JLHPROF Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Actually, these "so-called" marriages are a marriages in every sense of the word. This is now the law of the land decreed by the SCOTUS. Living in a democracy does not mean everybody gets their own way. You are just going to have to deal with it. Not my point.They are NOT marriages in my eyes because to me marriage is only marriage if God authorizes it. He is the only one that can define marriage. Any "marriage" not authorized by God is little more than a false idol - something pretending to be a marriage but having no actual authority to bind the parties together."Let us reaffirm more vigorously than we ever have in the past that it does matter where you marry and by what authority you are pronounced man and wife." President Howard W. Hunter The law of the land is completely 100% irrelevant to whether a real marriage exists. You can take a chicken and slap a label on it calling it a duck, pass a law requiring everyone else to call it a duck, teach your children to call it a duck, you can even eliminate all actual ducks. It still isn't a duck. Which is why I don't care about the SCOTUS decision - marriage is still male and female and can never be otherwise no matter how many laws are passed. I may even be required by law to pretend to consider them marriages in my daily life, but it still won't change anything or legitimize what can never be. What God has joined together is the actual and only definition of marriage.What the state has joined together can be incorrectly labelled marriage by any mortal so inclined, but it is meaningless to me except for legal benefit.
Daniel2 Posted June 29, 2015 Author Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) They've had the same rights as straight people for a long time.This tired old argument, again...? Yeah, OK.. Sure, just like blacks always had the same rights as white people prior to Loving vs. Virginia, because everyone had to marry someone of their same race, not to mention that before Brown vs. Board of Ed, black kids had the same rights as white kids because everyone attended school with members of their own race, and separate but equal is still equal, right?!... :rolleyes: Edited June 29, 2015 by Daniel2 1
Daniel2 Posted June 29, 2015 Author Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) I guess I meant, do they (LBTG community) believe they now have all the same rights or will they still claim constitutional inequality?Marriage is a huge step in the right direction, as was the dismantling of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.Equal protection from discrimination as a protected class in the workplace, housing, adoption, and public accomodations law are next on the list to ensure true equality. Edited June 29, 2015 by Daniel2 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 The biblical "Traditional Definition of Marriage" allowed for the forced rape of women, the selling of women into marriage, the murder of husbands to steal their wives, Polygamy, Incest, and concubinage. Be very careful of what you wish for.This is nothing but well poisoning. 3
Tacenda Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 The biblical "Traditional Definition of Marriage" allowed for the forced rape of women, the selling of women into marriage, the murder of husbands to steal their wives, Polygamy, Incest, and concubinage. Be very careful of what you wish for.I'd love to steal this and post it publicly. This is one area that just stymies me. So according to LDS belief, it was a commandment to live polygamy because that's what they did in the Bible? That tradition is hailed above all?
Kenngo1969 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 The biblical "Traditional Definition of Marriage" allowed for the forced rape of women, the selling of women into marriage, the murder of husbands to steal their wives, Polygamy, Incest, and concubinage. Be very careful of what you wish for. This is nothing but well poisoning. I'd love to steal this and post it publicly. This is one area that just stymies me. So according to LDS belief, it was a commandment to live polygamy because that's what they did in the Bible? That tradition is hailed above all?You like well poisoning, do you? All I can say to that is, "Oh. Okay." 1
Damien the Leper Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Thank you for this disarming moment of honesty, Val.Now that you guys have won, it's high time to "come out" and admit that the "same sex marriage" campaign was never really about "marriage." Oh, I don't doubt that a few of you might have "marriage" on your bucket list, like others might have skydiving or visiting the Eiffel Tower; but you didn't need state recognition by judicial fiat for that.No, the real purpose of the "same sex marriage" campaign was to provide yourself with a weapon that you can use to drive Judeo-Christian morality (ugh!) out of public life.First government.Then commerce.Then you'll start going after the churches themselves.At least, that would be the sensible way to go about it: eat the elephant one forkful at a time.However, some of you got greedy, and started dividing the spoils before your victory was complete. Which signalled your real intentions.Well, I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, Val: but moral people aren't about to crawl into the closet just because you can't stand sharing the planet with them.People with principles are going to continue to live those principles; and those who still have a conscience will vote accordingly.Nice hyperbole and dramatic effect. Who said anything about driving "religious morality" out of the public? I said the government. You and jwhitlock are real pieces of work with your childish, narcissistic and asinine assumptions. You show your true colors of trying to play victim to the evil gay agenda...except no one is playing such a silly toddler game. Nice try. Grow up.
Damien the Leper Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I don't see any evidence that society is progressing "forward" in a positive manner. One really has to willfully ignore the daily, increasing issues that we're having on a variety of fronts in order to proclaim that all is well in the world. The fact that the government has now officially approved and embraced homosexual behavior and will now be proceeding to curtail religious freedom by forbidding any disagreement with it is one evidence of that decline.Read my post! I said that I don't mean in a progressive sense. No one said religious organizations can't disagree. Of course they can! They just don't get a say in government. Which is as it should be.
