Gay Marriage Dilemma

[Stone holm]

Irrelevant.

It did not make ANY marriage unlawful. There are unlawful marriages but prop 8 did not address those.

This is a big lie. Someone's morals will be dictated. Why not the Saints of God?

False. I think we have already been over this and you allowed as to how it was OK sometimes not to accept a religious clause defense. You can't now claim that its a sacred line never crossed.

I have said in the past and will admit today that religious practices can be infringed upon if the infringement is due to a general law with strong secular reasons for it, examples possibly mandating a transfusion to save the life of a JW minor child, or the general illegality of peyote consumption even though it is part of the sacramental rites of the Native American church and who would doubt that a church which resurrected human sacrifice would not be afforded a Constitutional shield, and I don't doubt that justices can make mistakes like they did in U.S. v Reynolds. But the cases which I have seen thrown up as supporting those fears are really not very convincing except to those who have no faith in our judicial system whatsoever. If I ever witnessed a gay rights activist group actually raising the sword against us rather than vice versa I would be one of the first to rush to the Church's defense, but I want to be able to do so with clean hands and not as a hypocrite.

[EllenMaksoud]

I want to say first, that I stand by the statement released by the Church of Jesus Christ regarding gay marriage. Although I may not agree with it, I do trust that my leaders have more knowledge about the subject then I. That they will for that reason handle the church properly.

http://www.mormonnew...e-court-hearing

http://www.mormonnew...-sex-attraction

Those statements made me proud to be a Latter-day Saint. The Church of Jesus Christ may not agree with marriage equality or gay adoption. Other then those two issues this church shines as a light unto the world following the commandment to love one another.

-----

My Dilemma

I prayed to find an answer. My answer was not now, in Gods own due time. Then I felt an impression to continue searching the scriptures. I also used Google to look at an article(more eventually) about the issue. It is interesting to note that before I prayed I stumbled across D&C 74. Which keeps popping in my head.

https://www.lds.org/.../dc/74?lang=eng

The issue I have is the Bible has very little definitive information on gays marrying. From my research the only clear declaration on gays is Romans 1:26-27 written by Paul. Which even that, he appeals to what is natural, if we remember the natural man is an enemy to God. Other then that I see nothing close to definitive. Compare with that the word love or charity.

That led me to think well did I not just read about Paul in D&C 74.

D&C 74:5 Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be ^aunited to an ^bunbeliever; except the ^claw of Moses should be done away among them,

As Latter-day Saints we all agree that the Bible is correct as far as it is translated correctly. It has clearly proven to be incorrectly translated many times. I am sure all of you know more incorrect parts then me.

Then you say, what about our Latter-day Prophets? Which if we remember one of our current Prophets said they refer back to the cannon when making decision*. Is it possible that the ban on gay marriage or at least support for others to do it outside of our faith been a continual mistake?

*I read it somewhere

I honestly feel this whole GBLT thing is really icky In thinking about it, if you look around you, Hetero couples mostly maintain certain mores in public. What they do in private is their business and may range from being particularly puritanical to outright brightly blushing hyjinks. No, I do not wish to know.

So, if same sex couples would maintain similar mores, it would make me a lot more comfortable, and no to me, you are NOT special! I particularly resent it when some of these folk deliberately do things that are wounding to MY church. I know one transgender person who has stated to me that she will bring these folk to our church one by one, to what end, I do not know.

Having said that, certain folk have attempted to lump me into that group, and to them I say if Mormons ever have Nuns, I want to be the first one! I think that our church is remiss in not allowing for women who really have no drives, or gender and who would feel privileged to spend the rest of their lives pleasing Heavenly Father by helping others and giving service where possible.

Non, church American culture distastefully tries to make every aspect of human living about our sexuality and for me much of this is right out of Sodom and Gomorrah and I protest. I can not help my genetics, but I most certainly can control my morality. I most certainly do not wish to be seen as being on the side of those who wish to drag the church into the moral manure pit.

[Darren10]

It did not make ANY marriage unlawful. There are unlawful marriages but prop 8 did not address those.

The only unlawful marriages I recall in the California marriage debate were those done under the mayor of San Fransisco's directive for homosexual couples before California legalized homosexual marriages. (Bold mine).

The governor reiterated his opposition to the decision by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying city officials should abide by the state law.

But when Leno asked, "Would you have any problem if they changed the law?" the governor replied: "No, I don't have a problem. Let the court decide. Let the people decide."

http://articles.lati...local/me-marry2

Edited April 1, 2013 by Darren10

[CASteinman]

The only unlawful marriages I recall in the California marriage debate were those done under the mayor of San Fransisco's directive for homosexual couples before California legalized homosexual marriages. (Bold mine).

