Same Sex Marriage Poll

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

That's fine, but it's not what was being discussed.  Have you really read california boy's posts?  They are about redefining marriage.

California Boy also said that Joseph Smith introduced a new form of marriage that was not sanctioned by God.  I'm saying that Joseph Smith did as he was commanded to do.  That's what it really comes down to, do you believe Joseph Smith did as he was commanded.  Do you believe that the commandment now is that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Arguments about historical precedents really don't matter.   Arguments about whether this or that falls under what definition are just that, arguments.  The only thing that really matter is are we or are we not being obedient to God's commandments.   

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

California Boy also said that Joseph Smith introduced a new form of marriage that was not sanctioned by God.  I'm saying that Joseph Smith did as he was commanded to do.  That's what it really comes down to, do you believe Joseph Smith did as he was commanded.  Do you believe that the commandment now is that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Arguments about historical precedents really don't matter.   Arguments about whether this or that falls under what definition are just that, arguments.  The only thing that really matter is are we or are we not being obedient to God's commandments.   

Do you believe how Joseph practiced polyandry was a redefinition of marriage?

Yes or no (regardless of whether or not it was commanded or sanctioned)?

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by JulieM

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you believe how Joseph practiced polyandry was a redefinition of marriage?

Yes or no (regardless of whether or not it was commanded or sanctioned)?

 

Like I said, I really don't care whether this or that form of marriage was a redefinition or not. 

And as defined by who?  Me?  God?  Some guy on the internet now?  A farmer in Illinois in 1840?  How about a Muslim in 1840 or even 1040?  How about by the US Supreme Court in 20 years? 

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You stated:

"And the Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women."

Where did they serve as a model for a polyandrous marriage?  Are you admitting you were wrong to include it above?

You bolded the wrong words.

"And the Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women."

No matter how you mix and match a marriage contract, the Adam and Eve template is always between a man and a woman, no matter how many might be on either side of the aisle. Something conveniently forgotten about this template is that God is a party to the contract, and He can authorize any number of participants in the authorized template.

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You bolded the wrong words.

"And the Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women."

No, I did not bold the wrong words.  You very clearly stated that Adam and Eve were a "model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous)".

CFR (that either practiced polyandry)

Edited June 30, 2017 by JulieM

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, I did not bold the wrong words.  You very clearly stated that Adam and Eve were a "model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous)".

CFR (that either practiced polyandry)

That's an inappropriate CFR. He never claimed that in the least. Are you deliberately trying to misread him or do you genuinely not understand what he means? 

Edited June 30, 2017 by kllindley

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That's an inappropriate CFR. He never claimed that in the least. Are you deliberately trying to misread him ....? 

Not at all.  How could Adam and Eve serve as a "model" for a polyandrous marriage if they didn't practice polyandry?

 

Edited June 30, 2017 by JulieM

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Not at all.  How could Adam and Eve serve as a "model" for a polyandrous marriage if they didn't practice polyandry?

Because the actual covenant\ceremony is still between a man and a woman. 

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, I did not bold the wrong words.  You very clearly stated that Adam and Eve were a "model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous)".

CFR (that either practiced polyandry)

Oh my goodness... this is why I said this: Posted 58 minutes ago

[JulieM]

43 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Because the actual covenant\ceremony is still between a man and a woman. 

But this is what was being discussed:

"Joseph Smith redefined what marriage has EVER been in the history of mankind when he started marrying other men's wives and said they were sanctioned by God.  And that is exactly what we are talking about.  That redefinition of marriage that didn't exist before ever in history."

And the question was asked where there is a record of God commanding or even a marriage being practiced as Joseph lived polyandry. CV responded with stating that Adam and Eve were a model for polygamous and polyandrous marriages.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

California Boy also said that Joseph Smith introduced a new form of marriage that was not sanctioned by God.  I'm saying that Joseph Smith did as he was commanded to do.  That's what it really comes down to, do you believe Joseph Smith did as he was commanded.  Do you believe that the commandment now is that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Arguments about historical precedents really don't matter.   Arguments about whether this or that falls under what definition are just that, arguments.  The only thing that really matter is are we or are we not being obedient to God's commandments.   

