Jump to content

Ssm Ruling: What To Expect Near Term


BCSpace

Recommended Posts

The removal of terms "husband and wife" in laws and legal documents because those terms are now 'discriminatory'.  Replace with gender neutral or non specific terms.

 

Term "natural parent" to be removed for same reason.

 

Birth certificates changed to remove "Mother" and "Father".

 

If they don't already, school cirriculums will discuss families headed by homosexuals in terms that falsely portray them as equal in benefit to children.

 

LGBT activists will not stop here, they will push for more:

 

Claims of discrimination on "cake" issues will skyrocket of course, but consider what happened to the Kingts of Columbus in Canada, a Catholic Fraternal organization:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v_Knights_of_Columbus

 

The good guys won in that case but expect the assault to be redoubled.

 

Consider also the case of Trinity Western University, an evangelical college, whose law school is discriminated against in terms of accreditation because of the covenvant it's students agree to.  The students agree to refrain from sex outside of marriage and guess how they define marriage?  This battle has gone back and forth in Canada for some time.

 

I guarantee these activists will not live and let live but will seek to impose their new orthodoxy on us whereas before, there was little or none imposed upon them. The heresy trials are coming just as has been happening in Canada after they gave state sanction to SSM.

Link to comment

The removal of terms "husband and wife" in laws and legal documents because those terms are now 'discriminatory'.  Replace with gender neutral or non specific terms.

 

Term "natural parent" to be removed for same reason.

 

Birth certificates changed to remove "Mother" and "Father".

 

If they don't already, school cirriculums will discuss families headed by homosexuals in terms that falsely portray them as equal in benefit to children.

 

LGBT activists will not stop here, they will push for more:

 

Claims of discrimination on "cake" issues will skyrocket of course, but consider what happened to the Kingts of Columbus in Canada, a Catholic Fraternal organization:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v_Knights_of_Columbus

 

The good guys won in that case but expect the assault to be redoubled.

 

Consider also the case of Trinity Western University, an evangelical college, whose law school is discriminated against in terms of accreditation because of the covenvant it's students agree to.  The students agree to refrain from sex outside of marriage and guess how they define marriage?  This battle has gone back and forth in Canada for some time.

 

I guarantee these activists will not live and let live but will seek to impose their new orthodoxy on us whereas before, there was little or none imposed upon them. The heresy trials are coming just as has been happening in Canada after they gave state sanction to SSM.

 

As far as I know, not all birth certificates have always had the bio mother and father inscribed.  This should be the case, in my opinion. If, however, by court adoption the names of the bio parents are sealed, seal them, i suppose, but say on the legal document "sealed until 18 years after the child's birth." At least, the child will know that they have bio parents who are not their legal parents, which imo is their right.

Link to comment

The removal of terms "husband and wife" in laws and legal documents because those terms are now 'discriminatory'.  Replace with gender neutral or non specific terms.

 

Term "natural parent" to be removed for same reason.

 

Birth certificates changed to remove "Mother" and "Father".

 

If they don't already, school cirriculums will discuss families headed by homosexuals in terms that falsely portray them as equal in benefit to children.

 

LGBT activists will not stop here, they will push for more:

 

Claims of discrimination on "cake" issues will skyrocket of course, but consider what happened to the Kingts of Columbus in Canada, a Catholic Fraternal organization:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v_Knights_of_Columbus

 

The good guys won in that case but expect the assault to be redoubled.

 

Consider also the case of Trinity Western University, an evangelical college, whose law school is discriminated against in terms of accreditation because of the covenvant it's students agree to.  The students agree to refrain from sex outside of marriage and guess how they define marriage?  This battle has gone back and forth in Canada for some time.

 

I guarantee these activists will not live and let live but will seek to impose their new orthodoxy on us whereas before, there was little or none imposed upon them. The heresy trials are coming just as has been happening in Canada after they gave state sanction to SSM.

 

 

Fanatiscism is never appealing, even when you present it.

