The Nehor Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 And if you want to know what that Gay New World looks like, see here. That is a sad story. But is it the norm? I doubt it. Is it a biased account? Almost certainly. While the father is detestable in many ways due to what I imagine he thinks is his openness with his sexuality I have known heterosexual parents who have warped their children's sexuality and development by being "too open".That being said I think that in the end we will rue the day same sex marriage becomes pervasive. While people who,have admittedly suffered from bigotry and hate may find some amount of relief I am convinced that in the end it will cause much more suffering then it alleviates.
Damien the Leper Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) That is a sad story. But is it the norm? I doubt it. Is it a biased account? Almost certainly. While the father is detestable in many ways due to what I imagine he thinks is his openness with his sexuality I have known heterosexual parents who have warped their children's sexuality and development by being "too open".That being said I think that in the end we will rue the day same sex marriage becomes pervasive. While people who,have admittedly suffered from bigotry and hate may find some amount of relief I am convinced that in the end it will cause much more suffering then it alleviates.A very sad story.I would like to know the thoughts and feelings of the kids.I also disagree with the judge's decision. Shared custody would have been more ideal.A cousin of mine who lives in Utah lost custody of her kids to an emotionally and physically abusive husband. The judge's ruling was based on the fact he was the patriarch and bread winner of the family. What a vile and reprehensible ruling; just as the one the article Pahoran shared. The bright side is that she appealed. Unfortunately, the process was drawn out for 3 years. The damage to both kids has been done and neither kid wants much to do with either of of their parents.Asserting patriarchal dominance and matriarchal subjugation is vile.These cases make me sad.Fortunately, this is not the standard in either case or the expected future circumstances. And I am grateful no one is claiming such. Edited October 28, 2014 by Valentinus
Tchild2 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) That is no answer.If the feds, through legislation or SCOTUS, determine that the Church must perform SSMs in wardhouses, stake centers and/or Temples, will you stand beside me to block the marshalls from enforcing the writ?What if the Bishop, forced by writ as conjured up in this narcissist religious fantasy, just slept in, had postum and eggs and never showed up to the wedding?How many non LDS or even non "worthy" LDS heteresexual couples has the LDS church been compelled to perform in their temples in the last 168 years? If you said ZERO, then that same number is exactly how many gay marriages the church will be forced to perform in the next 168.Now, back to the medieval madness of The Nehor's last days predictions. Mormon Dialogue - the true "Meet the Mormons" experience. Edited October 28, 2014 by Tchild2 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 And if you want to know what that Gay New World looks like, see here. Regards,PahoranNot only is it sad it is despicable. The dude had made commitments. And being gay does not trump that. What a jacked up world we live in. 1
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Not only is it sad it is despicable. The dude had made commitments. And being gay does not trump that. What a jacked up world we live in.Does it make me jaded that I am no longer surprised by things like this? With about half of marriages failing do we even expect people to keep commitments anymore? 1
Daniel2 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Divorce is tragic and an emotional bulldozer for all concerned--especially children.This woman's devastating experience is a testament to how bad mixed-orientation marriages usually are.I know from my own experiences that there are two (and more) sides to every story, and something tells me that this woman isn't giving a full picture of why her husband was awarded so much custody.Even so, her article is an important reminder that as everyone becomes more free to select and marry a spouse that corresponds with their innate sexually orientation, these types of ill-founded mixed-orientation marriages--and their devastating divorces--should decrease.Her article is an argument in FAVOR of marriage equality, not against it. Edited October 28, 2014 by Daniel2 3
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Divorce is tragic and an emotional bulldozer for all concerned--especially children.This woman's devastating experience is a testament to how bad mixed-orientation marriages usually are.I know from my own experiences that there are two (and more) sides to every story, and something tells me that this woman isn't giving a full picture of why her husband was awarded so much custody.Even so, her article is an important reminder that as everyone becomes more free to select and marry a spouse that corresponds with their innate sexually orientation, these types of ill-founded mixed-orientation marriages--and their devastating divorces--should decrease.I am glad I am not the only one who found her story suspicious. Full custody because one party was gay? Seems more likely she gave off crazy vibes in the courtroom. I could be wrong but I would like to hear the other side or, even better, the judge explaining the rationale for their decision. 1
USU78 Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 Not only is it sad it is despicable. The dude had made commitments. And being gay does not trump that. What a jacked up world we live in. The true war on women. 1
USU78 Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 Does it make me jaded that I am no longer surprised by things like this? With about half of marriages failing do we even expect people to keep commitments anymore? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRchNRJ4Qhs Yes, we do. Either your word means something or it doesn't. Either your commitment is to be taken seriously or it isn't. Either you are an adult willing to sacrifice selfish desires for the benefit of others or you aren't. Either you're a Latter Day Saint or you're not.
USU78 Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 this narcissist religious fantasy Charming as ever.
USU78 Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 NOTICE: This thread will be locked quite soon, so get in your licks now or you'll have to take them elsewhere.