You are jumping into this discussion without even reading what we are talking about.  This is not a discussion about whether Joseph Smith was authorized by God to marry other men's wives.  This is a discussion about when Joseph did that, he redefined marriage in a way that had never been defined like that before.  

Not only are you misquoting me.  You don't even know what the discussion is about.  Here is what I actually said.

Quote

Joseph Smith redefined what marriage has EVER been in the history of mankind when he started marrying other men's wives and said they were sanctioned by God.  And that is exactly what we are talking about.  That redefinition of marriage that didn't exist before ever in history.  

 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are jumping into this discussion without even reading what we are talking about.  This is not a discussion about whether Joseph Smith was authorized by God to marry other men's wives.  This is a discussion about when Joseph did that, he redefined marriage in a way that had never been defined like that before.  

Not only are you misquoting me.  You don't even know what the discussion is about.  Here is what I actually said.

 

I'll get out of your discussion then.  Sorry to intrude.

[rockpond]

Yes... I support same sex marriage on religious and moral grounds.

[Meerkat]

On 6/29/2017 at 0:09 PM, stemelbow said:

 your view is growing more and more a minority.  Some might say because as your view has been considered far and wide it has been proven weak and useless.  Testing claims or ideas in the marketplace surely isn't perfect, though.  It just so happens that it is really the best we have.  With that said, what harm has come as a result of legalizing gay marriage?  I think that question will always remain out there, unaddressed as before...The silence, or inability to articulate the perceived "problem" has been the very thing that has turned us all around...  I'm curious if the silence in addressing the main question is that which has caused that change, as much as anything

High on the list of Google search engines are articles that suggest that acceptance of homosexuality in fact correlates with the strengthening of the social fabric.  Respectfully, I disagree.

I believe your question "what harm has come as a result of legalizing gay marriage?" has been addressed in several ways:

1.  Scriptures.  It is a worthy subject for each of our study.

2.  History.  Pompeii, Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, San Francisco, New York

3.  Acceptance encouraging experimentation and further deterioration of society.

4.  A statement from a friend, former prosecutor from Phoenix that homosexuality tends toward violence.  That is a statement that many may not believe or choose to accept.  I do, based on what I have read on the subject and seen.

5.  Douglas Kendrick, Ph D, in his Psychology Today article titled Homosexuality: A Queer Problem," cites studies that show "Homosexual men are famously promiscuous, a fact that became well-known with onset of AIDs, when studies of gay men who were HIV positive revealed average numbers of partners in the hundreds (and even though gay men who were HIV negative had much lower numbers, the average for them was still dramatically higher than the average numbers for heterosexual men)."

This fact could argue for gay marriage if it were not for other studies showing that promiscuity is accepted in many homosexual relationships, particularly male.

So regarding the harm that is done, you have the cost to society of subsidizing gay health issues.  You have the cost, much uncounted yet, of therapy to children raised by same sex parents when the children have no contact or relationship with a father (or mother.)

You have the cost to society of a vocal and intimidating minority demanding "rights" that would overturn freedom of religion, free speech, freedom to assemble, to conduct business, etc. according to the dictates of one's conscience.  I have also felt intimidation here, to a degree.  That's probably my issue though.

While I care for most everyone, I may not always agree.  My opinions on controversial matters such as this are usually supportable to my satisfaction.  Sincerely, no offense is intended.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Meerkat

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Did Christ so much support the law of the land or did He just want His disciples to be focusing on other things?  When prophets in the past had been asked to do things that were clearly wrong, (I'm thinking Daniel and praying to a false god) they took a stand.  Here, I believe, Christ is saying this really isn't something to worry about.  Not paying the tax would cause more problems than just paying and getting on with more important things.