 

And if you going to engage in scare tactics, at least use relevant examples.  Citing examples from Canada does a great job for promoting your fear mongering, but does little for the reader who looks past the fear mongering.

Link to comment

Always the best course of action; demean and belittle the opposing side.  Superb response and much expected, Three cheers for such an excellent of example with the full expectation that this will continue and be common place.  Exactly the type of tolerance I have come to expect; think whatever you want as long as you think just like me.  

Link to comment

I am fortunate to socialize and work with homosexuals who could give two hoots what my personal beliefs are, and I in return expect equal protection under the law for them. If they wanted to become a Mormon Elder (which they do not) we might have to have a discussion about what covenants that requires. As I would have to adapt my beliefs if I wanted to be married to another man (which I do not).

The best comment I saw last week when both fringes of the same sex marriage argument went at it on Facebook (not my favorite place for politics) was "I think the confederates just declared war on a skittles factory". That about summed up the value of the extremists arguments.

I can identify some benefits of marriage between a man and a woman in the eternal scheme of things, according to my beliefs. Yet I can also identify some benefits of respecting other people's agency. But in either case I'm better off practicing my religion on myself and those sealed to me, before I start dictating what others should do. Once I reach perfection I'll reconsider focusing on others.

Thanks for this amazing post, Kevin! Awesome.

Link to comment

I am fortunate to socialize and work with homosexuals who could give two hoots what my personal beliefs are, and I in return expect equal protection under the law for them.  If they wanted to become a Mormon Elder (which they do not) we might have to have a discussion about what covenants that requires.  As I would have to adapt my beliefs if I wanted to be married to another man (which I do not).

 

The best comment I saw last week when both fringes of the same sex marriage argument went at it on Facebook (not my favorite place for politics) was "I think the confederates just declared war on a skittles factory".  That about summed up the value of the extremists arguments.

 

I can identify some benefits of marriage between a man and a woman in the eternal scheme of things, according to my beliefs.  Yet I can also identify some benefits of respecting other people's agency.  But in either case I'm better off practicing my religion on myself and those sealed to me, before I start dictating what others should do.  Once I reach perfection I'll reconsider focusing on others.  

 

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Link to comment

Kevin G,  am thinking that right now the South is distracted with trying to decide what the Stars and Bars represents: 1) Racism, 2) Treason, or 3) Dukes of Hazzard style rebelliousness.  But stay tuned, am sure it will revert to being bullied into quitting bullying gays.

Link to comment

...................................................................................................  

 

I guarantee these activists will not live and let live but will seek to impose their new orthodoxy on us whereas before, there was little or none imposed upon them. The heresy trials are coming just as has been happening in Canada after they gave state sanction to SSM.

There will certainly be some legal wrangling and vengeance-seeking.  That is the nature of our pagan society.  But your list of horribles is too extreme and unrealistic by any measure, BC.

 

However, your final comment is most astonishing and revisionist in its lack of perspective:  Homosexual individuals and their community suffered terrible persecution for many years.  We need to learn tolerance of differing lifestyles and to treat all peoples with civility and kindness.  There is nothing more perverse and sick than the mistreatment of minorities, and I am proud that LDS Church policy recommends an end to discrimination in housing, employment, etc.

Link to comment

... I am proud that LDS Church policy recommends an end to discrimination in housing, employment, etc.

I am, too, but a large subset of those who identify as gays and lesbians will never be satisfied until the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints abandons its doctrines regarding chastity and marriage.  And, as I've said on other threads regarding the topic, if the only effect of Obergfell v. Hodges were that it legalized gay marriage nationwide, while I don't support gay marriage, I likely wouldn't have a problem with it.  But sloppy reasoning by the majority has opened the door for the decision to have all kinds of unforeseen, undesirable impacts on free exercise.  If the majority wanted to protect free exercise, all it had to say was, "Nothing in our decision today disturbs any of our precedents with respect to the Free Exercise clause," but it didn't: instead, it muddied the waters by magnanimously allowing the devout to continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish, which is narrower than the privilege granted by the Free Exercise clause, and seems suspiciously akin to saying, "Sure, you can continue to 'freely' exercise your religious beliefs ... within the walls of your own church on your holy day."

