A War Against The Church Based On Marriage, Or Is This Just Sarcasm I Missed?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Probably misreading me. Interesting proposition about what nature has or has not proved, obviously has not been around cow herds much.

They cannot reproduce without help, and even then they cannot reproduce their preference. God's first commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth" cannot be obeyed in SSM. It is not the world they argue against, it is God. The scripture and nature are quite clear, the only way gay people can find anyone is via heterosexuals...God's way. I have a child who will never have children of her own...this hurts, because she will never understand a parents love, from the parents perspective, nor the joy that comes with it, and then live single for all eternity. I know it is very PC to approve of this, but too many do so not acknowledging the consequences. I am the father of a gay child, I do not have the luxury of ignoring the fact that my child will not enjoy all of God's blessings. The odd thing is that me and her are the closest of all my children, not to mention what a great mother she would be.

[Stone holm]

Let's put Emarks comments in perspective, he is from California. There is a good chance he flushed time and/or money down the toilet defending prop 8. People usually do not have the strength of intellect or character to admit they made a mistake. That means they will go down fighting a lost cause just to make themselves feel better.

Well don't know, California is noted for it political bipolarity so we can't make assumptions as to what any particular Californian may or may not have done. Whether promoting Prop 8 was a wise decision is up for grabs, I personally think it was a very unwise decision, but clearly some at the very highest echelons of the Church thought otherwise, and a lot of Mormon money wound up getting invested in it and Mormon legal talent got consumed then defending it. That was clearly their right to do so. Obviously, there were a lot of Mormons who cringed at the high profile politics involved, the Marriots famously immediately sought to distance themselves from the debacle, and we lost members out here on the East Coast over it. I have reconciled myself, or perhaps rationalized the activity of the Church in the whole dismal affair as being an attempt to establish a theological legal shield defense so that when SSM became legal elsewhere that we could continue to discriminate. However, once the case was lost, flinging an unnecessary and pointless political jab in the news release was under any reasonable view not a prudent thing to have done.

[tyler90az]

Perfect example of ad hominem sir! I'll be adding it to the logical fallacy lessons for my kids.

I would hire somebody to teach your kids.

Leaving aside the laughable logic in the OP, what does this have to do with the Church? Are you just trying to continue the closed thread?

You initially danced around an ad homineum, your guilty. I just prefer to shoot straight and not BS, otherwise known as lie. Well at the same time you failed to prove how my OP was illogical. I am waiting to receive your message, I do not expect it.

[wenglund]

You guys lost prop 8 fair and square.

This statement is false. The Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 was simply that the petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court ruling (only state officials had standing, and they refused to defend the state at court, and this in violation of their oath of office). Accordingly, the 9th Circuit ruling was also vacated because of lack of jurisdiction. And, while this left Walker's District Court ruling enforce, District Court injunctions typically apply narrowly (except in class action suits--which this was not), to the party that filed suit--i.e. the gay couple who brought the case before the court. In short, the SCOTUS ruling simply allowed the gay couple named in the Prop * case to marry. Prop 8 was not struck down. (See

)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

This statement is false. The Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 was simply that the petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court ruling (only state officials had standing, and they refused to defend the state at court, and this in violation of their oath of office). Accordingly, the 9th Circuit ruling was also vacated because of lack of jurisdiction. And, while this left Walker's District Court ruling enforce, District Court injunctions typically apply narrowly (except in class action suits--which this was not), to the party that filed suit--i.e. the gay couple who brought the case before the court. In short, the SCOTUS ruling simply allowed the gay couple named in the Prop * case to marry. Prop 8 was not struck down. (See

)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wrong about the oath of office. The prosecution or defense of a law that you are convinced is unConstitutional is a violation of the oath of office. Both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, have invoked that stance from time to time.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then that is not 10% you are paying 7% tithing.

Your math is simply wrong. If I make 50k and pay 5 grand in tithing and I get a tax break and I get 300 dollars back on my taxes because of me claiming my tithing as a write off, that means I only paid 7%? Ok...

BTW when you get money back from your taxes that is not the government owning you something. That is because you did not pay the appropriate amount. You paid too much tax. Hench you get a refund. The tithing paid is still 10% regardless of weather or not you claimed the write off.