I agree. We have a higher duty, to help our brothers and sisters find peace through embracing Christ's Atonement. There are other supporting ideas: Agree with thine adversary, lest he turn and rend there.  Love thine enemies.  Do good to them that despitefully use and persecute you, etc.  So much of this is in God's hands.  Our part is to love, and leave the judging and rewarding to Him. Since we are all sinners, who is to say where any of us will end up?  So love, and cut everyon a wide slack. That said, there is a Gospel to be preached.  Therefore, we should use our influence to bring to light the ptinciples of the Gospel, and what it means to embrace the Saviors Atonement.  "if ye love me, keep my commandments." There are many other ways for us to voice our opinions including this, and exercising the vote.

Edited June 30, 2017 by Meerkat

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes... I support same sex marriage on religious and moral grounds.

I support same sex marriage for the same reasons that I support any couple committing loyalty and love to each other. "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health,"

I can find nothing in the pledges stated above that limit the pledges by gender.  

[california boy]

55 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I have been reluctant to participate in discussions like this because the hyperbole can sometimes get out of hand and bad feelings ensue.  I have often withheld my opinion on these things due to fear of rejection or intimidation.  I do believe this subject is worthy of a reasoned discussion.  

My opinion is at odds with the majority here.  I am opposed to gay marriage on moral grounds.  The Scriptures are clear on the subject of same sex relationships, as is the preponderance of modern day revelation, and I side with them.  

I believe we will be judged on how we treat one another.  We are all God's children and are loved by Him.  I see no exemtion from the commandment to "love one another as I have loved you." Clearly, Christ loves all of His children.   Therefore, we must love them all too.  And I do.  Our sexuality is but one facet of who we are.  

Gays have made many valuable contributions to society and their fellow beings throughout history, not because if their gayness but because of their humanity and love for their fellow beings.  That does not mean I am obliged to hold to the opinion that homosexual acts are acceptable and somehow in harmony with God's laws and the plan of salvation.  

I don't consider myself a very smart person.  High on the list of Google search engines are articles that suggest that acceptance of homosexuality in fact correlates with the strengthening of the social fabric.  Respectfully, I disagree.

I believe your question "what harm has come as a result of legalizing gay marriage?" has been addressed in several ways:

1.  Scriptures.  It is a worthy subject for each of our study.

2.  History.  Pompeii, Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, San Francisco, New York

3.  Acceptance encouraging experimentation and further deterioration of society.

4.  A statement from a friend, former prosecutor from Phoenix that homosexuality tends toward violence.  That is a statement that many may not believe or choose to accept.  I do, based on what I have read on the subject and seen.

5.  Douglas Kendrick, Ph D, in his Psychology Today article titled Homosexuality: A Queer Problem," cites studies that show "Homosexual men are famously promiscuous, a fact that became well-known with onset of AIDs, when studies of gay men who were HIV positive revealed average numbers of partners in the hundreds (and even though gay men who were HIV negative had much lower numbers, the average for them was still dramatically higher than the average numbers for heterosexual men)."

This fact could argue for gay marriage if it were not for other studies showing that promiscuity is accepted in many homosexual relationships, particularly male.

So regarding the harm that is done, you have the cost to society of subsidizing gay health issues.  You have the cost, much uncounted yet, of therapy to children raised by same sex parents when the children have no contact or relationship with a father (or mother.)

You have the cost to society of a vocal and intimidating minority demanding "rights" that would overturn freedom of religion, free speech, freedom to assemble, to conduct business, etc. according to the dictates of one's conscience.  I have also felt intimidation here, to a degree.  That's probably my issue though.

While I care for most everyone, I may not always agree.  My opinions on controversial matters such as this are usually supportable to my satisfaction.  Sincerely, no offense is intended.

I don't know where to begin.  Let's start with"

2.  History.  Pompeii, Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, San Francisco, New York

Pompeii was destroyed by a volcano, not gay marriage or gay relationships.  

The Roman Empire lasted longer than any other government in the history of the world.  Talk to me in a thousand years.

The Bible says that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of pride and inhospatality

What about San Francisco and New York.  They are two of the most prosperous cities in America.  So many people want to live in those two cities they constantly rank as the most expensive places to live in America because of the demand for housing.  

You have a lot of really strange ideas about homosexual relationships.  