I don't even think that those were unlawful per se.

[CASteinman]

I have said in the past and will admit today that religious practices can be infringed upon if the infringement is due to a general law with strong secular reasons for it

And there it is. No bright line test exists. Its all a matter of what people think is reasonable for infringement.

That is why I say -- someone's morals will prevail. It should be the people who are the Saints of God. At the very least, they should be united in following the Prophet.

I would be one of the first to rush to the Church's defense, but I want to be able to do so with clean hands and not as a hypocrite.

I can already do that -- and unlike you -- I do not have to wait.

[Darren10]

I don't even think that those were unlawful per se.

They were under a local city ordinance. The states should define marriage, not cities. But it's not like the mayor of San Fransisco will get inot any trouble for breaking marriage laws...(or many laws for that matter).

[Stone holm]

I honestly feel this whole GBLT thing is really icky In thinking about it, if you look around you, Hetero couples mostly maintain certain mores in public. What they do in private is their business and may range from being particularly puritanical to outright brightly blushing hyjinks. No, I do not wish to know.

So, if same sex couples would maintain similar mores, it would make me a lot more comfortable, and no to me, you are NOT special! I particularly resent it when some of these folk deliberately do things that are wounding to MY church. I know one transgender person who has stated to me that she will bring these folk to our church one by one, to what end, I do not know.

Having said that, certain folk have attempted to lump me into that group, and to them I say if Mormons ever have Nuns, I want to be the first one! I think that our church is remiss in not allowing for women who really have no drives, or gender and who would feel privileged to spend the rest of their lives pleasing Heavenly Father by helping others and giving service where possible.

Non, church American culture distastefully tries to make every aspect of human living about our sexuality and for me much of this is right out of Sodom and Gomorrah and I protest. I can not help my genetics, but I most certainly can control my morality. I most certainly do not wish to be seen as being on the side of those who wish to drag the church into the moral manure pit.

As Obama might say my thinking is evolving with regards to the gay community which I used to completely associate with something like unto the drag queens, who it turns out are not always gay. When I visited my brother who used to have a place on Fire Island, I found out that the gay community there were annoyed with heterosexual couples who came over to the island and took their location as license to misbehave with public sexuality. Also, it appears that gay marriage and gay parenting is having an impact on the gay community in general causing more and more of them to adopt a form of family values. I think that is what draws me into clashes with the transgendered and transvestites over the Church issues, but leaves me willing to defend on strictly legal grounds the right of gays to marry. Even though I do not believe such unions will ever be acceptable in the eyes of God for his people.

[Darren10]

If I ever witnessed a gay rights activist group actually raising the sword against us rather than vice versa I would be one of the first to rush to the Church's defense, but I want to be able to do so with clean hands and not as a hypocrite.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/07/unhinged-losers-prop-8-opponents-threaten-mormons-and-catholics/

Hop to it.

[CV75]

RE: the last couple of pages (jumping in very late):

Just because people may be motivated by religious belief (or lack thereof) to pursue the passage of certain laws, such passage is only accomplished through legislative “due process” and “rule of law,” etc. Their religions’ “own superstition” or “rules and regulations of such societies” have little to do with successful legislative process. The Church has a right to seek the passage of laws that are in its best interests, or what it deems to be in the best interests of society at large, and uses arguments and processes that are protected by the Constitution to accomplish this. It is not imposing its religion, keys, excommunications, etc. on anyone.

[Darren10]

Stone holm;

What's your understanding of US v Reynolds and how are you attempting to apply it to this thread's arguments?

[Darren10]

http://michellemalkin.com/category/proposition-8/

[CASteinman]

They were under a local city ordinance. The states should define marriage, not cities. But it's not like the mayor of San Fransisco will get inot any trouble for breaking marriage laws...(or many laws for that matter).

What law was broken? It is not breaking a law to marry someone -- even if the marriage is not recognized by the state.

[EllenMaksoud]

As Obama might say my thinking is evolving with regards to the gay community which I used to completely associate with something like unto the drag queens, who it turns out are not always gay. When I visited my brother who used to have a place on Fire Island, I found out that the gay community there were annoyed with heterosexual couples who came over to the island and took their location as license to misbehave with public sexuality. Also, it appears that gay marriage and gay parenting is having an impact on the gay community in general causing more and more of them to adopt a form of family values. I think that is what draws me into clashes with the transgendered and transvestites over the Church issues, but leaves me willing to defend on strictly legal grounds the right of gays to marry. Even though I do not believe such unions will ever be acceptable in the eyes of God for his people.

