tagriffy Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 The real agenda is NOT equal rights for homosexuals but to trivialize and reduce commitment to the basic unit consisting of mother/father/children. And your evidence for that is ...?
Stone holm Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 CFR on the bolded part.Purely anecdotal comment from a relative who has been part of gay community for 40 years. Indicates that a battle is raging in several gay communities about what activities should occur because gay couples are bringing their kids to community events. Since gay events now include gay couples with children, they are being tamed down. Know of no articles, but I trust what he is saying about gay communities.
california boy Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Purely anecdotal comment from a relative who has been part of gay community for 40 years. Indicates that a battle is raging in several gay communities about what activities should occur because gay couples are bringing their kids to community events. Since gay events now include gay couples with children, they are being tamed down. Know of no articles, but I trust what he is saying about gay communities.It is not a common attitude but I to have heard it expressed. I know there are some who want to believe that what one gay leader states, all gays support. Obviously that iss not true
thesometimesaint Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 It would have. The race to the bottom is a real race. Prop 8 probably would have passed even if the LDS Church not been involved. Anti-gay marriage statutes were being passed in many states and at some point someone was going to challenge it. I don't think its an issue of whether gay marriage hurts heterosexual marriage. Gay marriage does not hurt my marriage anymore than legal prostitution hurts my marriage. Its an issue of standing up for right and wrong. The people in the country want more wickedness and they will get it. The devil rejoices and his angels laugh at the people of America and I am sure he has some new goodies on the drawing board for America that Americans will just fall in love with. Hummm. Do as my God says' or i will hurt you.
Damien the Leper Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Yep. Tarring all religion for the acts of the few really is the Progressive Thing, isn't it. Nice, convenient rationalization.Who tarred all religion? Nice exaggeration as always.
Damien the Leper Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 In our so enlightened society, heaven forbid that the People should disagree with the unelected elites who dictate how they should think and believe. Shut up, pay your taxes and do what we tell you. Who was it that agreed with your sentiment? That person who said that "religion is the opiate of the masses"? I think he was spiritual mentor of one of the greatest, enlightened societies that we have ever seen - a society that sought the same path you seek to impose on us by telling us to shut up and quit whining about our oh-so-benevolent government that is "just doing their job". That society didn't turn out well, did it? Well, some of us, at least, can learn from failed experiments. That doesn't include five activists overstepping their bounds.Nor does it include 4 activists who think they're preserving anything. It's ok to have a 1950s mindset as long as you're in the 1950s. It has no business here and now.
Deborah Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 What I find missing in the discussion of this issue is the fact that the Supremes pretty much nullified States Rights and the will of the people in those states, setting a dangerous precedent for future decisions,. 3
Damien the Leper Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 More evidence that this was never a democracy but a republic.
JLHPROF Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 What I find missing in the discussion of this issue is the fact that the Supremes pretty much nullified States Rights and the will of the people in those states, setting a dangerous precedent for future decisions,. Marriage should have nothing to do with the state (or federal for that matter). "Legal" should be completely irrelevant to marriage.Changing the practice from a religious rite established by God to a union joining people in the eyes of a government is one of the biggest errors in human history.It is as foolish as if we required state approval to be baptized or endowed.At least, that's my opinion. 2
Ahab Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Nice to see you as arbiter of she judges are actually doing their job. <sarcasm and eye roll>Marriage doesn't belong to religion. That is an outright lie. These ignoramuses need to stop whining that marriage has been redefined.Used to be that when a man said he was married you could just take for granted that the man's spouse was what we used to refer to as a "wife" and that his wife was a woman.And the opposite was true if a woman said she was married. HER spouse was what we referred to as a "husband" and her husband was a man.These days you can't take that stuff for granted anymore because a person's spouse can be the same sex. I don't really know what they call each other.That's what I call a redefinition of what it means when a person of a particular sex says he or she is married.I think I'm just an old fashioned guy who still likes the way things used to be. Edited June 28, 2015 by Ahab 1
longview Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Marriage should have nothing to do with the state (or federal for that matter). "Legal" should be completely irrelevant to marriage.Changing the practice from a religious rite established by God to a union joining people in the eyes of a government is one of the biggest errors in human history.It is as foolish as if we required state approval to be baptized or endowed.At least, that's my opinion.It is in the BEST interest of society to safeguard the basic unit consisting of mother/father/children. The parents? It takes a serious commitment of time, greater financial stability, inter-generational support, steady growth of emotional maturity, and so many other factors. The children? They seriously need the emotional and physical security provided by faithful and committed parents. They need the benefits of BOTH mothers and fathers as role models they can emulate. They need the long term nurturing to safely live in their commuities and to be prepared to become law abiding and contributing citizens. The government? The evidence is OVERWHELMING that broken families lead to greater amount of crime, tragic teen pregnancies, drug abuse, suicides, etc.
The Nehor Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Blunder in the sense that the involvement of Churches ultimately triggered a political backlash that sped up and hastened legal recognition . I believe at the time it may have been the popular thing to do, as most polls at the time dis favored SSM. But once the proponents of SSM could say that someone else's religion was being crammed down their throats they awakened people to the fact that this was the Christian Right doing its political thing. That ultimately pushed people who were at best previously indifferent into a pro SSM stance. I don't think there would have been any backlash against Churches saying not in our Church, at least not like the tsunami that occurred, but the idea of forcing others to conform to your religious beliefs just doesn't sit well with many Americans. Americans weren't keen on homosexuality, but they were even less keen on religious intolerance. Had the Churches stayed out of it, the cultural taboos would have kept SSM at bay for much longer. IMNSHOP.I think it was a line we had to publicly draw. It made enemies but it also told those inside and outside the church where we stood and I expect the net result to be positive when tallied at the last day. 3
The Nehor Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 What I find missing in the discussion of this issue is the fact that the Supremes pretty much nullified States Rights and the will of the people in those states, setting a dangerous precedent for future decisions,.The 1860s called and are wondering how you time travelled away. The supremacy of the federal level of government has been established for some time now.
