jwhitlock]

Again, I'm not asking for special privileges for homosexuals. Just the same privilege to marry the person of their choosing.

No, you're asking for special privileges. Marriage is restricted to between a man and a woman. Anyone who wants to can marry within that structure. Why should we remove the restriction against marrying someone of the same sex for gays, while keeping other just as reasonable restrictions in place? These include age restrictions, group restrictions, and non-human restrictions.

Should that choice continue to be restricted to a consenting adult? Yes. Is that the restriction to which you are referring?

If restrictions on SSM are found to be "unreasonable", then there is no consistent legal reason for retaining this restriction. The way our government deals with underage adults in various situations certainly indicates a great deal of dysfunctional understanding on their part as to what is reasonable.

Or are you referring to polygamist marriages? I don't have a problem with those being legal and I struggle to understand why any Latter-day Saint would be against the legalization of polygamy.

I gather, then, that you're also fine with group marriages, temporary marriage arrangements, and any other arrangement that someone can come up with. So long as they should be allowed the "fundamental right" to marry someone of their choosing, there shouldn't be any restrictions at all, should there.

[Kenngo1969]

With regard to the former Priesthood restriction, there was always a sizeable contingent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (arguably it may have been a minority at some point, but it was still sizeable nonetheless, and this contingent was comprised of members at all levels within the Church) which anticipated a future day when the restriction eventually would be lifted. I am unaware of a similar contingent in the Church currently which holds such a view with respect to same-sex marriage. My two cents, and food for thought for whatever it might be worth (actual value 1.6979353713 cents, perhaps).

Edited February 16, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

I gather you aren't familiar, then, with the basics of what the Lord has commanded concerning moral chastity. Do a little more study and come back with your own answer on that.

And I haven't dodged anything. It won't happen. The Lord won't give any kind of revelation that contradicts what he has clearly and consistently commanded in the past. Evidently you have a low standard for determining what "reasonable" speculations are.

Lots of people are restricted by law as to what marriage relationships they may enter into. Why should any restrictions remain in place? There is no compelling reason to alter the current arrangement in the name of some social experiment.

Irrelevant to the point I'm making. The BSA situation is a clear indication of what the real agenda of gay rights groups is. That agenda needs to be considered when looking at their demands for SSM - and how they're going to want it enforced in the future.

If this is the rationalization that you use to justify your dismissive attitude towards those who have problems with SSM, then I can understand why you're confused. Perhaps you should tell us why gays should be allowed to marry persons of the same sex, while other people should remain restricted in their "fundamental" right of marriage to a person(s)/objects of their choice.

I'm quite familiar with the law of chastity, thanks. And I am not aware of the Lord having spoken to us regarding same sex marriages. Yet.

You have dodged the hypothetical. Are you willing to muzzle what the Lord could reveal to His prophet on this matter?

You keep citing the BSA example but SCOTUS has affirmed their right of association. That groups are making demands to the contrary doesn't change the court's decision. I will stipulate that all kinda of groups are making all kinds of unconstitutional demands if you will stipulate that SCOTUS has, in fact, upheld the BSA's rights.

I am being dismissive? You have, several times now, refused to answer my questions. Despite that, I have continued to engage with you on this topic.

Since an object cannot consent to marriage nor enter into a contract, I'm not quite sure how that would work. But if you'd like to make a case for why a person should be allowed to marry an object -- go for it! I'm listening.

[rockpond]

No, you're asking for special privileges. Marriage is restricted to between a man and a woman. Anyone who wants to can marry within that structure. Why should we remove the restriction against marrying someone of the same sex for gays, while keeping other just as reasonable restrictions in place? These include age restrictions, group restrictions, and non-human restrictions.

If restrictions on SSM are found to be "unreasonable", then there is no consistent legal reason for retaining this restriction. The way our government deals with underage adults in various situations certainly indicates a great deal of dysfunctional understanding on their part as to what is reasonable.