[Bikeemikey]

They cannot reproduce without help, and even then they cannot reproduce their preference. God's first commandment to "multiply and replenish the earth" cannot be obeyed in SSM. It is not the world they argue against, it is God. The scripture and nature are quite clear, the only way gay people can find anyone is via heterosexuals...God's way. I have a child who will never have children of her own...this hurts, because she will never understand a parents love, from the parents perspective, nor the joy that comes with it, and then live single for all eternity. I know it is very PC to approve of this, but too many do so not acknowledging the consequences. I am the father of a gay child, I do not have the luxury of ignoring the fact that my child will not enjoy all of God's blessings. The odd thing is that me and her are the closest of all my children, not to mention what a great mother she would be.

You want to be careful hanging your hat on the limitations of procreation. In the not to distant future it is highly likely people will be able to procreate asexually. Even reproducing asexually within genders.

Once that happens homosexuals will be able to reproduce as handily as anyone else.

We also have no canonized evidence that God uses heterosexual relations to procreate. Not saying he does - just saying the procreative mechanism utilized by god is not mentioned anywhere.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This statement is false. The Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 was simply that the petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court ruling (only state officials had standing, and they refused to defend the state at court, and this in violation of their oath of office). Accordingly, the 9th Circuit ruling was also vacated because of lack of jurisdiction. And, while this left Walker's District Court ruling enforce, District Court injunctions typically apply narrowly (except in class action suits--which this was not), to the party that filed suit--i.e. the gay couple who brought the case before the court. In short, the SCOTUS ruling simply allowed the gay couple named in the Prop * case to marry. Prop 8 was not struck down. (See

)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Correct. I feel like Tyler is trolling us.

[Stone holm]

You want to be careful hanging your hat on the limitations of procreation. In the not to distant future it is highly likely people will be able to procreate asexually. Even reproducing asexually within genders.

Once that happens homosexuals will be able to reproduce as handily as anyone else.

We also have no canonized evidence that God uses heterosexual relations to procreate. Not saying he does - just saying the procreative mechanism utilized by god is not mentioned anywhere.

You sure about that? I know he is not particularly popular right now, but not sure BY would agree.

[Bikeemikey]

You sure about that? I know he is not particularly popular right now, but not sure BY would agree.

Hence the specific use of "canonized evidence".

[rockpond]

This statement is false. The Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 was simply that the petitioners did not have standing to appeal the District Court ruling (only state officials had standing, and they refused to defend the state at court, and this in violation of their oath of office). Accordingly, the 9th Circuit ruling was also vacated because of lack of jurisdiction. And, while this left Walker's District Court ruling enforce, District Court injunctions typically apply narrowly (except in class action suits--which this was not), to the party that filed suit--i.e. the gay couple who brought the case before the court. In short, the SCOTUS ruling simply allowed the gay couple named in the Prop * case to marry. Prop 8 was not struck down. (See

)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree that there is an obvious judicial interpretation here that dictates the ruling only apply to the two couples named in the case. But wouldn't you see it as futile to try to enforce that interpretation? Meaning, if it's decided that those two couples had the right to marry, how are you realistically going to enforce Prop 8 for the rest of the population of CA?

[Brian 2.0]

You want to be careful hanging your hat on the limitations of procreation. In the not to distant future it is highly likely people will be able to procreate asexually. Even reproducing asexually within genders.

Once that happens homosexuals will be able to reproduce as handily as anyone else.

We also have no canonized evidence that God uses heterosexual relations to procreate. Not saying he does - just saying the procreative mechanism utilized by god is not mentioned anywhere.

You sure about that? I know he is not particularly popular right now, but not sure BY would agree.

Brigham would definitely not agree, but i think he's referring to anything canonized, or in today's taught church doctrines.

EDIT: Bikeemikey already answered this himself.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You want to be careful hanging your hat on the limitations of procreation. In the not to distant future it is highly likely people will be able to procreate asexually. Even reproducing asexually within genders.

Once that happens homosexuals will be able to reproduce as handily as anyone else.