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

But this is what was being discussed:

"Joseph Smith redefined what marriage has EVER been in the history of mankind when he started marrying other men's wives and said they were sanctioned by God.  And that is exactly what we are talking about.  That redefinition of marriage that didn't exist before ever in history."

And the question was asked where there is a record of God commanding or even a marriage being practiced as Joseph lived polyandry. CV responded with stating that Adam and Eve were a model for polygamous and polyandrous marriages.

I think you are taking what he said out of context, but whatever.  Just don't be surprised that people see this as hostile and unwilling to actually engage in dialogue.  

 

[Jude2]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

You may have a point, but gay couples are not ripping children out of the arms of loving mothers and fathers.  Gay couples are stepping up to the plate and raising children that have been abandoned by children caused by irresponsible heterosexual males and females.  If everyone raised the children they gave birth to, then there would be no children for gay couples to raise.  It has been pointed out that if anything, perhaps the greatest positive benefit to society of gay marriage is to have children that have been abandoned, now raised in a loving and secure family.

Your examples are a bit far fetched.  My mother was unable to breast feed.  Gay couples can provide the exact same experience that I received.  (not that I remember it).  Both parents teach a little girl to respect herself by the way they respect her.  Children learn how to respect each other by how the COUPLE respect each other.  It is not the job of just one parent.   If either parent fails in treating the other person with respect, then the child does not get the positive role model on how to respect themselves and others.  Mostly your post is about your own prejudice and has no foundation in fact as countless studies have shown.

Yes there are exceptions but many gay people are pre-planning to deny their child a female mother or a male father, they think they can replace that person with a mock image. It also denies true kinship, the child will one day wonder where's the other half of my gene pool? How does he do his genealogy, do you really think the Lord will ever let to men be sealed?  

[Jude2]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Support means, agree with, in this sense.  By reading your post, it doesn't seem like you support SSM at all. 

huh?  what's selfish about deliberately adopting babies without a mother or father? 

Really?  you think so?  Do you know any one who has adopted a child?  Are they really just selfishly thinking of themselves and not the needs of the child? 

 

There are families with a real mother and a real father looking for babies, I know several. And yes it is selfish to insist that just because you have the ability  to procreate or bring a family unit into being when you lack the most important element, a mother and father. Most of our family problems and are caused by selfishness.  Divorce happens because some one is being selfish, Children are abandoned because someone is selfish. Even a great deal  (not all) of our handicapped children are caused by selfishness, drugs and alcohol. My own foster child's handicapped is caused by selfishness. Two wrongs do not make a right, placing a child in a home without a real mother is not right because someone else did a wrong. 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Jude2 said:

Yes there are exceptions but many gay people are pre-planning to deny their child a female mother or a male father, they think they can replace that person with a mock image. It also denies true kinship, the child will one day wonder where's the other half of my gene pool? How does he do his genealogy, do you really think the Lord will ever let to men be sealed?  

And many single heterosexuals decide to have children and raise them without a father or mother.  Should we be calling all of them apostates and refusing to baptize their children?  

[CV75]

17 hours ago, JulieM said:

But this is what was being discussed:

"Joseph Smith redefined what marriage has EVER been in the history of mankind when he started marrying other men's wives and said they were sanctioned by God.  And that is exactly what we are talking about.  That redefinition of marriage that didn't exist before ever in history."

And the question was asked where there is a record of God commanding or even a marriage being practiced as Joseph lived polyandry. CV responded with stating that Adam and Eve were a model for polygamous and polyandrous marriages.

I think you are taking what I said out of context, which comes across as dialogue-stifling rhetoric.

You said, “Joseph Smith redefined what marriage has EVER been in the history of mankind…” Never say "ever"… LOL

I don’t see where, prior to Joseph Smith’s practices, marriage was not between a man and a woman, whether that be within the structure of monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, or even the rare polyfidelity; this is why your assertion is silly. Joseph Smith did not change this template established in the union of Adam and Eve, whether one takes that literally or figuratively, or whether or not you believe God set the template.