I gather, then, that you're also fine with group marriages, temporary marriage arrangements, and any other arrangement that someone can come up with. So long as they should be allowed the "fundamental right" to marry someone of their choosing, there shouldn't be any restrictions at all, should there.

I have not argued against the reasonable restriction theory that has been put forth on this thread. I think it's reasonable to only allow consenting adults into marriages. I don't think it's reasonable to tell homosexuals that they can only marry people of the opposite gender.

And it's not a special privilege. In states with marriage equality you too can marry someone of your same gender. But I imagine that is as unappealing to you as marrying someone of the opposite gender is to a gay person.

[rockpond]

With regard to the former Priesthood restriction, there was always a sizeable contingent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (arguably it may have been a minority at some point, but it was still sizeable nonetheless, and this contingent was comprised of members at all levels within the Church) which anticipated a future day when the restriction eventually would be lifted. I am unaware of a similar contingent in the Church currently which holds such a view with respect to same-sex marriage. My two cents, and food for thought for whatever it might be worth (actual value 1.6979353713 cents, perhaps).

There are actually a number of groups comprised of active LDS who anticipate a future day when restrictions against committed gay relationships will be lifted.

And you can, obviously, count me in amongst that minority.

[jwhitlock]

I'm quite familiar with the law of chastity, thanks. And I am not aware of the Lord having spoken to us regarding same sex marriages. Yet.

I'll state the obvious for you. For the Lord to allow SSM, He would have to start condoning homosexual behavior. That would be contradictory to His past commandments. Get it yet?

You have dodged the hypothetical. Are you willing to muzzle what the Lord could reveal to His prophet on this matter?

I've told you it won't happen. And you keep telling me I'm dodging it. Take the blinders off. And it's not a matter of "muzzling" what the Lord could reveal to His prophet; it's a matter of pointing out that painting such a speculation as "reasonable" is rather ridiculous. I guess that the same possibility exists that God could tell us that Satan was right all along about the way things should be run, and that's a reasonable speculation too.

Not.

You keep citing the BSA example but SCOTUS has affirmed their right of association. That groups are making demands to the contrary doesn't change the court's decision. I will stipulate that all kinda of groups are making all kinds of unconstitutional demands if you will stipulate that SCOTUS has, in fact, upheld the BSA's rights.

And I keep telling you that's not the point. The point is that the BSA situation has clearly show what gay rights groups' real agenda is when it comes to eventually trying to force us to embrace their demands. They've already made demands that the courts have upheld that I consider unconstitutional, but that also doesn't seem to stop you from tap dancing around this one.

BTW, SCOTUS upheld BSA's rights, and then gay groups and governments they could influence promptly proceeded to use other methods to punish the BSA. So inferring that gay rights groups won't be able to implement their agendas falls rather flat, given the fact that they've been progressing steadily in implementing them.

I am being dismissive? You have, several times now, refused to answer my questions. Despite that, I have continued to engage with you on this topic

It's precisely what you're doing. SSM supporters seem to have this capability for taking something and simply dismissing it - such as you stating that I'm refusing to answer your questions, when I've been doing exactly that. And then, of course, we have the obligatory long-suffering ending. I've notice that SSM supporters tend to misrepresent what those who oppose them say and do; I don't buy that kind of rationalization as legitimate.

Since an object cannot consent to marriage nor enter into a contract, I'm not quite sure how that would work. But if you'd like to make a case for why a person should be allowed to marry an object -- go for it! I'm listening.

It sounds like a reasonable restriction to me. However, if we're going to drop one reasonable restriction, then everything else better be examined under the same standard of reasonableness and dropped if it's not consistent.

Speaking of not answering questions, I don't think you've answered mine about why gays should have a special right in place to marry someone of their choice, while others shouldn't have that same right to marry someone of their choice. I'll make it easy for you. Tell us why there should be any age restrictions at all when it comes to marriage. Then tell us why there's a compelling reason to allow gays to alter the definition of marriage in the name of marrying someone of their choice.

[Kevin Kirkham]

RP - Section 134 tells us that we should not impose our religious beliefs to "bind the consciences of men". Seems applicable to me.