We also have no canonized evidence that God uses heterosexual relations to procreate. Not saying he does - just saying the procreative mechanism utilized by god is not mentioned anywhere.

No they will not, they are not frogs. This is just silly, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. As for as canonized, maybe a reading of the first two chapters of the Bible will help...as to for the entire post...Oh My! God makes the rules for us, he does not take his lead from mankind. Children come from men and women...and in no other way, nor ever will. And I will hang my hat on that, because I believe the scriptures and science. Edited June 27, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[wenglund]

Wrong about the oath of office. The prosecution or defense of a law that you are convinced is unConstitutional is a violation of the oath of office. Both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, have invoked that stance from time to time.

Gross error on your part. It is the court's role to determine constitutionality, not state officials. Besides. The California Supreme Court had already ruled that Prop 8 was constitutional. So, the state officials were without just cause and violated their oath of office and their duty to the citizens of California. And, this is not the only way in which they have flaunted and intend to flaunt the law.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I agree that there is an obvious judicial interpretation here that dictates the ruling only apply to the two couples named in the case. But wouldn't you see it as futile to try to enforce that interpretation? Meaning, if it's decided that those two couples had the right to marry, how are you realistically going to enforce Prop 8 for the rest of the population of CA?

So, are you suggesting that the majority of Californians be disenfranchised on this issue simply because it may not be practical or expedient?

I don't. It would not only violate separation of powers, but compound one flagrant violation of the oath of office with another violation. Things aren't intended to work that way, though they likely will. Some people seem willing and intent on trampling all over various constitutions to advance their social agenda, while ironically wrapping themselves in the cloak of constitutionalism when it comes to homosexuality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

No they will not, they are not frogs. This is just silly, God is the same yesterday, today and forever. As for as canonized, maybe a reading of the first two chapters of the Bible will help...as to for the entire post...Oh My! God makes the rules for us, he does not take his lead from mankind. Children come from men and women...and in no other way, nor ever will. And I will hang my hat on that, because I believe the scriptures and science.

Japanese scientists have already taken regular skin cells from make rats and created an egg, a sperm, fertilized it and created life.

It is not an impossible feat.

Placing limits on what will be able to happen in the future is just silly.

I never made any statement as to the moral veracity of any such possible action. I simply stated that arguing against homosexuality based on procreative captivity might end up biting you in the proverbial rump.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[BlueDreams]

If none of this makes sense....forgive me, my apartment is hot and I don't think well with heat.

As far as the Church is concerned, abortion has become something of a non-issue because we are only moderately pro-life and so you can have a civil conversation with both sides. As to SSM there is no moderate position that we can adopt internally that is not fraught with significant structural doctrinal issues. It's not just a matter of whether we classify homosexual behaviour as sinful, SSM strikes at a core way we view the purpose of life and how the hereafter functions. Having said that having gotten politically aggressive on the issue, while at the same time softening our views regarding SSA attraction was kind of a one step forward one step backwards sort of thing. Had we just stuck to our doctrinal principles and explained them, instead of aggressively stepping into the political fray and attempting to legislate our beliefs, I doubt much of the venom would have been directed our way. As it is, it had begun to die down a little until the gratuitous and pointless political jab was taken in the recent release. I just wonder how much thought and prayer went into that release from the very top. It did not sound very much like Pres. Monson.

I agree, we do not have much wiggle-room at all with SSM. Our core doctrine rubs very much counter to it. Personally, i didn't see a terrible political jab....but I think the church is making it extremely clear for member and non-member alike their stance on marriage as well as their stance of any member who is gay/SSA (or whatever else LGBT LDS prefer to call it). It may look like one step forward and one step back, but I personally don't see that as much. More like emphasizing the beliefs about marriage and family while not demonizing/castigating anyone who is LGBT. I really doubt this will ever be taken lightly in an LDS perspective. The line is extremely clearly drawn on what will and will not be accepted in terms of the lds faith.

There is a big difference between abortion still being a social issue and SSM continuing to be a social issue. For those that are against abortion, they view it as murdering a child. When it comes to SSM, it has been very difficult for anyone who is against SSM to come up with a reason why it causes harm to them or anyone else. I think you were closer to how this will all play out with your example of inter racial marriage. It is no longer an issue, because it harms no one. There is no soap box someone can stand on and point to any harm being done.

