jim_mason Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 To address the original post:NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT, do all US Mormons hold the same apocaliptic feelings.What at one poster has presented is an admission or recognition that it is a "Utah Mormon" thing, or at least some Utah Mormons who feel the Utah War isn't over.That sentimentality makes me chuckle much like when someone refers to the US Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression".
Bikeemikey Posted June 28, 2013 Author Posted June 28, 2013 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 soulAlso this is not cloning in anyway. Each new baby is fundamentally genetically unique.
Bikeemikey Posted June 28, 2013 Author Posted June 28, 2013 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.I took this post of yours to be heavily linking a portion of homosexualities sinful nature to be linked to the capacity for procreation.
ERayR Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 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.They did not create life. Life was already there.
Bikeemikey Posted June 28, 2013 Author Posted June 28, 2013 They did not create life. Life was already there.My claim was that they procreated. If that is not making life I am not sure what is.Your statement above would also be true for any baby conceived via sex then.
ERayR Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 My claim was that they procreated. If that is not making life I am not sure what is.Your statement above would also be true for any baby conceived via sex then.I will have to think about it for awhile but at first brush it seems there is something fundamentally wrong with what you said. I just can't put my finger on it.
USU78 Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 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-I think, moreover, that the socialist state officials, knowing that an assignment of enforcement might well not be upheld by the IXth Circuit or the SCOTUS, lured the supporters into the agreement to assignment, rather than suffering mandamus compulsion to appeal . . . against their will and against their extremist constituency.
USU78 Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 To address the original post:NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT, do all US Mormons hold the same apocaliptic feelings.What at one poster has presented is an admission or recognition that it is a "Utah Mormon" thing, or at least some Utah Mormons who feel the Utah War isn't over.That sentimentality makes me chuckle much like when someone refers to the US Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression".Your contumely is noted.
Bikeemikey Posted June 28, 2013 Author Posted June 28, 2013 I will have to think about it for awhile but at first brush it seems there is something fundamentally wrong with what you said. I just can't put my finger on it.Let me know when you figure out what seemed off.First you need a cell - then you can make a stem cell. Easily done in mice, now possible in humans:http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/15/in-medical-breakthrough-scientists-convert-human-skin-cells-into-embryonic-stem/Once you have a stem cell you can create an egg:http://wap.npr.org/story/162263750If you can make eggs you can make sperm.Sperm and eggs make life.Another interesting news piece. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/08/could-scientists-manipulate-cells-to-make-men-mothers/Bio-ethics wise this means sometime not to far from now someone will be able to take a skin cell from say an old piece of clothing and make a fertile egg or sperm and then add their own DNA (egg or sperm) and have a baby with half your generic make up and might never know.Takes future paparazzi to a whole new level!!
emarkp Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Yes. Marriage used to consider the woman to be the property of the man along with all of her possessions. In addition, the Ministers from ancient times until the Enlightenment were considered officers of the State or tribe. We no longer live in theocracies ruled by the local minister, the Pope, or tribal shamans. Do you really want to go back to stoning people and burning witches?Hah! Excellent strawman!Do you also call racist those who yearn for the values of pre-hippie America? Seriously, this is so over the top it's ridiculous. Eve was not the property of Adam, that was a later corruption. And those who fixate on that understanding of marriage ignore the protection it provided for the widows and orphans.But why not dissolve the family unit while we're at it? Why should any human have free interaction without the mitigation of the state? Is that your true desire?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Also this is not cloning in anyway. Each new baby is fundamentally genetically unique.I have never been able to tell rats apart. Sorry I have limits in this area.
wenglund Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 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.Sorry, but you clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about. It isn't flaunting the Constitution to provide legal representation/defense for one's constituents in case before the bar. In fact the 6th Amendment of the Constitution requires it.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
wenglund Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) 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?To me the simpler and far less messy solution would be to take the matter away from the convolution of lawyers and courts and hold another state-wide election on a proposition that amends the state constitution allowing SSM. Supposedly, 63% of the voters in California now support SSM. (See HERE)Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited June 28, 2013 by wenglund
Bikeemikey Posted June 28, 2013 Author Posted June 28, 2013 I have never been able to tell rats apart. Sorry I have limits in this area.Unfortunately your limits and the limits of science may not match.
Stone holm Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 To me the simpler and far less messy solution would be to take the matter away from the convolution of lawyers and courts and hold another state-wide election on a proposition that amends the state constitution allowing SSM. Supposedly, 63% of the voters in California now support SSM. (See HERE)Thanks, -Wade Englund-It is unclear what exactly California may do. But there is some truth in putting the matter out again for a Statewide referendum, although it seems terribly wasteful given the amount of money that likely would be consumed in the campaign only to set the whole thing up again, in the event the measure passed which I agree the polling shows that another attempt to ban SSM would be defeated by a substantial margin, for another run through the Courts. There are several more States on the cusp of authorizing SSM, and the Court just signaled that it is sick of hearing SSM cases by declining to hear two. Eventually, they will have to hear it again, however, because the change in opinion in several States which adopted State Constitutional bans now favor SSM. Unlike California, the State Constitutions in these States are not easily changed, so the activists will most likely again resort to Constitutional challenges in order to overturn their State Constitutions.
