Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[JLHPROF]

Technically, it is not ruled out.  It is just not "ruled in".  

 

One can believe in each one of those statements you quoted and still believe in the possibility of a revelation accepting gay marriage in the church.  That's all I'm saying.  And I'm one of those people.

 

This still sounds like the child that tells its mother "Well, you never specifically said I COULDN'T eat all the cookies before dinner."

 

It makes a poor argument.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Incorrect:  I have not denied what is plainly stated in its contents.  If I have, I challenge you to cite an actual reference from the Proclamation that I have disagreed with.  If you can't, than kindly stop making false statements about me.

 

I asked Rob Osborn to support the claim that he made and he was unable to do it.

 

I suspect that you dislike the fact that the Proclamation has been left open enough that gay marriage could someday be a possibility in the church.  We all have goggles.

 

 

I don't dislike anything with the proclamation. There is nothing in there that any reasonable person could conclude that gay marriage is included or that one day it will be included as a marriage.

 

As some one else stated you could hope that one day the 10 commandments will be over turned. I would not hold my breathe on that one.

 

You disagree with the part that marriage is between a man and a woman. You keep trying to twisting it to include consenting adults. That is not in there at all.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I absolutely accept that that is the current position of the church.  But it is not a statement by the Proclamation that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.  That is what you claimed.  That is what I asked you to support.  And that is what you were unable to support.

The proclamation reads "Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. " That to you means that one day there will be a revelation that God will ordain marriage between a man and a man. I mean seriously, it is the silliest thing I have ever heard.  You are essentially saying this.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

One could also hold out a hope that the 10 Commandments will be done away with as well.

 

 

This still sounds like the child that tells its mother "Well, you never specifically said I COULDN'T eat all the cookies before dinner."

 

It makes a poor argument.

 

 

I don't dislike anything with the proclamation. There is nothing in there that any reasonable person could conclude that gay marriage is included or that one day it will be included as a marriage.

 

As some one else stated you could hope that one day the 10 commandments will be over turned. I would not hold my breathe on that one.

 

You disagree with the part that marriage is between a man and a woman. You keep trying to twisting it to include consenting adults. That is not in there at all.

 

 

The proclamation reads "Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. " That to you means that one day there will be a revelation that God will ordain marriage between a man and a man. I mean seriously, it is the silliest thing I have ever heard.  You are essentially saying this.

 

Right... Saying that one day God might actually reveal His will for His gay children is the same as hoping that someday God might revoke the commandment to not kill, steal, or commit adultery.  And I am being called silly?

[ksfisher]

Right... Saying that one day God might actually reveal His will for His gay children is the same as hoping that someday God might revoke the commandment to not kill, steal, or commit adultery.  And I am being called silly?

I think the point is that, while we believe God will reveal more, what we need to deal with is what we have here and now. It seems difficult enough to follow all that we are being taught by modern prophets. Advocating a position that is in direct opposition to what they are teaching seems, at best, counterproductive.

[rockpond]

I think the point is that, while we believe God will reveal more, what we need to deal with is what we have here and now. It seems difficult enough to follow all that we are being taught by modern prophets. Advocating a position that is in direct opposition to what they are teaching seems, at best, counterproductive.

 

I mostly agree.  But, as long as we already believe that we KNOW or have the answers, we can't be in a position to receive further light.

[ksfisher]

I mostly agree.  But, as long as we already believe that we KNOW or have the answers, we can't be in a position to receive further light.

If we aren't obedient to the commandments and covanents we have now we aren't in a position to receive further light.

[tonie]

You understand that pre-statehood Utah was under direct control of the feds and, thus, there was nothing to usurp, right?

You understand, don't you, that the Federal Government got involved with marriage back in the 1880s.

[rockpond]

If we aren't obedient to the commandments and covanents we have now we aren't in a position to receive further light.

Of course. I'm not suggesting we don't obey the commandments and covenants we have now.

[USU78]

You understand, don't you, that the Federal Government got involved with marriage back in the 1880s.

 

In the territories.

 

Not in the states.

 

That is the issue.

[california boy]

USU78:

 

1. True but incomplete. The American Revolution was fought and won before the first shot heard around the world was fired. I think it basically started with the trial of John Peter  Zenger

2. True.

3. True, but incomplete. The Articles of Confederation were such a failure that delegates to a constitutional convention was formed to modify them. For better or worse they didn't modify them, they throw them out nearly entirely.

4. Blackstone was not the author of American jurisprudence. Blackstone relied upon appeals to the Christian God. Something Americans such as Thomas Paine explicitly rejected.

5. True but incomplete. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The 9th Amendment allows for unenumerated rights to be retained by the people, not the state they happen to reside in. The 14th Amendment specifically states that Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

6. American common law, such as it is, does not come from English Common Law. English Common Law was determined by the rulings of whomever happened to be the autocratic king at the time. American common law, such as it is, is based on Legal Precedence established in Courts of Law established in the US Constitution and upheld by the USSC.