I'm generally against abortion, but don't view it as murdering a child (for the most part). The more quintessential pro-lifers often do, but must Americans are middle road with their ideals of what practices should be allowed. The majority see it as something that should have some restrictions (reasons, length of pregnancy, etc) while still having it legal. This would suggest that deep down, most americans don't view it the same as murdering a child. But it's not necessary the actual moral dialogue/reasoning that's necessary. I don't think it's exactly like either entirely. Interracial marriage isn't an issue because of multiple barriers broken down previous and after Loving v Virginia that increased contact and capacity. LGBT has been able to do that largely through media outlets and increased public awareness....but there's simply fewer cases to really get to personally know and interact with. SSM, for many, will remain a topic that's outside of their realm of existence because the population of those who are gay, in a long-term committed relationship equivelant in various practices to a married couple, that is small...very small. So it's easier to maintain a distance from this as an issue. Even with interracial marriage there's a split between, believing that some random person out there can marry someone of another race and one's daughter/son actually bringing someone of another ethnicity home. In short many may agree that gay couple show have legal rights, protections, and capacity to marry similar to heterosexual, while still maintaining personal beliefs about it that disagree with said marriage. Even without and LDS background, many have strong, religious beliefs about what a marriage is or isn't that'll be hard to nudge....it's not on the same level of abortion, but it's still something that many will continue to oppose in some fashion on a moral level. So I don't think it'll end out exactly as either abortion or interracial marriage. It doesn't fit either social issue exactly.

In this thread, there are wringing of hands and woes of despair of this country walking down some immoral road. The problem with that kind of hand wringing, is that no one has been able to specifically define what that immoral road is. Are gays more immoral now that they have the ability to marry? Would they be less moral if they were not allowed to marry? Are straight people in this country less moral because gays can now marry? If the sin of homosexuality is the issue, whether someone who is gay is married or not has absolutely no relevance to sin. The church views both as EQUALLY sinful. No change has happened.

I haven't read most of this thread.....but i can probably guess at the hand wringing and assume I think most of it is exaggerated. Personally, I see far bigger problems as to what's going wrong with our moral fiber than just SSM. But if I had to take a stab at this, I'd assume most view it as a continuing of general loss in moral practices....moral practice defined as what brings one closer to what God would desire from his children (again, from an LDS perspective). Any relationship that breaks or weakens an (equal, loving) marriage between a man and a woman would be problematic to say the least. A number of LDS may see this just a continuation and loss from that. It's even further away because the basic construct of what a marriage is, is under question.

I don't necessarily agree. I think its a natural progression of an individualistic and increasingly shabby familial relationships that have continued for decades. I don't see it as somehow worse. In fact I have far bigger problems with other things, such as people having kids out of wedlock, abuse in relationships, unstable familial relationships that entail children, etc. But I'd be lying if I thought that this was a great direction either....my issues would be largely not pragmatic but in underlying understandings of what marriage is, what love is, how families should be etc. My pragmatic side recognizes that this often isn't met and would prefer that similar protections be given, especially for couples that have children in their care (I would prefer civil unions).

I think I'm rambling, so I'll stop.

I believe this issue will all die down once gay marriage is nation wide. Some churches will embrace it and freely marry gay couples, others will not. We have already seen some mainstream religions heading in that direction. The Mormon church will most likely never embrace gay marriage, because like was mentioned, it tears at the very core of Mormon belief in the plan of salvation. But so does divorce and that has become more tolerated in the church. The church may very well continue to be labeled as anti-gay in a very similar way that the church was labeled as being anti-black. It still survived, and no government forced the church to give blacks the priesthood.

Again, just to reiterate....I don't think the church is in anyway up for major persecution from SSM. I figure it'll be a cultural and religious divide generally than a political one (depending on how marriage rights play out in the states/supreme court). I'm not as optimistic about acceptance within churches. Many have....far more haven't and never will.

