ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 It wasn't (at least as far as I know ), but it's used as a Primary song; hence, my three-to-twelve-year-old reference. Okay at my age it has been years since I have learned any primary songs.
DJBrown Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Yes, in CA it was legal for gay couples to marry when the church successfully campaigned for Prop 8. Again, I did not say that the church took the rights away. I said that it campaigned to take those rights away. I didn't say it wasn't legal. It was legal. I said that given what they had to say in the press conference yesterday, I would expect them to show some remorse for past actions and statements against non-discrimination ordinances for homosexuals and against religious freedom with respect to marriage. Proposition 22 preceded Prop 8 by about 8 years. When 8 was only campaigned for, it was in the context of the court having taken away the result of 22. And when 22 was passed, gay marriage was not legal. How can the church campaign to take away rights that are not existent in the first place? The right for gays to marry did not exist in 2000 when 22 was passed. They have nothing to apologize for with regard to gay rights. Their position has not changed. They are asserting the very same religious freedoms they exercised previously. It is just that political and moral climate has changed. 2
Mystery Meat Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Perhaps the point is to teach them correct principles Teach them to serve all of God's children whether they are sinners or not. Teach them to be chairtable and giving even when others are doing something we think is a sin. If the church won't teach those principles and instead goes on record defending bad behavior, then I will take a stand. I will declare to all the world that we need to be more kind, less judgemental and give of ourselves to others no matter who they are or what sins they are committing. Will you stand with me in not discriminating against sinners? Or will you stand with Elder Oaks who is on a campaign to encourage discriminating against those religion thinks is sinning. We are all beggers. We are all sinners. Leave the judgement of other people's sins to God. The government's job is not to teach correct prinicpals. In fact, I am pretty sure no one in government would know a correct principal if it hit them in the face. And given the choice, yes I will always stand with a Special Witness of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We know the fate of those who don't: 36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 1
Mystery Meat Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Things get a little dicey not standing with the apostles. Did you read my little ditty about how the principle of non-discrimination sounds wonderful, but real life can be a bit messier? There will be a lot of sinners who get upset when God denies them access to the Celestial Kingdom.
california boy Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Im pretty much right there with you except for that I am going to continue to express my freedom of speech in the condemnation of homosexual behavior. Then I will count you among us who are unwilling to take up Elder Oaks call to justify discriminating against someone who is sinning. We serve all of God's children, rich or poor, bond or free, saint or sinner. We are all beggars unto Christ. I personally would always want you to have the ability and right to express your freedom of speech in the condemnation of homosexual behavior or anything else you think is sinful. Whether someone is a sinner or not should have no bearing on whether we should serve them.
Mystery Meat Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Psst. The majority of gay marriage are open marriages. That is the dirty secret. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0 Yuck.
Mystery Meat Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Then I will count you among us who are unwilling to take up Elder Oaks call to justify discriminating against someone who is sinning. We serve all of God's children, rich or poor, bond or free, saint or sinner. We are all beggars unto Christ. I personally would always want you to have the ability and right to express your freedom of speech in the condemnation of homosexual behavior or anything else you think is sinful. Whether someone is a sinner or not should have no bearing on whether we should serve them. You are putting words in his mouth. Elder Oaks never said that people should refuse to serve gay folks, only that they shouldn't be punished for doing so. But thanks for trying to demonize and manipulate his words. Doesn't do your side any favors. 3
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Proposition 22 preceded Prop 8 by about 8 years. When 8 was only campaigned for, it was in the context of the court having taken away the result of 22. And when 22 was passed, gay marriage was not legal. How can the church campaign to take away rights that are not existent in the first place? The right for gays to marry did not exist in 2000 when 22 was passed. They have nothing to apologize for with regard to gay rights. Their position has not changed. They are asserting the very same religious freedoms they exercised previously. It is just that political and moral climate has changed. Knight commissioned Prop 22 because he and his associates realized that the law did not prohibit gay marriage. That's why, when 22 was overturned, gay marriage became legal. The right existed at the time that Prop 8 was written. That's why it was written. But even if the right didn't exist, it is a right currently recognized and the Church campaigned against it. More importantly it is a matter of religious freedom. And the Church campaigned against it. They also fought against a non-discrimination law in my home state, filing an amicus curiae brief in opposition.