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

Daniel,

 

While I appreciate, very much, your helpful graphic :huh:, and while I don't necessarily agree with everything in the "parade of horribles" being imagined to result from the majority's decision in Obergfell v. Hodges, I would be interested in knowing if you have any response to my #16, above.

Link to comment

Kevin G,  am thinking that right now the South is distracted with trying to decide what the Stars and Bars represents: 1) Racism, 2) Treason, or 3) Dukes of Hazzard style rebelliousness.  But stay tuned, am sure it will revert to being bullied into quitting bullying gays.

The claim that the Confederate flag is about States rights and should be seen as a symbol seems stupid to me. Surely there is a better symbol then the one that historically was about states having the right to decide it was okay to enslave people.

That is like teetotalers choosing Hitler as a mascot. Yes, he did not drink but you can't find a better representative somewhere? Anywhere?

Link to comment

Daniel,

 

While I appreciate, very much, your helpful graphic :huh:, and while I don't necessarily agree with everything in the "parade of horribles" being imagined to result from the majority's decision in Obergfell v. Hodges, I would be interested in knowing if you have any response to my #16, above.

I had a response in my head as I read your comment....it might happen as you say, the gays won't stop. But think it would only be a very few. Most gays are out of the church for a reason. Why would they fight to be back in an institution they feel unwanted in. Who wants to belong in a clique that excludes a certain few from partaking fully because of just being, not even acting out the supposed sin? That happened/happens all too often. I couldn't/wouldn't want to be in a church like that. Rare is the circumstance that would include a gay couple in their ward. For example, give callings working with children etc., to get my point across. Not too many gays are going to belong to the LDS church, IMO.
Link to comment

The Nehor

 

At this point I agree with your post,  and do we really want to go so far with States rights that we use the symbol of armed rebellion to note it.   I would have to say, however, that as a white boy growing up in a nearly 100% white county in Indiana, I always viewed the Stars and Bars as a symbol of rebelliousness of the Dukes of Hazzard style.  I have a problem with the common argument that it is a part of our proud heritage -- there is nothing particularly worthy of being proud of concerning the South during that era.  They supported slavery and extreme racism, and had created a replica of a feudal society complete with aristocrats, slaves, and peasants.  Yes, I can understand what Cooter from the Dukes of Hazzard recently said that his ancestry all fought for the Confederacy -- well that is fine, and perhaps his ancestors were also fine -- but I cannot imagine anybody thinking that the cause they fought for was fine.  So my feeling is that times and sensibilities have changed, and what I thought as a boy growing up where I grew up, probably shouldn't trump the feelings of blacks who experienced that same time period down South.

 

What is annoying me, however, about the flag controversy is that while we were all distracted with this, they are pushing TPP along. 

Link to comment

The argument that the confederate battle emblem (the Stars and Bars is not the confederate flag for you picky about your history) being heritage went out the window for me when I learned that it was not a common state symbol in the South until the civil rights movement.  The Democratic, KKK influenced, powers between 1959 and 1963 erected that emblem as a slap in the face to the civil rights movement.  I am perfectly comfortable that my home state of Georgia removed it from their flag and returned to their previous flag as the basis for the current state flag.  (Ironically it is also the pattern of the confederate flag, but not as racially charged).

 

Georgia%20flag-XXL-anim.gif

 

However - if the Sons of the Confederacy want to honor their ancestors by displaying the battle emblem in a cemetery or museum that would be an appropriate use.  

Link to comment

I had a response in my head as I read your comment....it might happen as you say, the gays won't stop. But think it would only be a very few. 

I don't think so.  Google around for videos of the Anti-Prop 8 demonstrations outside the Los Angeles Temple, then come back and tell me that "only ... a very few" will continue to agitate militantly against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrines on marriage and the Law of Chastity.  Whatever the number or proportion of gays that engage in such demonstrations, it wouldn't (shouldn't) take very many people willing to engage in such conduct for the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders to become concerned.