With luv,

BD

[Stone holm]

Gross error on your part. It is the court's role to determine constitutionality, not state officials. Besides. The California Supreme Court had already ruled that Prop 8 was constitutional. So, the state officials were without just cause and violated their oath of office and their duty to the citizens of California. And, this is not the only way in which they have flaunted and intend to flaunt the law.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are simply wrong. State officials whether in the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch are not free to flaunt the Constitution. The primacy of judicial review as to Constitutionality developed awhile after the Constitution was adopted under Chief Justice Marshall.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Japanese scientists have already taken regular skin cells from make rats and created an egg, a sperm, fertilized it and created life.

It is not an impossible feat.

Placing limits on what will be able to happen in the future is just silly.

I never made any statement as to the moral veracity of any such possible action. I simply stated that arguing against homosexuality based on procreative captivity might end up biting you in the proverbial rump.

I was nor arguing homosexuality, just pointed out facts. What you are speaking of is cloning of animals We are not animals Why do you think God' s laws will change...seems you think he will change his mind, or that his commands and institutions were wrong. I just don't get it and how you could believe such a think will ever happen. Not to mention, cloning of humans should be a sin against God. Also how do you think a cloned human would get a soul

[rockpond]

So, are you suggesting that the majority of Californians be disenfranchised on this issue simply because it may not be practical or expedient?

I don't. It would not only violate separation of powers, but compound one flagrant violation of the oath of office with another violation. Things aren't intended to work that way, though they likely will. Some people seem willing and intent on trampling all over various constitutions to advance their social agenda, while ironically wrapping themselves in the cloak of constitutionalism when it comes to homosexuality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's a good point... No, I wouldn't want to disenfranchise CA voters. And I do think that the CA attorney general should have upheld his oath of office and sponsored the appeal. That's the way it should have been handled and then we wouldn't have been left with trying to figure out the next move.

Now we've got this problematic situation of Judge Walker's decision potentially standing for just the two couples named on the case. Or for just those jurisdictions named. I don't see how those inequalities could stand. It seems that ultimately all same-sex couples, in all jurisdictions would have to be given the same rights.

Is it possible at this point to appeal Judge Walker's ruling again and vacate it even for the named couples and jurisdictions? Is that what you are thinking?

[Bikeemikey]

I was nor arguing homosexuality, just pointed out facts. What you are speaking of is cloning of animals We are not animals Why do you think God' s laws will change...seems you think he will change his mind, or that his commands and institutions were wrong. I just don't get it and how you could believe such a think will ever happen. Not to mention, cloning of humans should be a sin against God. Also how do you think a cloned human would get a soul

All good questions and impt moral considerations - especially considering it will likely happen.

[Stone holm]

All good questions and impt moral considerations - especially considering it will likely happen.

You think a person gets their soul by reason of sex? If so we already have a multitude of soulless people running around. Better question is that now we know that most people of European descent have Neanderthal DNA does that mean people of European descent have no souls? Wouldn't that do a number on Sethite traditional thinking.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

All good questions and impt moral considerations - especially considering it will likely happen.

First of all, it won't, second how does this have SSM couples procreate? Once again my comment, two homosexuals cannot procreate. As such God and nature will never allow them to procreate. Why do we think we can out think God and nature? Edited June 28, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Bikeemikey]

First of all, it won't, second how does this have SSM couples procreate? Once again my comment, two homosexuals cannot procreate. As such God and nature will never allow them to procreate. Why do we think we can out think God and nature?

Well you might be right. The pace of scientific discovery and the capacity of human creativity suggests it likely will, possibly soon.

The relationship to homosexuality is simple - if you hold the reason for homosexual relationships being bad is their inability to procreate then you run a serious risk of being in a future context where this is simply not accurate.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well you might be right. The pace of scientific discovery and the capacity of human creativity suggests it likely will, possibly soon.

The relationship to homosexuality is simple - if you hold the reason for homosexual relationships being bad is their inability to procreate then you run a serious risk of being in a future context where this is simply not accurate.

Never even hinted at that, just pointing out that they cannot or ever will be able to procreate...I am not passing judgement, only pointing out that God and nature will ever allow them the joy of being a parent, with the exception of those who married and had children and then came out of the closet, thus inflicting unspeaking harm to the husband and wife who thought their spouses were straight.