Ahab Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Whether someone is a sinner or not should have no bearing on whether we should serve them.Serving them what, though?Would you sell a weapon to someone who you knew had murdered other people and had not repented?Giving two people of the same sex a marriage license to "marry" each other isn't doing something that is good for them, regardless of some secular law.
california boy Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Hmmm ... OK. Usually, I don't attempt to read people's minds no matter how well I might think I know them, but, to each, his own. I don't know if Ms. Pearson wrote the song, after which the Primary organization received her permission to include it in the organization's music materials, or if the Primary specifically commissioned her to write it. If the former, then it's certainly possible that one factor that motivated her to compose the song is her concern that children might mistreat gays. Young children are fairly guileless. I don't know that it would occur to (m)any of them to mistreat someone on the basis of his or her sexual identity If the latter, I highly doubt that the Primary's general leadership would have explicitly instructed her to keep such a concern in mind when composing it. I don't recall making that argument in my previous post (or anywhere else, for that matter). If you can point out to me where I did so, I'll be happy to retract it. OK. I don't think I said anything in my previous post that is inconsistent with His teachings. If you believe I did, we'll simply have to agree to disagree about that. Hopefully the primary songs we learn as children teach us lessons we keep throughout our lives. That song should remind us of what is the right thing to do no matter how old we are or what sins others may have. If you are willing to stand up against discrimination and offer service to all, then I welcome you to join our path. I hope that you would never withhold your service to another because you think sinners don't deserve your service. We carry a message of love and charity to all.
Stone holm Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Ah California Boy, but Elder Oaks believes it would be a denial of religious liberty to require someone to not discriminate in providing service. So all those former Confederates that felt that they had a religious basis for segregating the lunch counters would be perfectly right in doing so. In fact, we should encourage people like the Westboro Baptist Church to keep demonstrating at military funerals because they believe they have a religious duty to call gays names and tell them that God hates them. This is the slippery slope that the Oaks doctrine sets us sliding down. 1
DJBrown Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Knight commissioned Prop 22 because he and his associates realized that the law did not prohibit gay marriage. That's why, when 22 was overturned, gay marriage became legal. The right existed at the time that Prop 8 was written. That's why it was written. But even if the right didn't exist, it is a right currently recognized and the Church campaigned against it. More importantly it is a matter of religious freedom. And the Church campaigned against it. They also fought against a non-discrimination law in my home state, filing an amicus curiae brief in opposition. A gay couple who sought a marriage license in California before Prop 22 would not have been issued one. Call that whatever you would like. No gay marriages were allowed before the court overturned Prop 22. You can dress anything up in religious freedom. Are you really trying to argue that the church was campaigning against religious freedom with Prop 22 and Prop 8? I would have to know the details of that non-discrimination law before commenting. So many issues have been hijacked by manipulation of language. "Pro-Choice" is a good example. Or "anti-choice."
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Things get a little dicey not standing with the apostles. Did you read my little ditty about how the principle of non-discrimination sounds wonderful, but real life can be a bit messier? That is equally true about religious liberty. Sounds wonderful in principle, but real life can be a bit messier. As with everything, it is a balance, and the church acknowledges that. In the State of the State address yesterday, governor Hurbert stated, “I personally believe that if we have anti-discrimination legislation that would be on a statewide basis, it needs to be coupled with religious freedom legislation so that they work in concert with each other, so that there’s no diminution of the rights of either side.” I agree with this statement and it is clear that he is following the Church's lead. However, it is impossible to to not have diminution with legislation on either side. Edited January 29, 2015 by pogi
Mystery Meat Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Ah California Boy, but Elder Oaks believes it would be a denial of religious liberty to require someone to not discriminate in providing service. So all those former Confederates that felt that they had a religious basis for segregating the lunch counters would be perfectly right in doing so. In fact, we should encourage people like the Westboro Baptist Church to keep demonstrating at military funerals because they believe they have a religious duty to call gays names and tell them that God hates them. This is the slippery slope that the Oaks doctrine sets us sliding down. So who get's to be the arbitrator of whose discrimination is okay? The government? Yikes. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Psst. The majority of gay marriage are open marriages. That is the dirty secret. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0Which supports the idea that what many gay "marriage" proponents really want with their redefinition of marriage is to define it out of existence. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Hopefully the primary songs we learn as children teach us lessons we keep throughout our lives. That song should remind us of what is the right thing to do no matter how old we are or what sins others may have. If you are willing to stand up against discrimination and offer service to all, then I welcome you to join our path. I hope that you would never withhold your service to another because you think sinners don't deserve your service. We carry a message of love and charity to all. Serving people does not mean giving them any- and everything they want. In fact, trying to do so may well be ill-serving them. Edited January 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Mystery Meat Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Hopefully the primary songs we learn as children teach us lessons we keep throughout our lives. That song should remind us of what is the right thing to do no matter how old we are or what sins others may have. If you are willing to stand up against discrimination and offer service to all, then I welcome you to join our path. I hope that you would never withhold your service to another because you think sinners don't deserve your service. We carry a message of love and charity to all. Keep saying this. Maybe a few ill informed people will actually not realize this is a total strawman and praise your for your self righteousness.