Damien the Leper Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 What planet did you say you were from?Earth and not Kolob. How bout you? Obviously not reality. Paint me a picture of your delusional planet. Make it pretty and colorful. <eye roll>
sethpayne Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) The law of the land is completely 100% irrelevant to whether a real marriage exists. If that's the true then why did the Church ask members to waste literally millions of dollars to fight marriages that arent' real anyway? Oh.... and while we are at it we should ask why the Church discontinued polygamy given that the law has no bearing on marriage. Sure, we would lose our property. But what is property when it comes to upholding principles? Obviously the law has great bearing on what marriage is and how it functions in civil society. Edited June 29, 2015 by sethpayne 3
Tacenda Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Kenngo, well where did HF state what marriage is anyway? I just know of one scripture mentioning marriage in the Bible. And it states that there will be no marriage in heaven. If someone is born homosexual why do they have to be condemned the rest of their lives from doing or being what comes naturally? Heterosexuals won't understand unless they've lived it or know someone that has. I understand that there are some who disagree with SSM that are bi-sexual but easy for them since they can choose either way. What if your inclination is toward loving someone of the same sex? And being with someone of the opposite sex would be sickening and impossible? This is the crux of the matter for me. I think a big reason why God wanted free agency for His children might be because men are fallible and get things wrong. Even men who wrote the Bible and BoM and all the scriptures. I know you believe in prophecy, and I should too. But prophets and apostles aren't infallible and get it wrong. Especially those in Bible times. Placing women so low on the totem pole. Basically women, blacks, and gays have been hurt, IMO. The church fought ERA, and it took them awhile to get on board with blacks being equal with whites, and now the gays. I think we should give time now to where it counts, saving lives, feeding the hungry, healing the sick. That is a commandment. Edited June 29, 2015 by Tacenda
Daniel2 Posted June 29, 2015 Author Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Nice hyperbole and dramatic effect. Who said anything about driving "religious morality" out of the public? I said the government. You and jwhitlock are real pieces of work with your childish, narcissistic and asinine assumptions. You show your true colors of trying to play victim to the evil gay agenda...except no one is playing such a silly toddler game. Nice try. Grow up.Hey, Valentus,I agree with you on the issue of marriage equality, but can you please stop personal attacks? It wins no arguments, and stifles discussion (and can result in thread closures if left unchecked). Let's contain the comments to the substance of the issues, please... Edited June 29, 2015 by Daniel2 2
Damien the Leper Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) This is nothing but well poisoning.Oh please! Are you gonna play the No True Scotsman of traditional marriage or the special circumstances game? Neither are going to get you anywhere. I'm hoping you don't employ either as that would be logical suicide. Edited June 29, 2015 by Valentinus
Damien the Leper Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Hey, Valentus,I agree with you on the issue of marriage equality, but can you please stop personal attacks? It wins no arguments, and stifles discussion (and can result in thread closures if left unchecked). Let's contain the comments to the substance of the issues, please...Apologies. I'll honor your request.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Not my point.They are NOT marriages in my eyes because to me marriage is only marriage if God authorizes it. He is the only one that can define marriage. Any "marriage" not authorized by God is little more than a false idol - something pretending to be a marriage but having no actual authority to bind the parties together."Let us reaffirm more vigorously than we ever have in the past that it does matter where you marry and by what authority you are pronounced man and wife." President Howard W. Hunter The law of the land is completely 100% irrelevant to whether a real marriage exists. You can take a chicken and slap a label on it calling it a duck, pass a law requiring everyone else to call it a duck, teach your children to call it a duck, you can even eliminate all actual ducks. It still isn't a duck. Which is why I don't care about the SCOTUS decision - marriage is still male and female and can never be otherwise no matter how many laws are passed. I may even be required by law to pretend to consider them marriages in my daily life, but it still won't change anything or legitimize what can never be. What God has joined together is the actual and only definition of marriage.What the state has joined together can be incorrectly labelled marriage by any mortal so inclined, but it is meaningless to me except for legal benefit.Well, here's another definition of marriage... Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.This is purely a symantic argument. Some want to only define marriage as they choose to define it, even to the point of rejecting legal authority of the country to perform or recognize marriage. This makes ZERO sense to me. On one hand we claim we don't want the government defining our morality while at the same time demanding that they accept OUR morality. IF the government is able to decide which marriage is legal and which is not based on a religious law or definition then we must be willing to accept how the governement defines that religious law. They have essentially gotten out of the business of defining what is and what isn't a morally acceptable marriage and instead leave it up to each individual and each church to define it for themselves. You can't have it both way folks. I have yet to see a valid argument for why SSM should not be legally recognized. The only argument I see is a religious one based individual interpretation of "God's laws" and out of fear about what might happen in the future. People would rather deny equal rights simply out of fear of a slippery slope. 1
tagriffy Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Why would the hard LEFT promote homosexual marriage? Equal rights for homosexuals is simply a front. Behind the scene is the desire for government to be in charge of children in the place of parents. The way to do this is to put more pressure and more problems on the basic unit. Such as sex education in schools which is essentially a "how to course to live the lifestyle without interference of annoying parents" and to "explore abortion options without the knowledge of parents", etc. So now you are firmly back on the side of an agenda. So then, once again, what is your evidence for it?
