Recent Survey (via Jana Reiss)

[Jeanne]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Obviously. You were the one who made the remark.

That doesn't make it self-evident to others.

 

Did you and your wife get married because you loved each other and you wanted to?  Or did ya do it cuz' ya wanna?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

So, like when people try to impose their belief that same-sex relationships are completely equal to heterosexual unions through laws and ordinances that compel individuals to compromise their beliefs? Or is that okay because you agree with the belief being imposed?

Before the law of the land, same sex marriages are just as legal as straight marriages.  You can choose to believe what you want.

 

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

It is indeed a ridiculous assertion. It would be even more ridiculous if I had made it. I don't answer CFRs for assertions I didn't make. 

If I have miss understood this comment I apologize.  Perhaps you could explain what you meant when you said

Quote

 It depends on erasing from public awareness, if not from existence entirely, individuals with any degree of bisexuality or who have experienced any change in sexual attraction.  For a group who claims to resent their own history of being suppressed and having their experiences invalidated, they sure are quick to do the same to others. 

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Did you and your wife get married because you loved each other and you wanted to?  Or did ya do it cuz' ya wanna?

Huh?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Has there ever been a clearer example of question begging/circular reasoning?

Has there ever been a clearer example of equal protection under the Constitution of the United States?

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Has there ever been a clearer example of equal protection under the Constitution of the United States?

On that, I will defer to Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in the 5-4 ruling:

Quote

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.[12] We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.

Also:

Quote

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

I remind you that were it not for the vote of a single justice on the court, the decision would have gone the other way, and you would not be making question-begging claims about why marriage and homosexual "marriage" should be given equal privilege.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Has there ever been a clearer example of equal protection under the Constitution of the United States?

If that is so, one wonders, why didn't the U.S. Supreme Court render the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, say, 50 years ago, or even earlier?

Edited July 6, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's circular reasoning and begging the question.

USU78 asked why marriage and homosexual "marriage" must be granted equivalent status under the law.

CB, in essence, responded that they must because they are.

That is no answer. It is begging the question.

Perhaps because Supreme Court rulings are not necessarily just or irrevocable. To see that this is so, you need only review the Dred Scott decision, which held that people of African descent could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

 

 

Gay marriage is legal in the United States.  The Supreme Court clearly outlined the reasons for their ruling.  You disagree.  Your opinion is not only in the minority among Supreme Court justices, but in the minority with the people of the United States.  You choose to see my answer as circular.  It is not.  Gay marriage is legal in this country because American citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Virtually every federal and district court in this country that gay marriage was brought before agreed on this basic right.  

If you think you are right and everyone else is wrong, you have a recourse.  You can try and pass an amendment to the Constitution to overturn that decision.  Good luck with that.  And while you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on others, the church is loosing a whole generation of members for the simple reason that the church refuses to allow gays to participate in the very core of the plan of salvation, MARRIAGE.  This very poll that is being discussed points to the fact that generation is not alone in seeing the wrongness of such a policy.  Every single poll including this poll has only headed in one direction.  

Being able to marry the person you love is so fundamental for humans  to life itself that to deny someone that right to share his life with someone he loves is a gross injustice.  

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If that is so, one wonders why the U.S. Supreme Court render the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, say, 50 years ago, or even earlier.

I wonder why slaves weren't freed sooner then they were.  I wonder why inter racial marriages were not legal sooner than they were.  I wonder why women were not allowed to vote sooner then they were.  I wonder why the Mormon church discriminated against blacks as long as they did.  

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On that, I will defer to Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in the 5-4 ruling:

Also:

I remind you that were it not for the vote of a single justice on the court, the decision would have gone the other way, and you would not be making question-begging claims about why marriage and homosexual "marriage" should be given equal privilege.

You are quoting from the opinion that lost.  That means by it's very nature, the majority of Supreme Court justices disagreed with Salia's opinion.  They found his reasoning faulty.  They did not support his ideas.  All of this coming from a conservative court.  All but one of the federal courts that ruled on this disagreed with Scalia.  All the district courts that ruled on this issue disagreed with Scalia's opinion.  

Your ideas of denying civil rights to gays LOST. Quoting Scalia is not going to change the opinion of the majority of Justices in this country.  Nor is it going to change the opinion of the majority of the people in the United States.  And nor will it change the mind of those that are leaving the church in droves over this issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you think you are right and everyone else is wrong, you have a recourse.  You can try and pass an amendment to the Constitution to overturn that decision.  Good luck with that.  

Please refer to the excerpt from Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion that I just posted. On something as drastic as the redefinition of marriage, opponents should not be subjected to the onerous requirement of pursuing a constitutional amendment to preserve the status quo. What happened was just as Scalia characterized it: rule by a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court rather than legislation hammered out by the people's duly elected representatives in Congress.

