Rob Osborn Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Then why not leave the church and go to a religion that supports gay marriage already? Or no religion at all?Yeah, why dont gay mormons who support SSM just find another religion?
rockpond Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Yeah, why dont gay mormons who support SSM just find another religion? Now you're just repeating my question back at me. Interesting approach. I was curious as to your thoughts on the matter. But I'll give you mine, since you asked: Based on my interactions with those who I have talked to, they stay because they believe, because they have a testimony of the restoration, because the love the gospel, the priesthood, the temple, the saving ordinances.
JLHPROF Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Now you're just repeating my question back at me. Interesting approach. I was curious as to your thoughts on the matter. But I'll give you mine, since you asked: Based on my interactions with those who I have talked to, they stay because they believe, because they have a testimony of the restoration, because the love the gospel, the priesthood, the temple, the saving ordinances. But this is saying they have a testimony of SOME of the LDS religion. And other parts of the LDS religion they have NO testimony of. I don't think it works that way. Either ALL the gospel is true or it isn't.
thesometimesaint Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I am sorry where is marriage even mentioned in the constitution. I am not asking for your opinion on weather or not you could make an argument for gay marriage by misunderstanding the constitution and the bill of rights. I am asking were it is defined? Definitions matter quite a bit. Since it is not defined and states passed laws to amend their own constitutions on what they would legally define as a marriage, these corrupt judges have no business calling it "unconstitutional" and over riding the will of the people on what they chose to define. And the old race canards are not going to help your case. There is no clause in the constitutions or bill of rights that say "A state cannot define something that is not defined" but that is essentially what they are doing under the name of "equal protection". But equal protection does not apply because of the definition of marriage as passed, say in Utah, because gays would not be in a marriage as it is legally defined so there is no discrimination. But when you redefine the word "2 consenting adults makes a marriage" Then you have a case. If gays want to be in a domestic partnership that is afforded the same rights as a marriage, I have no issue what soever with it. But a marriage it is not and a marriage it will never be no matter how many judges rule on it. It doesn't directly. Marriage is one of the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights Marriage in the US is an inherently religious function. Our constitution deliberately excludes religion as function of the State.
rockpond Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 But this is saying they have a testimony of SOME of the LDS religion. And other parts of the LDS religion they have NO testimony of. I don't think it works that way. Either ALL the gospel is true or it isn't. I don't think it is that simple. Not all has been restored. Not all has been revealed. We are charged to seek the Spirit to know what is true.
Daniel2 Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) But this is saying they have a testimony of SOME of the LDS religion. And other parts of the LDS religion they have NO testimony of. I don't think it works that way. Either ALL the gospel is true or it isn't.Do you believe Joseph Smith was correct when he taught:"Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.""God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart,even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation." Edited October 1, 2014 by Daniel2
USU78 Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 It doesn't directly. Marriage is one of the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights Marriage in the US is an inherently religious function. Our constitution deliberately excludes religion as function of the State. You are quite wrong. I Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone (1765) at 421: Our law considers marriage in no other light light than as a civil contract. The holiness of the matrimonial state is left entirely to the ecclesiastical law: the temporal courts not having jurisdiction to consider unlawful marriages as a sin, but merely as a civil inconvenience. This was the state of the law of marriage at the adoption of the Constitution, and was the law in every state, which acceded to the rights of the Sovereign in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris. Then, upon disestablishment of the Churches by the states, the ecclesiastical laws were adopted by and enforced by the several states. You are correct in stating that the feds never had jurisdiction to look at marriage laws prior to their usurpations that led to the overruling of the miscegenation laws. You don't care because you like the outcome. The feds never had any business getting into the business of regulating marriage, yet here they are: Virginia would eventually have grown tired of enforcing unenforceable and silly laws had not the feds decided to get into the business. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Do you believe Joseph Smith was correct when he taught:"Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.""God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart,even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation." Of course I do.I just don't believe that homosexual relations can ever fit in this category, because I still believe they violate the eternal order of things. It would be like God suddenly deciding to give us all gills - without precedent and out of order. It's not just a matter of permission. God can't give his permission on something that simply can't exist - the eternal same sex marriage. And as for the "happiness", well, despite what we are told about the wonderful same sex relationships "wickedness never was happiness" and those who believe that a sinful condition will make them happy are operating under a delusion.