Stone holm Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Seth Payne, you asked a very fundamental question -- with so many real problems in this country and abroad, why did the Church ask for so much money to be wasted on legislation. It has been a question that has baffled many, and led too many out of the Church. The only answer I have been able to come up with, was it thought that it would help establish the legal defense to future non-discrimination laws by showing how firmly the Church supported heterosexual marriage as part of its religious doctrine. But that could have been done, much more quietly. I suspect, however, that they just couldn't believe that they were going to be on the losing side of another culture war that they lost touch with how this was actually going to play out -- its the price we occasionally pay for stifling criticism of leadership when they wander into the political wasteland.
ELF1024 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Same-Sex couples can dress up whatever they want to call it in a pretty bow and wrap it in nice paper. It's still a candy covered onion. I'll never call it a marriage, and never recognize it as such. It's just two mentally ill people playing house. I'll resign my membership in the Church if it is ever recognized. I believe in the words of Paul in Romans 1. I am neither ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, nor will not hide my face and call good the vile affections that God gave them up unto. Edited June 29, 2015 by ELF1024
sethpayne Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I'll resign my membership in the Church if it is ever recognized. Well there is a strong testimony of the Brethren if I've ever heard one.
sethpayne Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Seth Payne, you asked a very fundamental question -- with so many real problems in this country and abroad, why did the Church ask for so much money to be wasted on legislation. It has been a question that has baffled many, and led too many out of the Church. The only answer I have been able to come up with, was it thought that it would help establish the legal defense to future non-discrimination laws by showing how firmly the Church supported heterosexual marriage as part of its religious doctrine. But that could have been done, much more quietly. I suspect, however, that they just couldn't believe that they were going to be on the losing side of another culture war that they lost touch with how this was actually going to play out -- its the price we occasionally pay for stifling criticism of leadership when they wander into the political wasteland. I remember hearing an anecdote about a member in CA who used his entire life savings to support Prop 8. Who knows if the story is true ... but I do know there were members who stretched themselves financially to follow the prophet. I mean, I understand it. Even if you are ultimately on the losing side of a political argument, there is something to be said about being active about core principles and beliefs -- regardless of the outcome. So I won't besmirch them for that. I've donated to candidates who had no chance of winning. But I do wonder if the Brethren though this would be successful? Or did they know that Prop 8 would pretty much guarantee that SSM would become the law of the land due to the intense national pushback?
Deborah Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Just a side note for those who think gay parents are so wonderful. Have you seen the response from children of gay parents who wish they had a real mother and father. http://www.westernjournalism.com/woman-raised-lesbian-parents-just-said-destroys-liberal-gay-parenting-narrative/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_content=2015-06-29 3
ELF1024 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Well there is a strong testimony of the Brethren if I've ever heard one. You can take it one of two ways. Either I am assured enough in the Brethren that I "know" it will never come to that; or two, a complete lack of faith in the Church to remain true under the full weight of the government and society. According to the FLDS and other polygamous groups, we've already buckled once.... and from the sound of it, the Polygamists will be next to visit the altar of the court to get their "equal rights".
sethpayne Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Just a side note for those who think gay parents are so wonderful. Have you seen the response from children of gay parents who wish they had a real mother and father. http://www.westernjournalism.com/woman-raised-lesbian-parents-just-said-destroys-liberal-gay-parenting-narrative/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=TPNNPages&utm_content=2015-06-29 Yep. Let's start trading anecdotes! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/12/lgbt-children-parents_n_6315654.html The 16-year-old daughter Emily Schall-Townley, the daughter of plaintiffs Carol Schall and Mary Townley of Virginia in the Bostic marriage equality case led by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), spoke confidently to the press about her viewpoint. After an appeals court hearing, Emily asserted that she “has been and continues to be raised in a loving, nurturing and supportive family.” Anecdotes are meaningless because it doesn't matter which side you are on, you can find a story to support your position. I used an anecdote in an earlier post. But it barely qualifies as supporting the point I was trying to make. And let's assume my anecdote is actually true. That some individual member gave up their life savigns for the cause of Prop 8. So what? That doesn't prove anything. All it tells us is about one specific person in one specific context. Edited June 29, 2015 by sethpayne 2
rodheadlee Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 If someone is born homosexual why do they have to be condemned the rest of their lives from doing or being what comes naturally? I was born with the desire to pant my seed in every female I meet, why should I be condemned the rest of my life for doing what comes naturally? 1
Recommended Posts