Quote

And while you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on others, the church is loosing a whole generation of members for the simple reason that the church refuses to allow gays to participate in the very core of the plan of salvation, MARRIAGE.

Whether the Church of Jesus Christ is losing (please note the correct spelling of that verb) "a whole generation of members" is still very much subject to debate and, in any case, does not constitute an excuse for ignoring or defying the word of the Lord. Furthermore, when it comes to defining the plan of salvation and its components, I'll take for my guide the prophets and apostles, not some stranger on the internet, thank you very much.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are quoting from the opinion that lost.  That means by it's very nature, the majority of Supreme Court justices disagreed with Salia's opinion.  They found his reasoning faulty.  They did not support his ideas.  All of this coming from a conservative court.  All but one of the federal courts that ruled on this disagreed with Scalia.  All the district courts that ruled on this issue disagreed with Scalia's opinion.  

Your ideas of denying civil rights to gays LOST. Quoting Scalia is not going to change the opinion of the majority of Justices in this country.  Nor is it going to change the opinion of the majority of the people in the United States.  

It was never intended that legislation be made by unelected, activist judges, but rather, by duly elected congressional representatives.

Quote

And nor will it change the mind of those that are leaving the church in droves over this issue.

I don't want anyone leaving the Church, but the fact of the matter is the Church of Jesus Christ has never been governed by popular opinion, political pressure or even threat of mass apostasy, and that certainly won't be happening now.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Please refer to the excerpt from Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion that I just posted. On something as drastic as the redefinition of marriage, opponents should not be subjected to the onerous requirement of pursuing a constitutional amendment to preserve the status quo. What happened was just as Scalia characterized it: rule by a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court rather than legislation hammered out by the people's duly elected representatives in Congress.

Sure,  We should probably just get rid of the judicial branch whose very job it is to act as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branch of government.  Whose very job is to ensure that the rights outlined in the constitution is protected.  

Quote

Whether the Church of Jesus Christ is losing (please note the correct spelling of that verb) "a whole generation of members" is still very much subject to debate and, in any case, does not constitute an excuse for ignoring or defying the word of the Lord. Furthermore, when it comes to defining the plan of salvation and its components, I'll take for my guide the prophets and apostles, not some stranger on the internet, thank you very much.

Well while the church leaders continue to debate on this subject, thousands are walking away.  They have not been silent on the reason they no longer can embrace Mormon policy.  I certainly don't care if anyone in the church pays attention to what they are saying.  After all, as you pointed out, I am just a stranger on the internet.  Of course you are welcome to follow the same group that denied another minority group participation in  the plan of salvation because their skin color was not as white and delightsome as theirs.

Edited July 7, 2017 by california boy

[USU78]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Cuz ya just wanna?  What a disgusting comment.

You think "will" and "desire" have nothing to do with law?  Therefore, it's disgusting?

-or-

You think "will" and "desire" have nothing to do with politics?  Therefore, it's disgusting?

Please to explain.

cb's argument, such as it is, is certainly not based on any logic I recognize.

[california boy]

never mind

Edited July 7, 2017 by california boy

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Huh?

She doesn't understand, and I'm irritated enough not to go down the rabbithole we'd have to to help her understand.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Sure,  We should probably just get rid of the judicial branch whose very job it is to act as a check and balance against the executive and legislative branch of government.  Whose very job is to ensure that the rights outlined in the constitution is protected.  

Well while the church leaders continue to debate on this subject, thousands are walking away.  They have not been silent on the reason they no longer can embrace Mormon policy.  I certainly don't care if anyone in the church pays attention to what they are saying.  After all, as you pointed out, I am just a stranger on the internet.  Of course you are welcome to follow the same group that denied another minority group participation in  the plan of salvation because their skin color was not as white and delightsome as theirs.

The job of the judicial branch is to adjudicate existing legislation, not make its own legislation. 

And what you don't seem to get is that the Church leaders are not "debating on" the redefinition of marriage. There is nothing to debate, and they are not obliged to engage with hostile pressure groups. Their position is well defined in the family proclamation, and they are perfectly unified on it. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

On 6/28/2017 at 1:49 PM, Gray said:

 

My exegesis therefore is this: their views of homosexuality, in historical context, really have nothing at all to do with modern gay marriage. The larger principles found in the Bible can very easily be interpreted as affirming the sacredness of both gay and straight marriage.

If one affirms that LDS scripture was directly inspired by God for our day, the total silence of the BOM, D&C and POGP on the matter could also be interpreted as having special significance for Latter-day Saints.

