Rob Osborn Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 And that was my answer. You have 50 court cases where gay marriage has been decided based on constitutional protected rights. If you sincerely want to know the legal constitutional reasons for allowing gay marrige then just read ONE of those 50 rulings. What the heck do you think these cases have been about if it is not the legal constitutional right to marry??Marriage is between man and woman only. You have corrupt judges that try to redefine marriage. Thats the problem. 2
california boy Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Marriage is between man and woman only. You have corrupt judges that try to redefine marriage. Thats the problem.I think what you mean to say is that YOU think marriage is between a man and a woman. Or even that YOU think God considers marriage to be between a man and a woman. And that anyone who disagrees with your opinion YOU consider corrupt. It is a pretty egocentric position to take don't you think? If you had read ANY of the briefs on the striking down of gay marriage bans, you would realize that while your church disagrees, the Constitution of the United States does not. Hence, virtually every district and federal circuit judge both liberal and conservative have all come to the same conclusion. Gay marriage is protected under the Constitution of the United States. Calling judges corrupt is not going to change those civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all Americans.
stemelbow Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 eh...as I see it we would be better off as a Church if we allowed gay people to participate and lead our congregations. God works in strange ways sometimes. We simply don't understand. if it so be that He wants everyone involved in Mormonism I'd be happy as a clam. Right now I fear we're too insular, too stilted, too scared, too dogmatic, too seeing through the glass darkly. 1
rodheadlee Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Well that is one way to avoid dealing with real issues. I didn't realize you had never heard the church referred to as Mormons. My apologies. P.S. You might want to direct this comment to the church leaders. You can find their official web site at www.mormons.org. We can be called Mormons but it's not the Mormon Church. As a convert in my 20s I had no idea the "Mormon Church" was Christ's own church. I got the straight skinny at the World's Fair in Spokane, Wa. So yeah it's a pet peeve of mine. 2
tonie Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) I think what you mean to say is that YOU think marriage is between a man and a woman. Or even that YOU think God considers marriage to be between a man and a woman. And that anyone who disagrees with your opinion YOU consider corrupt. It is a pretty egocentric position to take don't you think? If you had read ANY of the briefs on the striking down of gay marriage bans, you would realize that while your church disagrees, the Constitution of the United States does not. Hence, virtually every district and federal circuit judge both liberal and conservative have all come to the same conclusion. Gay marriage is protected under the Constitution of the United States. Calling judges corrupt is not going to change those civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all Americans. Often times, when on disagrees with a Judge's ruling, calling the Judge "corrupt" is much easier than keeping oneself informed on the legal reasoning the Judge relied on and why the arguments failed. Edited January 26, 2015 by tonie
rodheadlee Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Well you are wrong. I do post on other issues. If you are interested in some of my other recent non gay issue posting can be found on "Why do they stay" "Best Answers to The Common Statement in My Home Lately" "Why Are Youth Leaving the Church" threads among others. What I don't post on are threads that talk about the proof against Mormon scriptures like those disproving the Book of Mormon or The Book of Abraham. I don't think it is my responsibility or duty to tear down anyone's religious beliefs. But that doesn't mean I don't have a passion for defending the civil rights of gays and discussing how the church deals with it's gay members and those of the rest of the LGTB community. And in fact, if you read my posts about gay issues, I have never stated that the church does not have the right to preach anything it wants against gays. I only point out the wrongness of discrimination and lack of revelation for many of these policies against its gay members. I am a gay man that brings a gay perspective to an otherwise pretty much straight board. I think I have a perspective that adds to the discussion of this issue. If you don't think so, then I think there is a way you can ignore my posts.Why do they stay is an SSM/Gay thread but whatever. I'll check out some of your other posts. I think it's my duty to build up people's belief in Christ and the Gospel. I will say the reason the Church took the position it did on prop 8 is because of these verses in Helaman.21 Yea, they began to remember the aprophecies of Alma, and also the bwords of Mosiah; and they saw that they had been a cstiffnecked people, and that they had set at dnaught the commandments of God;22 And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the alaws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted, and that they had become a wicked people, insomuch that they were wicked even like unto the Lamanites. 23 And because of their iniquity the church had begun to adwindle; and they began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face. Helaman 5:2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the avoice of the people, and they who bchose evil were cmore numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were dripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. 3 Yea, and this was not all; they were a astiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction. Just because something can be legal doesn't mean it should be legal. Adultery is legal.
tonie Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Just because something can be legal doesn't mean it should be legal. Adultery is legal. Just because we believe God said something is wrong, doesn't mean it should be illegal. The LDS accept as scripture that it is unjust to mingle religion with civil government, to the proscribing of others in their religious beliefs. Additionally, the United States can not demand that its law be based on what it thinks God demands. So far its the best setup that any Nation has.
Rob Osborn Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 I think what you mean to say is that YOU think marriage is between a man and a woman. Or even that YOU think God considers marriage to be between a man and a woman. And that anyone who disagrees with your opinion YOU consider corrupt. It is a pretty egocentric position to take don't you think? If you had read ANY of the briefs on the striking down of gay marriage bans, you would realize that while your church disagrees, the Constitution of the United States does not. Hence, virtually every district and federal circuit judge both liberal and conservative have all come to the same conclusion. Gay marriage is protected under the Constitution of the United States. Calling judges corrupt is not going to change those civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all Americans. What then is to stop us from us marrying our pets, or our children, or even objects such as a rock or a robot or doll? Theres two sides to this- Gods side, and Satans side. SSM is on Satan's side. Its not any part of godliness.