7. The miscegenation laws were struck down as unconstitutional on the basis of the 14th Amendment. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

8. The "States Rights" whine has been used by demagogs and dimwits alike for centuries. IE; The Whiskey Rebellion

9. I'm not a bit "worked up" over it. I'm perfectly content to let religion to continue to assert that SSM is a sin, and that governments needs to get out of the business of prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

 

 

I want to thank you for taking the time to fully debunk USU78 theory that Blackstone's papers is the law of the land and not the Constitution.  We rely on the Constitution to determine law, not english writers.  And as you rightly point out the 9th and 14 amendments provide ALL Americans with protections the states can not take away.  These amendmendments have been sited in every single ruling in favor of equal protection to gay citizens and denying state laws that take away those rights.

 

 

You understand that pre-statehood Utah was under direct control of the feds and, thus, there was nothing to usurp, right?

 

 

My points were in response to cb's silliness, and it was his getting "worked up" that I was mentioning.  Perhaps you missed this, since it was his response to my response to your statement that led to my post to which you responded . . . or something . . .

 

My impatience is with the whole notion of accepting uncritically the method of the usurpation as though it were decreed by G-d.  It wasn't.

 

In the first week of lawschool they teach that laws are tools, not rules, for affecting one's environment.  The tool used in the usurpation, therefore, isn't all that interesting to me.  It is, rather, the motivation behind the usurpation, which I am skeptical of, given what has ensued.

 

VA prolly would have gotten rid of its silly miscegenation law if the folks there hadn't been so oppositional defiant of the feds and the Yankees.  But, of course, the reactionaries wouldn't allow it to proceed organically.

 

I know it is pointless to point out facts to you on this issue with your ideas and theories that go against EVERY SINGLE federal judge in this country.  Claiming you understand Constitutional Law better than all of these men is what is actually silly.  TSS wrote a very good post showing you complete lack of understanding in how these laws both developed and why the constitution trumps state law.  

 

You seem to be making the claim that the only time the Supreme Court has ruled on marriage laws was in the Loving vs Virginia case.  That too is a distortion of fact and once again committing omissions of all of the facts.  In fact the Supreme Court has ruled on marriage laws 14 times in the past.  Here are the rulings and comments from the rulings as they apply to todays issue dating back to the1888.

 

 

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): 

   Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

   Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923):

2. The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

   Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942):

3. Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

   Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965):

4. “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system.  Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.  It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.  Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

   Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967):

5. “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

   Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971):

6. “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

   Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974):

7. “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

   Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality):

8. “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

   Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977):

9. “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.

   Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978):

“[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987):

“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992):

“These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.  At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996):

“Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003):

“[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

Your theories of corrupt judges, usurping power, following some unknown gay agenda is dilusional.  It has no support in fact or law.  It is NOT a new right.  It is a right that has been established over 125 years ago.  And while you will dismiss this post as you have my past posts, it really doesn't matter.  Gay marriage will be the law of the land within the year because the constitution of this country demands it and guarantees equality for all Americans.  EVERY federal court stands behind that promise of equality.  It is unfortunate that you believe in a system of government that does not include equal protection to all including law abiding gay Americans.

[tonie]

In the territories.

 

Not in the states.

 

That is the issue.

 

It does not matter whether in States or territories, you made a stand alone statement "You are likewise free to disagree that the feds never got into the marriage business until miscegenation lost support in the polls, but your ignorance of that truth doesn't change anything about its truth."  Your stand alone statement is incorrect, and now you attempt to offer a clarification; which appears to be a moving of the target.

[california boy]

It does not matter whether in States or territories, you made a stand alone statement "You are likewise free to disagree that the feds never got into the marriage business until miscegenation lost support in the polls, but your ignorance of that truth doesn't change anything about its truth."  Your stand alone statement is incorrect, and now you attempt to offer a clarification; which appears to be a moving of the target.

And you might also add that the ruling applied to both the territories of the United States asf well as the states.  So tonie, your statement is correct.  The Federal government not only got involved in marriage through the Edmond-Tucker act but also all the other cases I have listed above.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right... Saying that one day God might actually reveal His will for His gay children is the same as hoping that someday God might revoke the commandment to not kill, steal, or commit adultery.  And I am being called silly?

Talk about missing the forest from the trees. That is not the point at all. You are really straining here to find anything with which to reject which is plainly taught. We have a plan laid out. It is all through out scriptures and in the proclamation. That marriage is between a man and a woman and you are holding out hope that one day there will be a revelation to reverse it all.

 

That is wishful thinking at it's most. Where in the scriptures does it even hint that gay marriage is acceptable or that one day it will happen? In which conference talk does it every specify that it will happen? I am not talking about a statement in which you twist from our own GA's that you think there is hope for this silly notion.

[rockpond]

Talk about missing the forest from the trees. That is not the point at all. You are really straining here to find anything with which to reject which is plainly taught. We have a plan laid out. It is all through out scriptures and in the proclamation. That marriage is between a man and a woman and you are holding out hope that one day there will be a revelation to reverse it all.