Of course prophets of 2000 years ago did not address what you call "modern day gay marriage" because it did not exist back then.  Just as they did not address a whole bunch of modern day issues like sexting, virtual reality sex and sex with robots.  You will not see any of those addressed in any of the more modern day scriptures as well.  This is where God expects us to used our brains.  Is there anything at all that would even remotely suggest that God would be ok with gay marriage.  If Moses, Abraham, Paul, Joseph Smith, and most importantly Jesus Christ was to stand before you at this moment could you really look them in the eye and tell them that gay marriage is ok and you think they would be ok with it?

A good test of know the truth of this is this simple truth.  God and Satan are polar opposites.  There is very little they ever agree on or side with.  So what would you say are their views on gay marriage  A.  Jesus is for gay marriage and Satan is against.  B. Jesus is against gay marriage and Satan is for it.  It is one or the other.  To me from the scriptures and teachings of latter day prophets, it is pretty clear to get the answer on this. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was never intended that legislation be made by unelected, activist judges, but rather, by duly elected congressional representatives.

I don't want anyone leaving the Church, but the fact of the matter is the Church of Jesus Christ has never been governed by popular opinion, political pressure or even threat of mass apostasy, and that certainly won't be happening now.

This is true.  In fact those that inherit the telestial kingdom will be like the sand on the sea.  A lot of people are not going to make it and God will not alter his laws to get more people into the celestial kingdom.  God would rather cast everyone off on this world than bring unclean things into the Celestial Kingdom.  Given that fact that God already casted out a third of heaven shows that us that God is serious and is ready and willing to cast down large numbers of his children if required.  God has plenty of other worlds out there with his children that he can count on and bring to him.  I think there is an attitude out there that since God loves us he will break down and give into our standards and wishes.  Not going to happen.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The job of the judicial branch is to adjudicate existing legislation, not make its own legislation. 

And what you don't seem to get is that the Church leaders are not "debating on" the redefinition of marriage. There is nothing to debate, and they are not obliged to engage with hostile pressure groups. Their position is well defined in the family proclamation, and they are perfectly unified on it. 

The judicial branch duty is also to guard the rights guaranteed by the constitution.  If they don't guard those rights, then who does?  You would be singing a completely different tune if the freedom of the press were being denied.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Of course prophets of 2000 years ago did not address what you call "modern day gay marriage" because it did not exist back then.  Just as they did not address a whole bunch of modern day issues like sexting, virtual reality sex and sex with robots.  You will not see any of those addressed in any of the more modern day scriptures as well.  This is where God expects us to used our brains.  Is there anything at all that would even remotely suggest that God would be ok with gay marriage.  If Moses, Abraham, Paul, Joseph Smith, and most importantly Jesus Christ was to stand before you at this moment could you really look them in the eye and tell them that gay marriage is ok and you think they would be ok with it?

A good test of know the truth of this is this simple truth.  God and Satan are polar opposites.  There is very little they ever agree on or side with.  So what would you say are their views on gay marriage  A.  Jesus is for gay marriage and Satan is against.  B. Jesus is against gay marriage and Satan is for it.  It is one or the other.  To me from the scriptures and teachings of latter day prophets, it is pretty clear to get the answer on this. 

My vote:  A Jesus is for gay marriage and Satan is against it.  Jesus would want everyone to live the law of chastity, even gays, even blacks.  Jesus would want everyone to participate in the plan of salvation including gays, whose very core centers around marriage.  

Satan is against marriage because it tears away the very core of the plan of happiness.  Forbidding to marry is no plan for happiness.

Edited July 7, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

This is true.  In fact those that inherit the telestial kingdom will be like the sand on the sea.  A lot of people are not going to make it and God will not alter his laws to get more people into the celestial kingdom.  God would rather cast everyone off on this world than bring unclean things into the Celestial Kingdom.  Given that fact that God already casted out a third of heaven shows that us that God is serious and is ready and willing to cast down large numbers of his children if required.  God has plenty of other worlds out there with his children that he can count on and bring to him.  I think there is an attitude out there that since God loves us he will break down and give into our standards and wishes.  Not going to happen.

 

Quote

 

 Joseph used to say that he would have her hereafter, if he had to go to hell for her, and he will have to go to hell for her as sure as he ever gets her.” – Brigham Young, Lehi City, Utah, August 9, 1874

 

I would also rather live in hell with those that I love than live in some ivory castle alone.  I choose happiness, just as Joseph Smith choose happiness.  The plan of happiness is no plan of happiness without the person we love and share our lives with.

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

The judicial branch duty is also to guard the rights guaranteed by the constitution.  If they don't guard those rights, then who does?  