KK - 1 Cor. 10:29 tells us that we should NOT have supported Prop. 8.

In context, verses 27 through 33 have Paul saying that we should limit our otherwise allowed behaviors if they offend others, which offense may cause them to reject the Gospel. In verse 29, though, Paul says that we do this only for the sake of the others' conscience/feelings and rejects the idea that the opinions of others can limit our freedom of action. If the opinions of others can't limit our freedom, how can we hypocritically state that OUR opinions CAN limit the freedom of others in violation of 1 Cor. 5:11-13?

Verse 30 says that since Paul is saved through grace (and not by living the Law of Moses), why should he be condemned for doing something that the Law of Moses condemns? He is saying that he is not subject to the law of Moses and therefore his liberty can't be judged/limited/condemned by it. He doesn't accept the idea of those following the old laws are able to limit his freedom of action in what he can do. He will voluntarily refrain from doing things forbidden under the old law so as to not offend those still under that law, but the old law does not restrict him otherwise, for why should his liberty/rights/freedom of action be judged/limited/ restricted by another man's conscience/personal moral beliefs?

Homosexuals in CA **HAD** the right/liberty to marry and we blatantly disregarded 1 Cor. 10:29 by letting our consciences infringe upon the liberties of others. D&C 134:4 talks about those who allow their religious opinions to prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others and that is EXACTLY what we did in supporting Prop. 8.

It was forbidden to touch the ark of the covenant, yet someone thought that it'd be OK to prevent something bad from potentially happening (the ark being damaged in a fall), yet God believed that we should do what is right (not touching the ark) and letting the consequence follow (it possibly being harmed). Prop. 8 is the exact same thing. We, as a church, steadied the ark by disobeying what scripture saying about using our own moral opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others because we wanted to avoid something bad from happening. We steadied the ark in our open rebellion against the revealed and sustained word of God. We need to repent.

[jwhitlock]

I have not argued against the reasonable restriction theory that has been put forth on this thread. I think it's reasonable to only allow consenting adults into marriages. I don't think it's reasonable to tell homosexuals that they can only marry people of the opposite gender.

Why is it reasonable to allow only consenting adults into marriages? There would appear to be no standard of reasonableness that would keep age restrictions in place while removing gender restrictions for gays.

And it's not a special privilege. In states with marriage equality you too can marry someone of your same gender.

Guess what? That makes it a special privilege in those states. They've expanded the definition of marriage to cater to the preferences of a small minority group, without allowing other minority groups the same privilege.

But I imagine that is as unappealing to you as marrying someone of the opposite gender is to a gay person.

Here's one of the big myths that SSM supporters propagate. The reality is that there are a surprising number of gay people who are happily married to someone of the opposite sex. I am not aware of any situation where someone who identifies himself as straight is happily married to a person of the same sex. Interesting, isn't it, that there are actually gay people who use the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and do it quite successfully.

Those aren't the types of gays that gay rights groups are particularly fond of. I believe they have some rather derogatory terms for people who don't fit their way of how gays should act and what they should desire.

[jwhitlock]

It was forbidden to touch the ark of the covenant, yet someone thought that it'd be OK to prevent something bad from potentially happening (the ark being damaged in a fall), yet God believed that we should do what is right (not touching the ark) and letting the consequence follow (it possibly being harmed). Prop. 8 is the exact same thing. We, as a church, steadied the ark by disobeying what scripture saying about using our own moral opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others because we wanted to avoid something bad from happening. We steadied the ark in our open rebellion against the revealed and sustained word of God. We need to repent.

Thanks for sharing the kind of rationalizations needed to justify SSM. It's always interesting to see how scripture can be twisted to justify the agenda of the world.

[rockpond]

I'll state the obvious for you. For the Lord to allow SSM, He would have to start condoning homosexual behavior. That would be contradictory to His past commandments. Get it yet?