Edited July 1, 2017 by CV75

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think you are taking what I said out of context, which comes across as dialogue-stifling rhetoric.

You said, “Joseph Smith redefined what marriage has EVER been in the history of mankind…” Never say "ever"… LOL

Well I did not state that (it's a quote from california boy).

And, here is your quote about Adam and Eve and polygamy/polyandry:

"And the Adam and Eve model is a model for plural marriage (both polygamous and polyandrous) since Adam is obviously the template for all men and Eve is the template for all women."

How did I take that "out of context"?  How can they be a model for polygamy and polyandry if they didn't live them?  I get that you're trying to make what you stated mean something different now, but as stated it appears to clearly mean how I interpreted it.  But I'm done going back and forth about your quote.

 

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I don't consider myself a very smart person.  High on the list of Google search engines are articles that suggest that acceptance of homosexuality in fact correlates with the strengthening of the social fabric.  Respectfully, I disagree.

I know this has become an unpopular belief, but I do too. I see it as another assault on the traditional family unit, which is the basis of a Christian society. While I treat the gay people in my life like I do everyone else, that doesn't mean I condone their lifestyle, just like I don't condone all the fornication (sex before marriage) etc. It is rampant, and a symptom of the loss of Christian morals. When Obama says this nation is no longer a Christian nation, sadly, he is largely speaking the truth.

Quote

4.  A statement from a friend, former prosecutor from Phoenix that homosexuality tends toward violence.  That is a statement that many may not believe or choose to accept.  I do, based on what I have read on the subject and seen.

I am not in "the trenches" but I have not seen this, and don't believe it. On the contrary, to their credit, most gays seem to be otherwise largely, peaceful, law abiding citizens. Many seem to have a gentle streak about them. If anything, their march for "rights" has been a largely peaceful one. However, like any other group, there are the politically rebellious ones on the fringe. I do see a young, rebellious streak in our society, but I don't attribute it to homosexuals - some may "join" in as part of the "movement" but leftist and alt-right groups seem to be multiplying and causing violent demonstrations of social unrest like those seen after the Trump election. It would take more than the opinions of a prosecutor to convince me otherwise. Without some relevant statistics, I believe it is terribly unfair to charge gays with an tendency towards violence.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I know this has become an unpopular belief, but I do too. I see it as another assault on the traditional family unit, which is the basis of a Christian society. While I treat the gay people in my life like I do everyone else, that doesn't mean I condone their lifestyle, just like I don't condone all the fornication (sex before marriage) etc. It is rampant, and a symptom of the loss of Christian morals. When Obama says this nation is no longer a Christian nation, sadly, he is largely speaking the truth.

I am not in "the trenches" but I have not seen this, and don't believe it. On the contrary, to their credit, most gays seem to be otherwise largely, peaceful, law abiding citizens. Many seem to have a gentle streak about them. If anything, their march for "rights" has been a largely peaceful one. However, like any other group, there are the politically rebellious ones on the fringe. I do see a young, rebellious streak in our society, but I don't attribute it to homosexuals - some may "join" in as part of the "movement" but leftist and alt-right groups seem to be multiplying and causing violent demonstrations of social unrest like those seen after the Trump election. It would take more than the opinions of a prosecutor to convince me otherwise. Without some relevant statistics, I believe it is terribly unfair to charge gays with an tendency towards violence.

The following three paragraphs open a September 2014 article on gay domestic violence published in the very liberal and pro-gay rights agenda New York Daily News.

'Domestic violence occurs as much and possibly more among same-sex couples as among opposite-sex couples, according to a fresh look at past research.

The study team can’t say why domestic violence may be more common among same-sex couples, but they suggest it may result from the added stress of being a sexual minority.

“There are vulnerabilities that come with being in a homosexual relationship,” Richard Carroll told Reuters Health. “It can be as basic as someone not ready or willing to be open to their family or community that they’re in a homosexual relationship. The theory is that additional stressors can add to increased strain that leads to increased violence or abuse."'

Edited July 1, 2017 by Bobbieaware