mormonnewb Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 It is unclear what exactly California may do. But there is some truth in putting the matter out again for a Statewide referendum, although it seems terribly wasteful given the amount of money that likely would be consumed in the campaign only to set the whole thing up again, in the event the measure passed which I agree the polling shows that another attempt to ban SSM would be defeated by a substantial margin, for another run through the Courts. There are several more States on the cusp of authorizing SSM, and the Court just signaled that it is sick of hearing SSM cases by declining to hear two. Eventually, they will have to hear it again, however, because the change in opinion in several States which adopted State Constitutional bans now favor SSM. Unlike California, the State Constitutions in these States are not easily changed, so the activists will most likely again resort to Constitutional challenges in order to overturn their State Constitutions.My GUESS is that the Court is trying to buy some time until public opinion is fairly settled in support of SSM. When the case comes back before the Court again in 3-4 years, probably half of the states will have legalized SSM. At that point, it will be less controversial to make SSM a constitutional right in much the same way as the Court timed its validation of interracial marriage. In 1948, a California court ruled that the ban on interracial marriage violated the FEDERAL Constition, but the Supreme Court waited until 1967 to validate that ruling in a Virginia case. In those 20 years, interracial marriage became more acceptable to the electorate and the Court could be seen as just bringing "those backward states" into the modern era.Once again, just a guess ...
Stone holm Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 My GUESS is that the Court is trying to buy some time until public opinion is fairly settled in support of SSM. When the case comes back before the Court again in 3-4 years, probably half of the states will have legalized SSM. At that point, it will be less controversial to make SSM a constitutional right in much the same way as the Court timed its validation of interracial marriage. In 1948, a California court ruled that the ban on interracial marriage violated the FEDERAL Constition, but the Supreme Court waited until 1967 to validate that ruling in a Virginia case. In those 20 years, interracial marriage became more acceptable to the electorate and the Court could be seen as just bringing "those backward states" into the modern era.Once again, just a guess ...I believe there is some strong validity in that guess. The judicial restraint which was evident in the decisions surely points in that direction. Had Kennedy been forced to side completely with either the ultra conservatives or the more liberal wings of the Court, there seems to be a consensus that he would have gone with the more liberal wing. This approach, however, allowed him to avoid making the more over-arching decision. As the brickbats are being thrown at the Court, there seems to be this conservative assumption that if the case had not been dismissed for lack of standing that Prop 8 would have been upheld, from what I have read it seems more likely that is not the case. Even amongst the more liberal wing of the Court there was some concern as to whether the culture of the deep South had evolved sufficiently to allow acceptance of a Constitutional mandate -- better to have let the matter brew a little more rather than provoke full blown and potentially violent conflict. This allows deeply conservative rural areas a time to learn to live with this social change. The Justices are not completely immune to such sensitivities.
emarkp Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 (edited) To me the simpler and far less messy solution would be to take the matter away from the convolution of lawyers and courts and hold another state-wide election on a proposition that amends the state constitution allowing SSM. Supposedly, 63% of the voters in California now support SSM. Polls are no better than their methodology and weighting. We had 2 polls that both went the other way once we were in the booths.Me, I certainly don't know all, but I do accept The Family: A Proclamation to the World as inspired. It has something to say on the matter. Edited June 29, 2013 by emarkp 1
Stone holm Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 Sorry, but you clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about. It isn't flaunting the Constitution to provide legal representation/defense for one's constituents in case before the bar. In fact the 6th Amendment of the Constitution requires it.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Sorry Wade this does not apply, nobody has accused the proponents of Prop 8 to be criminals, there is no obligation to provide legal representation to groups commencing legal appeals of this nature. The current status of the case as I understand it is that in light of the SCOTUS decision, the 9th Circuit has dissolved the temporary injunction which it placed on the State trial Court decision which ruled Prop 8 as unconstitutional. As a result the trial court decision stands. Normally trial court decisions are not considered precedent on a State wide basis unless the State is a party, I assume the State was a party -- I don't know what the California rules are as to when a California law is held unconstitutional by a trial Court.
Stone holm Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 Polls are no better than their methodology and weighting. We had 2 polls that both went the other way once we were in the booths.Me, I certainly don't know all, but I do accept The Family: A Proclamation to the World as inspired. It has something to say on the matter.It certainly does to members and how they conduct themselves. As to whether it means that they have to support legislation which forces others to believe in and follow its precepts, is probably another matter.
emarkp Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 You're free to ignore it of course, but it's another thing entirely to assert falsehoods about its contents.
USU78 Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 [N]obody has accused the proponents of Prop 8 to be criminalsHuh . . . then why the calls for disincorporation of the Church and/or including confiscatory taxation, if there is not some notion that White Straight Mormons interfering in elections is somehow criminal?
USU78 Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 It certainly does to members and how they conduct themselves. As to whether it means that they have to support legislation which forces others to believe in and follow its precepts, is probably another matter.Yet the San Fransisco District Judge and the IXth Circuit panel have imposed a sea-change remaking of the fabric of society . . . in order to compel everybody to believe the same thing.Sauce for the goose.
Stargazer Posted June 29, 2013 Posted June 29, 2013 I tell you that the LDS church will never be forced to marry homosexuals.No, you are right, because the LDS church will never do it, but there is a difference between being heavily pressured to do it, and being forced to do it. Being forced implies that you gave in. Once you gave in there would be no more pressure, sooooo.....
Bikeemikey Posted June 29, 2013 Author Posted June 29, 2013 Huh . . . then why the calls for disincorporation of the Church and/or including confiscatory taxation, if there is not some notion that White Straight Mormons interfering in elections is somehow criminal?If there was merit to such claims such requests for disincorporation would be going before courts.Those making those claims were just angry. Doesn't mean the claims they made had merit.
Recommended Posts