I see civil marriage and church marriage as two different issues. It is not my calling to make the lives of same sex couples more miserable by depriving them of civil rights. I fully support the GA in not allowing SSM within the church for gays, lesbians or the transgendered. This not as punishment, but as something to be sorted by Heavenly Father. I think marriage within the church is for those who normally have the ability to procreate. Having said that, I am fully aware that there are hetero couples who can not procreate for various reasons, and they should not be tormented, but accepted with all love and care. Adoption is always a possibility.

Over the years, I have learned more about genetic science than I ever cared to know. I just wish a good geneticist would get involved in one of these discussion and provide some teaching. There are XY (male) females who often appear at least as feminine and sometimes more feminine than XX (female) women. There are XX (female) women who look like men. As I heard for many years, shouted from the pulpit, "God made us Male and Female". This is not so! There are thousands of variations between XX and XY, and I thank Heavenly Father that those of us put in between happen rather infrequently. Yet, our culture often torments us, and suicide is often seen as the only way to stop the pain.

Interestingly, my own situation was only fully made clear when the LDS helped me to find out through a doctor.

I suppose the whole GLBT situation is so repulsive to me because I absolutely hate my own genetic makeup, and through the church I have finally understood that purpose in life can only be found in loving Heavenly Father and serving to the best of our ability. My days are varied. Yesterday, I walked in on a Bipolar having a full attack of depression. I have no training for this but felt that love, compassion and taking her to lunch was the right thing to do. In my humanitarian calling, I sometimes walk in on a Mom with 6 toddlers and a kitchen full of dirty dishes. What do you do? You walk up to the sink, give her a hug and start washing dishes.

If a gay or lesbian person is just trying to live out their life peaceably I understand. I know some who mean to harm the church and to them, I have no tolerance.

[california boy]

http://michellemalki.../proposition-8/

Gay Man Attacked at Atlantic Station

http://www.thegavoic...atlanta-station

Gay Day Marred by Threats of Rape and Murder

http://www.advocate....rape-and-murder

The organization called on local police to protect LGBT residents after protesters read verses from the Bible and threatened to rape a woman who was attending Gay Day.

Gay Salt Lake City night club bombarded by fire early Thursday morning

http://www.abc4.com/...85ZELpKnaA.cspx

Both Mower and Noriega say there's no way you couldn't have known the patio was packed.

Noriega said, "Even from here you can't miss the fact there's lots of people there. You can hear the people; see the people so you know there are people in there. It was definitely malicious. They definitely knew what they were doing."

Four Marines arrested for assaulting man at Long Beach gay bar

http://www.presstele...at-popular-long

Razor attack in Manhattan McDonald's

Police say a 22-year-old man was attacked with a razor blade inside the restaurant on West 3rd Street on Wednesday evening.

Police say the suspect made anti-gay remarks to the victim at about 7 p.m. It turned physical and then the suspect took out a blade.

He slashed the victim in the face, back, neck and elbow before running away.

http://www.myfoxny.c...ck-in-manhattan

Womans home vandalized in San Luis Obispo

Bailey Brown, who is openly gay, says her car was vandalized outside her home in the Spring, spraypainted with homophobic slurs.

Since then, two more similar vandalism attacks drew more attention, this time on the Mission Prep Campus.

http://www.ksby.com/...oto[gallery]/0/

Teens indicted on charge of writing anti-gay slurs in Arlington neighborhood

Police say they believe that at least one house was targeted because a lesbian couple lives there. The other graffiti painted in the northwest Arlington neighborhood included racial slurs, hateful messages and derogatory images

http://www.star-tele...iting-anti.html

Beloved Gay Leader Savagely Attacked, Near Death in Sunnyside

October 20 outside 41-00 43^rd Avenue. He was hit in the head with a blunt object with such force that neighbors who heard the assault but did not see it thought he had been shot.

Rispoli has been removed from life support and is now in hospice care at Elmhurst Hospital.