 

That is wishful thinking at it's most. Where in the scriptures does it even hint that gay marriage is acceptable or that one day it will happen? In which conference talk does it every specify that it will happen? I am not talking about a statement in which you twist from our own GA's that you think there is hope for this silly notion.

 

Nah... I don't feel that I am straining at all.  And I haven't felt the need to call anyone silly or delusional either.

 

I also certainly do not want a revelation to "reverse it all".

 

What you describe as "wishful thinking" I consider to be faith & hope.  My testimony of the plan of salvation leads me to faith that there is a better answer than celibacy for our homosexual brothers and sisters.  My testimony of the restoration and continuing revelation leads me to hope that we can be blessed with knowledge from God on the complex reality of homosexual orientation.

[thesometimesaint]

 

My points were in response to cb's silliness, and it was his getting "worked up" that I was mentioning.  Perhaps you missed this, since it was his response to my response to your statement that led to my post to which you responded . . . or something . . .

 

My impatience is with the whole notion of accepting uncritically the method of the usurpation as though it were decreed by G-d.  It wasn't.

 

In the first week of lawschool they teach that laws are tools, not rules, for affecting one's environment.  The tool used in the usurpation, therefore, isn't all that interesting to me.  It is, rather, the motivation behind the usurpation, which I am skeptical of, given what has ensued.

 

VA prolly would have gotten rid of its silly miscegenation law if the folks there hadn't been so oppositional defiant of the feds and the Yankees.  But, of course, the reactionaries wouldn't allow it to proceed organically.

 

From what I read CB isn't being silly. What I have consistently said is that I consider SSM a sin. If you will forgive the intended pun "straight" up, matter of fact, that is my belief. What I can't figure out is how in a secular pluralistic society such as ours we continue to make and enforce legal bans on SSM. There is no victim here. What two consenting adults do between the bed sheets is none of my or governments business.

 

The whole idea behind the US Constitution was to codify when and under what circumstances governments have the legal right to enforce the rights and responsibilities of its citizens. Personally I object to the use of any God or belief in a particular God as a rationalization for the infringement of the legal rights of others.

 

I've never been to law school, and I don't play a lawyer on the television. As a part of Social Work we're required to read and understand a fair modicum of legalese. We are dealing with the rights of our clients to fair, impartial, legal treatment practices as determined by our governing board.

SEE Social Work Code of Ethics. http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp

 

I'm not convinced that it would have been eliminated organically. We fought a Civil War because slavery wasn't being eliminated organically.

[ksfisher]

There is no victim here. What two consenting adults do between the bed sheets is none of my or governments business.

 

 

"And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?"

 

Genesis 4:9

[thesometimesaint]

"And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?"

 

Genesis 4:9

 

Except that Able didn't consent to be murdered. Also Cain, and presumably God, knew where Able was. Cain lied.

[ksfisher]

Except that Able didn't consent to be murdered. Also Cain, and presumably God, knew where Able was. Cain lied.

 

I think the point being that we are responsible for one another.  There is no saying "what you do is none of my business." 

[california boy]

I think the point being that we are responsible for one another.  There is no saying "what you do is none of my business." 

 

Does that mean I am responsible for making you have a same sex marriage whether you are gay or not?  Or is this just a one way street?

[JLHPROF]

Does that mean I am responsible for making you have a same sex marriage whether you are gay or not?  Or is this just a one way street?

 

It means that “A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race.”

 

And by bless, we mean lead out of sin in this context.

[thesometimesaint]

I think the point being that we are responsible for one another.  There is no saying "what you do is none of my business." 

 

Really? Do you want to have your neighbor looking in on your most intimate moments to determine if they meet with his approval?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nah... I don't feel that I am straining at all.  And I haven't felt the need to call anyone silly or delusional either.

 

I also certainly do not want a revelation to "reverse it all".

 

What you describe as "wishful thinking" I consider to be faith & hope.  My testimony of the plan of salvation leads me to faith that there is a better answer than celibacy for our homosexual brothers and sisters.  My testimony of the restoration and continuing revelation leads me to hope that we can be blessed with knowledge from God on the complex reality of homosexual orientation.

Celibacy. You mean that they might have a change of taste?  That is my hope that they can move past their own imperfections and deal with what is. Not cow tow to every whim they have and embrace them in the name of "equality".

 

BTW there is no such thing as marriage equality when it comes to same sex marriage. The 2 are totally different things.

[rockpond]

Celibacy. You mean that they might have a change of taste?  That is my hope that they can move past their own imperfections and deal with what is. Not cow tow to every whim they have and embrace them in the name of "equality".

 

BTW there is no such thing as marriage equality when it comes to same sex marriage. The 2 are totally different things.

Sexual orientation is not an imperfection. Nor does it appear that many, if not most, can change their orientation. Saying that gay people are just cow towing to whims, in my opinion, shows an extremely dismissive and unconsiderate attitude toward our brothers and sisters who are homosexual.

Since I define marriage by factors other than genitalia, I am comfortable using the term "marriage equality".

[Calm]

Sexual orientation is not an imperfection.

Do you include all forms of sexual orientation in this statement?