 

Most gays are out of the church for a reason. Why would they fight to be back in an institution they feel unwanted in. Who wants to belong in a clique that excludes a certain few from partaking fully because of just being, not even acting out the supposed sin? That happened/happens all too often.

 

I would ask you for a CFR, but I don't think you're speaking from firsthand or close secondhand knowledge.  I think you've been fed a bill of propaganda goods by sexually active gays who have an axe to grind against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who refuse to conform to God's dictates on the issue and who, instead of abandoning sin to become comfortable with God, want to abandon God to become comfortable with sin (and who, consequently, want the Church to change the Law of Chastity and its view that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God).

 

I couldn't/wouldn't want to be in a church like that. Rare is the circumstance that would include a gay couple in their ward. For example, give callings working with children etc., to get my point across. Not too many gays are going to belong to the LDS church, IMO.

 

There are celibate gays in the Church of Jesus Christ, just as there are celibate straights (yours truly among them).  That choice takes an enormous amount of courage when the gay lobby insists that any religion that holds that sexual intimacy should be confined to opposite sex marriage is, along with its members, bigoted.  I don't recall if Handbook 1 says anything specific about the types of callings open-if-celibate gays may receive, but I do think caution would be in order.  I would gladly defer to the discernment of any Bishop or Stake President involved in such a decision (since, unless I had specific knowledge that should raise concerns, it wouldn't be my place to second-guess such decisions anyway).  I think most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel the same way, and if some don't ... well, their Bishops and Stake Presidents can tell them, politely, to butt out. ;)

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

I don't think so.  Google around for videos of the Anti-Prop 8 demonstrations outside the Los Angeles Temple, then come back and tell me that "only ... a very few" will continue to agitate militantly against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrines on marriage and the Law of Chastity.  Whatever the number or proportion of gays that engage in such demonstrations, it wouldn't (shouldn't) take very many people willing to engage in such conduct for the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders to become concerned.

 

I would ask you for a CFR, but I don't think you're speaking from firsthand or close secondhand knowledge.  I think you've been fed a bill of propaganda goods by sexually active gays who have an axe to grind against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who refuse to conform to God's dictates on the issue and who, instead of abandoning sin to become comfortable with God, want to abandon God to become comfortable with sin (and who, consequently, want the Church to change the Law of Chastity and its view that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God).

 

There are celibate gays in the Church of Jesus Christ, just as there are celibate straights (yours truly among them).  That choice takes an enormous amount of courage when the gay lobby insists that any religion that holds that sexual intimacy should be confined to opposite sex marriage is, along with its members, bigoted.  I don't recall if Handbook 1 says anything specific about the types of callings open-if-celibate gays may receive, but I do think caution would be in order.  I would gladly defer to the discernment of any Bishop or Stake President involved in such a decision (since, unless I had specific knowledge that should raise concerns, it wouldn't be my place to second-guess such decisions anyway).  I think most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel the same way, and if some don't ... well, their Bishops and Stake Presidents can tell them, politely, to butt out. ;)

We are merely reaping what we sowed. If we wanted to avoid the backlash, we should have thought about that before we picked up the sword.

Link to comment

We are merely reaping what we sowed. If we wanted to avoid the backlash, we should have thought about that before we picked up the sword.

If you want to equate the actions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the backlash that followed in vehemence and vitriol, that's your business; don't expect me or most other faithful Latter-day Saints to join you.  And, as I've said several times lately, are the Brethren concerned about gay marriage because of the moral implications of homosexual behavior or gay marriage, and the possible corrosive effects on these things on the institution of the family? Yes.  But that's not the only reason they're concerned: they're also concerned about the implications of these things for religious freedom, and the majority's decision in Obergfell v. Hodges does nothing to allay those concerns and, in fact, causes even greater cause for concern.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...