“He will not survive, and this will be a homicide,” said City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer, fighting back tears, at an October 25 press conference.

http://gaycitynews.c...h-in-sunnyside/

Gay couple from Charlotte says they were attacked in the street

A Charlotte couple says they were attacked and beaten on the street, left bloody and bruised. And they say - it's all because they're gay.

http://www.wbtv.com/...et-in-asheville

Brooklyn Punk Accused Of Tasering Gay Man Charged With Hate Crime

Desmond allegedly approached him and made some homophobic, anti-gay remark. He then zapped him with a Taser.

http://blogs.village...klyn_punk_a.php

Video Shows Two Gay Men Being Attacked as They Leave Downtown Bar on New Year’s Eve

Two men were attacked during the New Year’s Eve festivities as they left a downtown Santa Barbara bar at around 1:45 a.m. The three male suspects who carried out the beating were reportedly motivated by the fact that they thought the victims were gay.

http://www.independe...ble-hate-crime/

Edited April 1, 2013 by california boy

[Darren10]

CASteinman;

The Detroit Free Press reports that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom openly challenged California state law by allowing same-sex couples to legally marry. Previously, gay and lesbian couples were only allowed civil unions under California legislation. Mayor Newsom decided to allow the full rights of marriage after hearing President Bush oppose it during his State of the Union address on January 20, 2004.

http://gaylife.about.com/cs/mentalhealth1/a/mayorgavin.htm

A little over nine years ago, when then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom decided to flout California law and hand out marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, it provoked such a local and national furor that even his own political party and his Catholic neighborhood base wanted to tar and feather him.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_22859343/gay-marriage-long-road-supreme-court

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses this spring. By a 5-2 vote, the court also declared the roughly 4,000 marriages of gay and lesbian couples that had been sanctioned by the city "void from their inception and a legal nullity."

Opponents of gay marriage celebrated the opinion, which sharply criticized Mayor Gavin Newsom's actions as "unauthorized and unlawful." State law requires marriage to be between "a man and a woman."

http://www.latimes.com/topic/la-me-timelinegaymarriage-2004aug13,0,4450925.story

Perhaps I should not have said "breaking the law" and kept with "unlawful" weddings.

[Stone holm]

I see civil marriage and church marriage as two different issues. It is not my calling to make the lives of same sex couples more miserable by depriving them of civil rights. I fully support the GA in not allowing SSM within the church for gays, lesbians or the transgendered. This not as punishment, but as something to be sorted by Heavenly Father. I think marriage within the church is for those who normally have the ability to procreate. Having said that, I am fully aware that there are hetero couples who can not procreate for various reasons, and they should not be tormented, but accepted with all love and care. Adoption is always a possibility.

Over the years, I have learned more about genetic science than I ever cared to know. I just wish a good geneticist would get involved in one of these discussion and provide some teaching. There are XY (male) females who often appear at least as feminine and sometimes more feminine than XX (female) women. There are XX (female) women who look like men. As I heard for many years, shouted from the pulpit, "God made us Male and Female". This is not so! There are thousands of variations between XX and XY, and I thank Heavenly Father that those of us put in between happen rather infrequently. Yet, our culture often torments us, and suicide is often seen as the only way to stop the pain.

Interestingly, my own situation was only fully made clear when the LDS helped me to find out through a doctor.

I suppose the whole GLBT situation is so repulsive to me because I absolutely hate my own genetic makeup, and through the church I have finally understood that purpose in life can only be found in loving Heavenly Father and serving to the best of our ability. My days are varied. Yesterday, I walked in on a Bipolar having a full attack of depression. I have no training for this but felt that love, compassion and taking her to lunch was the right thing to do. In my humanitarian calling, I sometimes walk in on a Mom with 6 toddlers and a kitchen full of dirty dishes. What do you do? You walk up to the sink, give her a hug and start washing dishes.

If a gay or lesbian person is just trying to live out their life peaceably I understand. I know some who mean to harm the church and to them, I have no tolerance.

I agree with these sentiments, and I also see marriage in the Church and marriage outside the church as separate issues. The whole genetic thing can become a nightmare which I certainly can understand and empathize with people saying "Why me? Lord.". Also, whether SSA is genetic or nurture or choice related at this point is probably totally irrelevant to the legal issues involved.

[Darren10]

California boy;

You realizing I was responding directly to Stone holm's assertion that he'd step up and "be the first" to defend the LDS Church when "the sword" is used by gay rights activists against the Church? My posts had nothing to do with ignoring gays being attacked. Such acts are gross, immoral, and should be condemned.

But let's focus on the topic at hand. Will you defend the LDS Church against gay rights activists who use "the sword" attack the LDS Church in the manner I posted previously?

Edited April 1, 2013 by Darren10

[CASteinman]

Gay Man Attacked at Atlantic Station

http://www.thegavoic...atlanta-station

...

Do you realize that what you have shown is cases of individual on individual crime in response to a post showing a social group attacking other social groups?

Its really not the same thing.

[CASteinman]

Perhaps I should not have said "breaking the law" and kept with "unlawful" weddings.