Ahab Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Yes intimacy. In the short response I gave intimacy is probably the best description. A marriage is a commitment between two people to share all the intimate aspects of their being for life (or eternity as LDS believe). Physical, social, emotional, sexual intimacy.At least this is how I would describe my marriage.How would you describe it? "Well when we file a tax return we can do so jointly"....-guerreiro9I think we mostly agree. The word marriage refers to a physical union of separate things that makes them both one. The word isn't limited to referring to separate people who get married. Other things besides people can be married too, as you may know. But when using the word marriage to refer to people getting married, it is an intimate act that makes them married as the join their separate person parts into one. We usually refer to that act as "sex", but sex is actually what a man and a woman are, like when we refer to same sex or opposite sex, so what we call "sex" when we say people have sex with each other is actually marriage with 2 sexes becoming one with each other. And what we often refer to as marriage is actually a marriage ceremony, or wedding, which legally sanctions or authorizes a marriage of 2 sexes.As you may be aware, the language of man is corrupt and people don't always use the correct words to convey what they mean.
Ahab Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I think it was a line we had to publicly draw. It made enemies but it also told those inside and outside the church where we stood and I expect the net result to be positive when tallied at the last day.Exactly. God expects us to get his message out to the world using all the legal remedies of the world and at the final judgement we will hear from our highest authorities, above SCOTUS.
The Nehor Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Exactly. God expects us to get his message out to the world using all the legal remedies of the world and at the final judgement we will hear from our highest authorities, above SCOTUS.While true to a degree I dislike this sentiment. It is the centerpiece of LeHaye's teaching. It is the "Wait until dad gets home and then you will all be in trouble when he tells everyone I was right" kind of thinking. Even if correct that is the wrong way to approach it. 2
longview Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 The real agenda is NOT equal rights for homosexuals but to trivialize and reduce commitment to the basic unit consisting of mother/father/children.And your evidence for that is ...?There are thousands that either directly or indirectly support my statement (I have seen many others make the same observation). I'll just list a few of the evidences:1- Parents are no longer the "movers and shakers" of the local PTA (as was the case decades ago). Public schools are now much more doctrinaire and authoritarian in controlling the children and taking away the prerogatives of the parents. Which is reminiscent of the early days of the Soviet Union's failed attempt to communalize the rearing of children. There are many horror stories of Child "Protective" Agencies overstepping their roles.2- Assault on homeschoolers and various governmental harassment around the world (notably in Germany and the USA).3- The campaign to harass/prosecute various businesses to make them examples to the public for not wishing to kowtow to the demands of the activists. In all cases, there were plenty of places that were already available for meeting their desires. But no, the activists search long and hard for somebody to punish.4- There are a handful of professors and organizations that are advocating decriminalizing pedophilia for the past few years. Including NAMBLA (think it stands for National Association of Man/Boy Love Advocacy). There are far too many incidences of homosexual couples abusing their adopted boys (at a greater rate than in heterosexual families). Interesting side note: most homosexuals very likely were abused by a funny uncle or someone in a position of trust.I could go on and on but don't have much time today.
MiserereNobis Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) There are far too many incidences of homosexual couples abusing their adopted boys (at a greater rate than in heterosexual families). CFR Interesting side note: most homosexuals very likely were abused by a funny uncle or someone in a position of trust. CFR Edited June 28, 2015 by MiserereNobis 2
maxrep12 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) The church should thank it's lucky stars that scotus took the decision away from states. Had SSM been allowed to go state by state, Utah would find itself under an increasingly intense magnifying glass. As the number of state's with SSM steadily increased, Utah would increasingly stand out. There would be possible boycotts with activities related to the state, public relations issues for the church, and so on. I would have loved to watch this unfold!!!Now, contrary to what some would predict in this scenario, Utah would not be the last state to go. Church leadership would finally acknowledge the freight train bearing down, and the state would swerve out of the way. But of course, this move would be done at a point where irreconcilable damage has already occurred. A southern state would end up owning the title of being last to accept gay marriage. Edited June 28, 2015 by maxrep12
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 CFR You can't contradict longview, there is no point to have a conversation with that guy if you disagree with him. Exactly. God expects us to get his message out to the world using all the legal remedies of the world and at the final judgement we will hear from our highest authorities, above SCOTUS. Why not give moral agency to LGBT? Do you remember Satan's plan? You don't have to support gay marriage to allow it to be legal. Allow it ≠ Agree with it. We are in the last days, so why even fight gay rights? I simply don't understand many religious conservatives. I also don't understand why the MDDB supervisors allow the gay marriage debate because it is a political topic. The LDS church teaches gay marriage is wrong, but it no longer says anything about the politics. Just live and let live
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) delete Edited June 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) delete Edited June 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) delete Edited June 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
carbon dioxide Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Looks like some on the Supreme Court already agree that the SSM ruling now begins to open the door on polygamy. http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/gay-marriage-polygamy/
Recommended Posts