Rob Osborn Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Now you're just repeating my question back at me. Interesting approach. I was curious as to your thoughts on the matter. But I'll give you mine, since you asked: Based on my interactions with those who I have talked to, they stay because they believe, because they have a testimony of the restoration, because the love the gospel, the priesthood, the temple, the saving ordinances.And thus the slippery slope. The entire gospel is built around the family unit. The church came out decades ago with the proclomation to the world on the family and made very clear what a family is and how paramount it is to our freedom and society. So now, some 20+ years later we have gay mormons fighting to change the definition of marriage and family in direct opposition to church fundamental teachings. To say they have a testimony makes it sound as if they are right in their defiant cause. They do not realize that their actions are actions acting in opposition to Gods plan. The slippery slope has began. May God help us.
rockpond Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 And thus the slippery slope. The entire gospel is built around the family unit. The church came out decades ago with the proclomation to the world on the family and made very clear what a family is and how paramount it is to our freedom and society. So now, some 20+ years later we have gay mormons fighting to change the definition of marriage and family in direct opposition to church fundamental teachings. To say they have a testimony makes it sound as if they are right in their defiant cause. They do not realize that their actions are actions acting in opposition to Gods plan. The slippery slope has began. May God help us. Well, I was hoping that you might be able to take a moment to consider their perspective. Also, I hope you realize that it isn't just "gay mormons" who are in support of gay marriage, there are straight mormons who support it as well. And, I am less interested in "church fundamental teachings" and more interested in God's revealed truth.
Rob Osborn Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Well, I was hoping that you might be able to take a moment to consider their perspective. Also, I hope you realize that it isn't just "gay mormons" who are in support of gay marriage, there are straight mormons who support it as well. And, I am less interested in "church fundamental teachings" and more interested in God's revealed truth.The proclamation to the world on the family is revealed truth. If an LDS cant believe that then move on and stop calling yourself Mormon. Anyone who supports gay marriage cant be a tru Latter Day Saint in my opinion because it directly contradicts our core fundamental beliefs. 1
rockpond Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 The proclamation to the world on the family is revealed truth. If an LDS cant believe that then move on and stop calling yourself Mormon. Anyone who supports gay marriage cant be a tru Latter Day Saint in my opinion because it directly contradicts our core fundamental beliefs. Wow. No thanks. p.s. The Proclamation does not reveal anything about homosexuality. Nor does it claim to be revelation.
california boy Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Constitutional law... that old "pursuit of happiness" clause. But anyone with common sense realizes there has to be a limit to the pursuit of happiness. Not everything that makes us happy should be legal. Well you completely discredited your understanding of the constitution. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Edited October 1, 2014 by california boy
Storm Rider Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Wow. No thanks. p.s. The Proclamation does not reveal anything about homosexuality. Nor does it claim to be revelation. You are stretching and you know it. The Proclamation specifically addresses and defines what a family is. It addresses homosexuality by its absence and the obvious fact that when you have a father and mother you don't have individuals of the same sex united in a marriage or in a relationship. This constant bickering and disingenuous ignoring of facts is not helpful. It avoids the real conversation of immorality and how it applies to those with SSA and conversations that address how to best serve our brothers and sisters that suffer the extreme heartache of striving with SSA while fully engaged as disciples of Christ. These are valid conversations. Attempting to ignore the condemnation of homosexual behavior by church leaders and scripture is deceitful and exceedingly blind and/or deaf. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Well you completely discredited your understanding of the constitution. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Whoops! And I knew that too - Guess that's what comes from NOT being American.
rockpond Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 You are stretching and you know it. The Proclamation specifically addresses and defines what a family is. It addresses homosexuality by its absence and the obvious fact that when you have a father and mother you don't have individuals of the same sex united in a marriage or in a relationship. This constant bickering and disingenuous ignoring of facts is not helpful. It avoids the real conversation of immorality and how it applies to those with SSA and conversations that address how to best serve our brothers and sisters that suffer the extreme heartache of striving with SSA while fully engaged as disciples of Christ. These are valid conversations. Attempting to ignore the condemnation of homosexual behavior by church leaders and scripture is deceitful and exceedingly blind and/or deaf. It is stretching the facts to claim that we have revealed truth regarding homosexuality. The absence of homosexuality in the proclamation does not mean we have revealed truth. What the language in the Proclamation does is specifically leave it open for further revelation on the subject. I believe that all sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful. I believe I've been quite emphatic about that. And I'd love to see conversations here about how we can better serve our gay & lesbian brothers & sisters in the gospel. That is why I have posted the two letters in this thread that share the tender experiences of active, believing LDS families with gay family members... I was hopeful we could move the conversation beyond some of these usual disagreements.