Rob Osborn Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 eh...as I see it we would be better off as a Church if we allowed gay people to participate and lead our congregations. God works in strange ways sometimes. We simply don't understand. if it so be that He wants everyone involved in Mormonism I'd be happy as a clam. Right now I fear we're too insular, too stilted, too scared, too dogmatic, too seeing through the glass darkly. What do you mean by "lead our congregations"?
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 What then is to stop us from us marrying our pets, or our children, or even objects such as a rock or a robot or doll? Theres two sides to this- Gods side, and Satans side. SSM is on Satan's side. Its not any part of godliness. NONE of your examples is capable of giving Legal Consent.
Mars Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 NONE of your examples is capable of giving Legal Consent. I'm pretty sure I could program that robot to do so. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 NONE of your examples is capable of giving Legal Consent. Immoral society....thats all I am gonna say
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Immoral society....thats all I am gonna say Was it an immoral society that outlawed mixed skin color marriages? Be very careful how you answer.SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
stemelbow Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 What do you mean by "lead our congregations"? Well what does anyone mean by that? I mean take on leadership callings. But we're not there yet. We're still "too insular, too stilted, too scared, too dogmatic, too seeing through the glass darkly". And I guess I'm living with that for now.
Rob Osborn Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Well what does anyone mean by that? I mean take on leadership callings. But we're not there yet. We're still "too insular, too stilted, too scared, too dogmatic, too seeing through the glass darkly". And I guess I'm living with that for now. Do you mean people who have SSA but dont act on it? Or do you mean "active" homosexuals?
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Well what does anyone mean by that? I mean take on leadership callings. But we're not there yet. We're still "too insular, too stilted, too scared, too dogmatic, too seeing through the glass darkly". And I guess I'm living with that for now. Last I looked women were in leadership positions in the Church.SEE https://www.lds.org/callings/primary/messages-from-leaders/messages-from-general-primary-leaders?lang=enghttps://www.lds.org/callings/young-women/leader-resources/biographies?lang=engSEE https://www.lds.org/callings/relief-society/leader-resources/relief-society-presidency-board?lang=eng
Rob Osborn Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Was it an immoral society that outlawed mixed skin color marriages? Be very careful how you answer. SEE https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Are you on God's side or someone else's side?
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Are you on God's side or someone else's side? I'm on God's side. Apparently God wants to keep government and religion separated at least until he returns.SEE Articles of Faith #10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.SEE Articles of Faith #11.We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.SEE Articles of Faith #12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. I think it was that other guy that wanted to force everyone to be good.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 26, 2015 Author Posted January 26, 2015 NONE of your examples is capable of giving Legal Consent.Only because lawmakers and judges have not yet decreed it so. Wasn't too long ago that was the case with same-sex "marriage." 1
stemelbow Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Last I looked women were in leadership positions in the Church. SEE https://www.lds.org/callings/primary/messages-from-leaders/messages-from-general-primary-leaders?lang=eng https://www.lds.org/callings/young-women/leader-resources/biographies?lang=eng SEE https://www.lds.org/callings/relief-society/leader-resources/relief-society-presidency-board?lang=eng Well shoot. That's an entirely different topic. But with that said, I'd be happy to also see women leading from the toppest of levels, not just those levels that report to men.
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted January 26, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted January 26, 2015 I also gave you a rep point. You are absolutely correct. And if the purpose of the church was to get the rest of the world to look upon its membes with distain and mockery from the large and spacious building then they have succeeded haven't they. But let us be clear here, the church is being mocked because of their antigay actions that took to take away the civil right of gay couples to marry. I personally don't care that the church teaches against gay marriage. They are a religion. They have every right to teach whatever they want. And when the church jumped into the business of Prop 8, then those that value equality and civil rights for all Americans are going to push back. People are funny that way. Many value those basic rights guaranteed them by the constitution even when it is a religion trying to take away those rights.In other words, you are entitled to your religious faith so long as you keep your mouth shut about it in public. The liberal/progressive reverence for the First Amendment is heartwarming. 7
stemelbow Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) In other words, you are entitled to your religious faith so long as you keep your mouth shut about it in public. The liberal/progressive reverence for the First Amendment is heartwarming. To be fair he is saying, quite clearly, if the Church taught it's members on Sunday that gay marriage is not a good thing, he'd have no problem at all. but his criticism is that the Church did far more than that. It dedicated money, man-power and resources to influence the outcome. I think it's a fair criticism. I don't see it as requiring the Church to keep their mouth shut about it in public. Edited January 26, 2015 by stemelbow
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 Only because lawmakers and judges have not yet decreed it so.Wasn't too long ago that was the case with same-sex "marriage." True, but irrelevant. Was chattel slavery legal before lawmakers and judges decided it wasn't?SEE Dred Scott Decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._SandfordSEE 14th Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) The liberal/progressive reverence for the First Amendment is heartwarming. That is something the conservatives/reactionaries need to adopt. Edited January 26, 2015 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted January 26, 2015 Posted January 26, 2015 I think what you mean to say is that YOU think marriage is between a man and a woman. Or even that YOU think God considers marriage to be between a man and a woman. And that anyone who disagrees with your opinion YOU consider corrupt. It is a pretty egocentric position to take don't you think? If you had read ANY of the briefs on the striking down of gay marriage bans, you would realize that while your church disagrees, the Constitution of the United States does not. Hence, virtually every district and federal circuit judge both liberal and conservative have all come to the same conclusion. Gay marriage is protected under the Constitution of the United States. Calling judges corrupt is not going to change those civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution to all Americans. It is the opposite position from yours. You do not think that marriage is only between a man and a woman And that anyone who disagrees with your opinion YOU consider corrupt. It is a pretty egocentric position to take don't you think? 2
Recommended Posts