Daniel2 Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) I am glad I am not the only one who found her story suspicious. Full custody because one party was gay? Seems more likely she gave off crazy vibes in the courtroom. I could be wrong but I would like to hear the other side or, even better, the judge explaining the rationale for their decision.I agree on all counts. But it appears that assuming any portion of responsibility for her loss of custody wouldn't play well with her strategy to focus on her victimization at the hands of her gay ex-husband and an unjust and crooked judge.Still, this woman and her obvious pain deserve compassion, even if her conclusions aren't validated by external evidence, experiences, and conclusions of the court. Edited October 28, 2014 by Daniel2
california boy Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Not only is it sad it is despicable. The dude had made commitments. And being gay does not trump that. What a jacked up world we live in.It is sad. Divorce is always sad. But quite frankly this story sounds pretty much like every divorce story I have ever heard as narrated by the wronged wife. The judge treated me unfair. I don't like how my exhusband is raising the kids. etc. Does anyone else find it a bit bizzaar that a gay couple would have erotic photos of women on their walls? Kinda makes me wonder the credibility of the angry wife. But then I take most stories of divorce couples as being very one sided. Being gay does not made divorce any better or any worse. It is still divorce. EVERY dude that get's divorced has made commitments. The children are torn away from one parent no matter if they are straight or single. Divorce is always despicable. Even straight divorces.
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Either your word means something or it doesn't. Either your commitment is to be taken seriously or it isn't. Either you are an adult willing to sacrifice selfish desires for the benefit of others or you aren't. Either you're a Latter Day Saint or you're not.I did not mean me personally. I just no longer expect others to keep their commitments. Probably why my grandpa as stake president announced an eleventh commandment for the stake: "Thou shalt keep thy commitments."
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 The true war on women.I hope so. If the real war on women is primarily fought by their gay husbands then most women are safe.I doubt it though. 1
sethpayne Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Nevermind Edited October 28, 2014 by sethpayne
sethpayne Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I look forward go the day when the hyperbole and false hysteria of this thread and others like it become part of a long-forgotten past, and we once again regain the vision of a nation of families united by a shared vision of freedom, justice, and liberty for all. I'm framing this.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 It is sad. Divorce is always sad. But quite frankly this story sounds pretty much like every divorce story I have ever heard as narrated by the wronged wife. The wronged wife? But he chose to leave on his own accord. And the narrative in the past is that the woman almost always got custody. And she does have several valid points, assuming they are true.
sethpayne Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Yes, as long as those who believe in traditional marriage submit completely, you can "peacefully coexist" with them. Hey Pahoran, I don't think this is an accurate characterization. Both Daniel and I have consistently spoken out in favor of both the rights of gays AND religious people/institutions. I am just as strongly opposed to forcing LDS Bishops to perform SSM as I am in favor of legal SSM. I can't speak for Daniel but when I say my main concern is liberty, I mean it. And I don't mean liberty just for one group or another but liberty for all. Part of that is for the government to stay out of religion AND to stay out of defining/regulating people's privately chosen relationships and activities. Seth Edited October 28, 2014 by sethpayne 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) I'm framing this.I'd like to frame the whole thread so I can remind people what was said here when the gay-rights zealotry has infringed substantially on freedom of religion. Edited October 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 The wronged wife? But he chose to leave on his own accord. And the narrative in the past is that the woman almost always got custody. And she does have several valid points, assuming they are true.That women always get custody is a myth. In over half the cases where the man sought custody he got it. Most men just do not seek it.
sethpayne Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I like to frame the whole thread so I can remind people what was said here when the gay-rights zealotry has infringed substantially on freedom of religion. Call me when such zealotry and violations of the 1st amendment begin and I will march along side you in protest.
USU78 Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 Call me when such zealotry and violations of the 1st amendment begin and I will march along side you in protest. . . . but only if the person being compelled due to zealotry to bake a cake or perform a marriage or rent a reception center or arrange flowers is not a volunteer or officious intermeddler . . .
sethpayne Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) . . . but only if the person being compelled due to zealotry to bake a cake or perform a marriage or rent a reception center or arrange flowers is not a volunteer or officious intermeddler . . . Just like hotel owners who are forced to rent rooms to black people. The horror!!!! As has been stated several times in this thread, there is a wide gulf between religious activity and commercial activity. So, call me when religions are put under the same restrictions as mandated by the Civil Rights act because that would be an assault on religious liberty. I will march in protest with you, Scott, Pahoran, and the rest of the board. Edited October 28, 2014 by sethpayne
USU78 Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) As has been stated several times in this thread, there is a wide gulf between religious activity and commercial activity. Only if you wrest the meaning of both out of their proper context, as you and others have done. How Strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! -- Sam Adams, 1776 If I cannot engage in economic activity with my conscience clear and my activities unburdened by tyranny, I am not free. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. -- Tom Jefferson, 1791 Edited October 28, 2014 by USU78 1
Recommended Posts