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Then I will count you among us who are unwilling to take up Elder Oaks call to justify discriminating against someone who is sinning. We serve all of God's children, rich or poor, bond or free, saint or sinner. We are all beggars unto Christ. I personally would always want you to have the ability and right to express your freedom of speech in the condemnation of homosexual behavior or anything else you think is sinful. Whether someone is a sinner or not should have no bearing on whether we should serve them. And I thought we were doing so well and here you go misrepresenting what was said, If we're going to get anywhere you are going to have to be more honest than that. 3
rockpond Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 A gay couple who sought a marriage license in California before Prop 22 would not have been issued one. Call that whatever you would like. No gay marriages were allowed before the court overturned Prop 22. I'm not sure about your first sentence -- neither of us have the ability to prove or disprove that statement. Gay marriages were allowed and legally recognized after the court overturned Prop 22 which is when Prop 8 was initiated. You can dress anything up in religious freedom. Are you really trying to argue that the church was campaigning against religious freedom with Prop 22 and Prop 8? Yes, they were campaigning against religious freedom. But I know they didn't view it that way. I would have to know the details of that non-discrimination law before commenting. So many issues have been hijacked by manipulation of language. "Pro-Choice" is a good example. Or "anti-choice." Romer v Evans. The law basically sought to do what the non-discrimination ordinance in SLC did... the church now supports such laws but it didn't back in the 90's.
Mystery Meat Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 And I thought we were doing so well and here you go misrepresenting what was said, If we're going to get anywhere you are going to have to be more honest than that. I am glad I am not the only one who noticed the unethical, dishonest and deplorable mis-characterization that CB is engaging in. It is beyond disgusting. 1
Tacenda Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Psst. The majority of gay marriage are open marriages. That is the dirty secret.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0Well SSM is relatively new and evolving, in polygamy they have several partners as well, they're open marriages, for instance. I hope that eventually most, if not all gay marriages will be monogamous, in a perfect world. I guess I'm an obnoxious moralist when it comes to fidelity. And a believer in someone not suffering with inequality. Somewhere I read someone ask the question, why did God make individuals have these tendencies, he's not an inept God is he? Not in those words exactly. And now I'm sure you'll compare it to people born with disabilities Edited January 29, 2015 by Tacenda
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Ah California Boy, but Elder Oaks believes it would be a denial of religious liberty to require someone to not discriminate in providing service. It would be a denial of liberty, period, to require someone to not discriminate in providing service. That said the government does need to protect access to essential services (housing, access to medical treatment,etc). Non-essential services is another debate. 1
ERayR Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Yes, they were campaigning against religious freedom. But I know they didn't view it that way. Your statement is not self evident. Please explain.
pogi Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) If you are willing to stand up against discrimination and offer service to all, then I welcome you to join our path. I hope that you would never withhold your service to another because you think sinners don't deserve your service. We carry a message of love and charity to all. California boy, if I ever start a bakery, you can shop at my store. If you ever need home health or hospice services (heaven forbid), I will not withhold my service. though I do not support your life style, I do support your rights to live according to the dictates of your own conscience. That is what I support, not your lifestyle. If my product is not wrong to sell to a Mormon, it is not wrong to sell to a gay person. Edited January 29, 2015 by pogi 1
Danzo Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I'm not sure about your first sentence -- neither of us have the ability to prove or disprove that statement. Gay marriages were allowed and legally recognized after the court overturned Prop 22 which is when Prop 8 was initiated. Yes, they were campaigning against religious freedom. But I know they didn't view it that way. Romer v Evans. The law basically sought to do what the non-discrimination ordinance in SLC did... the church now supports such laws but it didn't back in the 90's. I think you have the timeline wrong. Prop 8 was started before the California Supreme court ruled. The Election occurred after the ruling. So technically, Prop 8 was initiated before the state recognized homosexual marriage.
Recommended Posts