Had it been any random person doing the marriages, it would not have been an issue. It was only that it was the Mayor I think. And thus, it might be confusing-- that people might think the marriages were binding under California Law.

[Tacenda]

I saw this on another discussion board. Try not to look at the answers before you take the test!

In Mediaite magazine online, they have an article to see if you can spot the difference between anti-gay marriage and anti-interracial marriage quotes.

#1- "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

#2- "This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

#3- State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America

#4- “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

#5- This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

#6- This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

#7- This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

#8- "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

#9- "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

#10- "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

_________________

Answers are below.

1. ANTI-INTERRACIAL State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

2. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

3. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

4. ANTI-GAY Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), 2011: “It not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to inter-merge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Bob Jones University, (1998!!!): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

9. ANTI-GAY Family Research Council publication, 2002: "A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."

10. ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

Edited April 2, 2013 by Tacenda

[CASteinman]

Interestingly, my own situation was only fully made clear when the LDS helped me to find out through a doctor.

FYI -- I have no idea what khaki genes are. I have purchased khaki jeans though.

Do you mean Mosaic? Or perhaps even Chimera?

[Stone holm]

http://michellemalki...-and-catholics/

Hop to it.

I would think that most would condemn this type of behavior. What I meant was any attempt through legal means to force the Church to perform SSMs, etc. or issue Temple Recommends to persons a party to SSMs, etc. There are going to be bad actors on both sides, and there have been bad actors on both sides of this issue. No Mormon should join any of the bad actors in their violent behavior. Although, I don't know if you were alive back during the Civil Rights Movement -- there were blacks rioting back then, and the South attempted to leave the Union and waged the bloodiest American war over slavery. So there is a history of matters sometimes getting out of hand when people thing they are giving up power or being unfairly subordinated by power. That is why we have courts and a judicial system to try and prevent civil unrest of this nature.

[CASteinman]

So how did everyone else do? I pretty much sucked. I only got half right.

Does it matter that some of these are probably fake?

[CASteinman]

What I meant was any attempt through legal means to force the Church to perform SSMs, etc. or issue Temple Recommends to persons a party to SSMs, etc. .... That is why we have courts and a judicial system to try and prevent civil unrest of this nature.

So you would... or would not .. .support the use of courts and the judicial system to push for changes like this? Particularly if it were seen as being for the larger good of society -- and was based on "strong" secular laws?

Edited April 1, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I saw this on another discussion board. Try not to look at the answers before you take the test!

In Mediaite magazine online, they have an article to see if you can spot the difference between anti-gay marriage and anti-interracial marriage quotes. Here is the article if you wish, but I've put the quotes together. I'll post the answers in a bit (unless you want to skip to the article to find them).

http://www.mediaite.... ... -quotes/#0

#1- "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

#2- "This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

#3- State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America

#4- “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

#5- This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

#6- This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

#7- This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

#8- "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

#9- "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

#10- "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

So what are your guesses? Here were mine: 1- Interracial 2-Gay 3-Interracial 4- Interracial 5- Interracial 6- Gay 7- Interracial 8- Gay 9- Interracial 10- Gay My results? 5/10.

Let's see how you do. I was a little surprised by the quotes myself.

_________________

"The most pernicious lies are the ones we tell ourselves" - unknown , "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings" - Optimus Prime

Answers are below.

1. ANTI-INTERRACIAL State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883): "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

2. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Georgia (1869): "The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

3. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924: The law's stated purpose was to prevent "abominable mixture and spurious issue." It "forbade miscegenation on the grounds that racial mixing was scientifically unsound and would 'pollute' America with mixed-blood offspring."

4. ANTI-GAY Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), 2011: “It not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863: "By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney: "Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Lonas v. State (1871): Attorneys argued that intermarriage was "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce the human race in any of the types in which it was created." Tennessee's court agreed, saying that "any effort to inter-merge the individuality of the races as a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. ANTI-INTERRACIAL Bob Jones University, (1998!!!): "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says that races should not intermarry, the whole plan of God as He has dealt with the races down through the ages indicates that interracial marriage is not best for man."

9. ANTI-GAY Family Research Council publication, 2002: "A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households."

10. ANTI-INTERRACIAL From a submitted briefing to the Court on Loving v. Virginia: "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist said. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

So how did everyone else do? I pretty much sucked. I only got half right.

Tacenda, although I find this argument interesting, could you possibly edit this post and remove the link, I think that site has a virus associated with it as it kind of made my screen explode with multiple copies when I clicked it and tried to leave it. Sorry, this not meant derogatory in anyway, just don't want people to have their computers infected.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Stone holm