I've told you it won't happen. And you keep telling me I'm dodging it. Take the blinders off. And it's not a matter of "muzzling" what the Lord could reveal to His prophet; it's a matter of pointing out that painting such a speculation as "reasonable" is rather ridiculous. I guess that the same possibility exists that God could tell us that Satan was right all along about the way things should be run, and that's a reasonable speculation too.

Not.

And I keep telling you that's not the point. The point is that the BSA situation has clearly show what gay rights groups' real agenda is when it comes to eventually trying to force us to embrace their demands. They've already made demands that the courts have upheld that I consider unconstitutional, but that also doesn't seem to stop you from tap dancing around this one.

BTW, SCOTUS upheld BSA's rights, and then gay groups and governments they could influence promptly proceeded to use other methods to punish the BSA. So inferring that gay rights groups won't be able to implement their agendas falls rather flat, given the fact that they've been progressing steadily in implementing them.

It's precisely what you're doing. SSM supporters seem to have this capability for taking something and simply dismissing it - such as you stating that I'm refusing to answer your questions, when I've been doing exactly that. And then, of course, we have the obligatory long-suffering ending. I've notice that SSM supporters tend to misrepresent what those who oppose them say and do; I don't buy that kind of rationalization as legitimate.

It sounds like a reasonable restriction to me. However, if we're going to drop one reasonable restriction, then everything else better be examined under the same standard of reasonableness and dropped if it's not consistent.

Speaking of not answering questions, I don't think you've answered mine about why gays should have a special right in place to marry someone of their choice, while others shouldn't have that same right to marry someone of their choice. I'll make it easy for you. Tell us why there should be any age restrictions at all when it comes to marriage. Then tell us why there's a compelling reason to allow gays to alter the definition of marriage in the name of marrying someone of their choice.

To declare that the Lord would be contradicting himself, you would first need to establish where He has spoken against same gender marriages.

In this dispensation the Lord has twice revealed changes to the temple marriage definition. My hypothetical stands even if you aren't willing to address it.

Yes, gay rights groups have been successful. Mostly in areas that I support. I'm sorry you don't. But I understand. The "gay rights groups'" agendas don't keep me awake at night.

I have never intentionally misrepresented you. Where I have unintentionally misrepresented you, I accept your clarifications. I don't anticipate either of us changing the view of the other. But I figure the point of the dialogue here is to work towards understanding each other. And that's my goal.

I thought I had answered your question about others having the ability to choose the person they want to marry. But I can't flesh out the strawman for you. If you have a case of someone being denied a right, make it.

[rockpond]

Why is it reasonable to allow only consenting adults into marriages? There would appear to be no standard of reasonableness that would keep age restrictions in place while removing gender restrictions for gays.

I think that as a society we recognize a lack of full maturity in our youth. But I'd be open to discussing the validity of the age requirement for marriage.

Guess what? That makes it a special privilege in those states. They've expanded the definition of marriage to cater to the preferences of a small minority group, without allowing other minority groups the same privilege.

I'm open to hearing the case for any minority group to have access to marriage.

Here's one of the big myths that SSM supporters propagate. The reality is that there are a surprising number of gay people who are happily married to someone of the opposite sex. I am not aware of any situation where someone who identifies himself as straight is happily married to a person of the same sex. Interesting, isn't it, that there are actually gay people who use the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and do it quite successfully.

In a hetero-normative culture (which ours is) you'd be likely to find a gay person who entered into an opposite-gender marriage. And I am aware of some people who are quite happy that way. That's great. And I would not do anything to try to take that right away from them.

It would strike me as odd, again in our hetero-normative culture, to find a straight person who had entered into a same-gender marriage. Even more odd since same-gender marriage rights are so limited in our country.

Those aren't the types of gays that gay rights groups are particularly fond of. I believe they have some rather derogatory terms for people who don't fit their way of how gays should act and what they should desire.

Well, there are all kinds of gay rights groups.

[jwhitlock]

To declare that the Lord would be contradicting himself, you would first need to establish where He has spoken against same gender marriages.

Family Proclamation.

In this dispensation the Lord has twice revealed changes to the temple marriage definition. My hypothetical stands even if you aren't willing to address it.