Rob Osborn Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Wow. No thanks. p.s. The Proclamation does not reveal anything about homosexuality. Nor does it claim to be revelation.So what is the proclamation? A piece of paper with no truth? Thats whats wrong with SSM mormon supporters- they cannot recognize truth from false doctrines. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 You are stretching and you know it. The Proclamation specifically addresses and defines what a family is. It addresses homosexuality by its absence and the obvious fact that when you have a father and mother you don't have individuals of the same sex united in a marriage or in a relationship. This constant bickering and disingenuous ignoring of facts is not helpful. It avoids the real conversation of immorality and how it applies to those with SSA and conversations that address how to best serve our brothers and sisters that suffer the extreme heartache of striving with SSA while fully engaged as disciples of Christ. These are valid conversations. Attempting to ignore the condemnation of homosexual behavior by church leaders and scripture is deceitful and exceedingly blind and/or deaf.I think it is important to point this out. Rockpond's kind of thinking needs to be called out forcefully. There has been revelation in the church about what a family is and what marriage is. He just ignores it because it goes against his "revelation". 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 You are quite wrong. I Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone (1765) at 421: This was the state of the law of marriage at the adoption of the Constitution, and was the law in every state, which acceded to the rights of the Sovereign in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris. Then, upon disestablishment of the Churches by the states, the ecclesiastical laws were adopted by and enforced by the several states. You are correct in stating that the feds never had jurisdiction to look at marriage laws prior to their usurpations that led to the overruling of the miscegenation laws. You don't care because you like the outcome. The feds never had any business getting into the business of regulating marriage, yet here they are: Virginia would eventually have grown tired of enforcing unenforceable and silly laws had not the feds decided to get into the business.Thanks for this. I might not know all the ins and outs of the law, but I know when it is being tampered with.
rockpond Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 So what is the proclamation? A piece of paper with no truth? Thats whats wrong with SSM mormon supporters- they cannot recognize truth from false doctrines. It's a guide. And it does not guide us with respect to issues surrounding homosexuality as it is silent on the topic.
rockpond Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I think it is important to point this out. Rockpond's kind of thinking needs to be called out forcefully. There has been revelation in the church about what a family is and what marriage is. He just ignores it because it goes against his "revelation". Cite the revelation.
california boy Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) You are quite wrong. I Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone (1765) at 421: This was the state of the law of marriage at the adoption of the Constitution, and was the law in every state, which acceded to the rights of the Sovereign in 1783 after the Treaty of Paris. Then, upon disestablishment of the Churches by the states, the ecclesiastical laws were adopted by and enforced by the several states. You are correct in stating that the feds never had jurisdiction to look at marriage laws prior to their usurpations that led to the overruling of the miscegenation laws. You don't care because you like the outcome. The feds never had any business getting into the business of regulating marriage, yet here they are: Virginia would eventually have grown tired of enforcing unenforceable and silly laws had not the feds decided to get into the business.LOL. You do realize there was a revolution and we broke away from England in 1776 right?????????????????????? And you do realize that the United States did not sign the Treaty of Paris in 1783 right????????? Of course each state can regulate marriage. There is nor never has been any laws against that UNLESS they pass laws that deny rights of American citizens that are guaranteed in the Constitution. Is this a new concept to you?? For example states can not pass a marriage law denying marriage to say any Mormon or any black or we don't allow Jews to get legally married in the state of Utah. EVEN if the populous of the state vote to pass such a law. Seriously, READ the briefs on any of the numerous federal rulings. That is why this issue is being decided in federal court and not state court. It is a federal issue because it breaks federal rights specifically the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment. Your presumptive interpretation of constitutional law goes against EVERY federal court in this country??? Yet you think your Interpretation is the correct one???? And just what credentials do you have to present to make your personal inturpetition have any validity? What do you base it on. What criteria are you basing your opinion on to go against every single federal court in this country? A commentary of English law written in the 1700??? Please, get serious. If this legal argument had a leg to stand on, don't you think that at least all the conservative judges that have ruled in favor of gay marriagea rights would have used it?? I hate to break it to you, but the Constitution of the United States trumps English law in the courts of America. Sorry Mola, you are hitching your hopes to a guy that is certainly not very familiar with how the constitution treats state laws that deny federal rights guaranteed to all Americans. Edited October 1, 2014 by california boy
Rob Osborn Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 It's a guide. And it does not guide us with respect to issues surrounding homosexuality as it is silent on the topic.Its an official proclamation. It defines marriage and family as husband and wife. Gay marriage is against our religious beliefs.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Lots of Mormons in Massachusetts are in favor of gay marriage. It seems to be an area thing with the church headquarters in heavy conservative utah.
rockpond Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Its an official proclamation. It defines marriage and family as husband and wife. Gay marriage is against our religious beliefs.I agree, it is by definition a "proclamation". Further defined as a "guide" by an apostle (Pres. Packer). Where in the text does it specifically define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman?
Recommended Posts