It safeguards rights by adjudicating whether or not laws that  have been enacted by Congress or by the individual states are consistent with rights protected under the Constitution. As Justice Scalia correctly pointed out, the framers of the Constitution and its amendments never contemplated a system in society where marriage would be anything other than a relationship between an opposite-sex couple. Such a thing was unheard of. By fundamentally redefining marriage, the high court overstepped its bounds and enacted legislation on its own initiative, a thing it has never been permitted to do under the Constitution. As Scalia said, it amounts to rule by five out of a committee of nine unelected lawyers instead of by a bicameral body of lawmakers elected by the People on a federal level and individual legislatures on a state level. The high-court ruling thus runs roughshod over the principle of self-government that undergirds the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Quote

You would be singing a completely different tune if the freedom of the press were being denied.

Unlike homosexual "marriage," freedom of the press is a liberty explicitly guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

[Kenngo1969]

California Boy,

You seem to have deleted your response to my reply that if gay marriage actually is one of the rights that has been guaranteed under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, respectively, of the United States Constitution all along, one wonders why the Court didn't render its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, say, 50 years ago, or even earlier.  In response, you mentioned a whole host of evils that previously had been permitted or tolerated under the Constitution and asked why decisions obviating these evils hadn't been rendered earlier.  It's hard for me to respond to a post that has been deleted, but, in the hope that my memory serves me reasonably well, I'll do my best.  Most of the things you mentioned (either explicitly or obliquely, such as slavery, "Jim Crow" laws, and other, similar institutions) are instances in which, although the Constitution, by its terms, says that such rights are inherent and unalienable, the government had positively denied those rights to certain classes of people based on invidious criteria.

In the cases you mentioned (except for the priesthood ban, which is not a governmental action and, thus, is a red herring), the Court said, essentially, "No, no. The relevant Amendments and any other relevant Constitutional provisions, such as the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, really do mean exactly what they say: The government cannot positively deny Equal Protection and Due Process to anyone based on invidious criteria."  But that's not what happened in Obergefell v. Hodges.  In Obergefell, a majority of the Court invented a right to gay marriage and decided that the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses mean that government cannot deny to same-sex couples a right that it grants to opposite-sex couples, notwithstanding the fundamental differences between the two types of relationships.

By the way, before I set you straight on that score, you said that EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL COURT (caps and bold previously used by you for my benefit, since, due to my limited intellect, attention span, and so on, I was sure to miss your point if you had not used them  ) that had considered gay marriage had ruled in favor of its proponents.  I pointed out that if such unanimity really had existed in lower federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court would have had no incentive to consider the issue.  You then changed your argument and began arguing that "virtually"  or "nearly" every federal court that had considered the issue had ruled in favor of gay marriage.

Should I hold my breath waiting for you to give me due credit for setting you straight?  

[Gray]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's circular reasoning and begging the question.

USU78 asked why marriage and homosexual "marriage" must be granted equivalent status under the law.

CB, in essence, responded that they must because they are.

That is no answer. It is begging the question.

Perhaps because Supreme Court rulings are not necessarily just or irrevocable. To see that this is so, you need only review the Dred Scott decision, which held that people of African descent could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

 

 

CB said exactly this: "Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights."

That's not circular, and it's not question begging. That's a solid constitutional principle- equal protection under the law.

Whatever you think of the supreme court decision (and I don't agree with all their decisions), it is the legal justification for gay marriage in this country, and it's the law of the land.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Of course prophets of 2000 years ago did not address what you call "modern day gay marriage" because it did not exist back then.  Just as they did not address a whole bunch of modern day issues like sexting, virtual reality sex and sex with robots.  You will not see any of those addressed in any of the more modern day scriptures as well.  This is where God expects us to used our brains.  Is there anything at all that would even remotely suggest that God would be ok with gay marriage.  If Moses, Abraham, Paul, Joseph Smith, and most importantly Jesus Christ was to stand before you at this moment could you really look them in the eye and tell them that gay marriage is ok and you think they would be ok with it?

Yes, I'm confident that gay marriage is as sacred as straight marriage.

 

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

A good test of know the truth of this is this simple truth.  God and Satan are polar opposites.  There is very little they ever agree on or side with.  So what would you say are their views on gay marriage  A.  Jesus is for gay marriage and Satan is against.  B. Jesus is against gay marriage and Satan is for it.  It is one or the other.  To me from the scriptures and teachings of latter day prophets, it is pretty clear to get the answer on this. 

Jesus is for gay marriage. Satan is against. Jesus taught that good fruit can't come from a bad tree, and gay marriage produces good fruit. Traditional conservative Christian ideas about homosexuality have produced untold misery. That's a bad fruit, it therefore comes from a bad tree.