Allow SSM in the temple would validate homosexual behavior - which is something the Lord has indicated is a sin, without regard to marital status.

Yes, gay rights groups have been successful. Mostly in areas that I support. I'm sorry you don't. But I understand. The "gay rights groups'" agendas don't keep me awake at night.

They don't keep me awake either. But I do represent their danger to society.

I thought I had answered your question about others having the ability to choose the person they want to marry. But I can't flesh out the strawman for you. If you have a case of someone being denied a right, make it.

Is there a compelling reason to allow gay marriages? Does it serve any purpose other than to grant a random privilege to a narrow interest group? I don't know of any. That means it's a purely social experiment, one that probably will have significant negative consequences down the road, as I have explained. To rationalize it solely on the basis of allowing people to marry who they want, without serving any other purpose to society, you have to also (if you're going to be consistent) evaluate other restrictions - such as age restrictions - based on the same criteria. If marrying who you want without restrictions is defined as a right, then that opens up a whole can of worms that is detrimental over the long term to society.

The government has already proven that it is unable to rationally determine whether young people are mature enough to make decisions for themselves; a young girl can have an abortion without her parents' consent, if she so decides. Why should she not be able to decide, under the government's rationalizations, whether she should be able to marry or not?

The danger is that if the government looks at SSM, and decides that people should have the right to determine who they want to marry without restrictions, it is also very possible that they will eliminate age restrictions on marriage (reminding you that they cannot rationally determine the maturity level of young people) in the name of "rights". Age restrictions are already only loosely enforced in certain areas, and the protections they provide could be done away with totally if the government decides that everyone should have the right to marry - or live with, or do whatever - with anyone they choose.

These are realistic possibilities that the SSM social experiment opens the door more widely for in our society, along with the loss of individual religious and associative freedoms.

So again - is there a compelling reason for society to create a special privilege for SSM?

[california boy]

RP - Section 134 tells us that we should not impose our religious beliefs to "bind the consciences of men". Seems applicable to me.

KK - 1 Cor. 10:29 tells us that we should NOT have supported Prop. 8.

In context, verses 27 through 33 have Paul saying that we should limit our otherwise allowed behaviors if they offend others, which offense may cause them to reject the Gospel. In verse 29, though, Paul says that we do this only for the sake of the others' conscience/feelings and rejects the idea that the opinions of others can limit our freedom of action. If the opinions of others can't limit our freedom, how can we hypocritically state that OUR opinions CAN limit the freedom of others in violation of 1 Cor. 5:11-13?

Verse 30 says that since Paul is saved through grace (and not by living the Law of Moses), why should he be condemned for doing something that the Law of Moses condemns? He is saying that he is not subject to the law of Moses and therefore his liberty can't be judged/limited/condemned by it. He doesn't accept the idea of those following the old laws are able to limit his freedom of action in what he can do. He will voluntarily refrain from doing things forbidden under the old law so as to not offend those still under that law, but the old law does not restrict him otherwise, for why should his liberty/rights/freedom of action be judged/limited/ restricted by another man's conscience/personal moral beliefs?

Homosexuals in CA **HAD** the right/liberty to marry and we blatantly disregarded 1 Cor. 10:29 by letting our consciences infringe upon the liberties of others. D&C 134:4 talks about those who allow their religious opinions to prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others and that is EXACTLY what we did in supporting Prop. 8.

It was forbidden to touch the ark of the covenant, yet someone thought that it'd be OK to prevent something bad from potentially happening (the ark being damaged in a fall), yet God believed that we should do what is right (not touching the ark) and letting the consequence follow (it possibly being harmed). Prop. 8 is the exact same thing. We, as a church, steadied the ark by disobeying what scripture saying about using our own moral opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others because we wanted to avoid something bad from happening. We steadied the ark in our open rebellion against the revealed and sustained word of God. We need to repent.

This is a very interesting post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is something that I haven't heard before. And that is saying alot when it comes to gay marriage. Kinda throws the whole slippery slope argument out the window doesn't it.