skippy740

And that's the problem that we have as believers today in trying to preserve a nation with a rich Judeo-Christian heritage. We can't prove it, so it won't fly.

+ 40 minutes per school day in seminary + 1.5 hours in mutual, plus QUALITY instruction from me. And this past summer, my daughter was at EFY and girls' camp. My sons are in scouting. Plenty for a parent to talk about with their children. The best way to teach children... is by example. Everything else will pale in comparison no matter WHAT they say or teach. It's because of dual-income households and not making it a priority. No one said they aren't being taught "the ways of the world". You can look at any sex-education course and determine that. It's all about "wait until you're ready". Well when's that? My answer: "There will be a big party. You'll be wearing a white dress and people will be giving you gifts that you'll send thank you notes for. You'll have applied for a marriage license and someone marries you. THAT's when you're ready." I can't change the world. Not my job. I can change my family. THAT'S my job. If we want to change society, we start at home.

Okay, I can understand that. But what happens when someone moves from Massachusetts to Georgia? Does the STATE mandate a religion on their citizens? What happens if I didn't want to be a Baptist in Georgia? Could a Congregationalist in Massachusetts establish a congregation in Georgia? Remember that the Constitution that gave states so many rights over its people... also protected slavery as a fundamental right. Before the Civil War, it was "The United States are". After the Civil War, it became "The United States is". Some things SHOULD change. As for prayer in school - unless it's a private school with the faith of my choosing, I don't want teachers teaching doctrine. It's a funny thing, but that's MY job and the job of the church... NOT the school system. But if your entire state was unified in ONE faith... I guess it wouldn't have been an issue back then. As populations grow, so do varying opinions and a diversity of life, faith, and beliefs. This also includes ideas that are antithetical to religious teachings too. Part of the wheat and the tares equation.

Since Congress is the LEGISLATIVE branch that makes the laws... And the 1st amendment to the US Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... This is not a far-fetched thing, nor inconsistent. I appreciate the additional history though. I just looked this up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Tabular_summary Tell me... what are the official state religions for each state today? Why aren't people FORCED to worship as GOVERNMENT says they should?

And I've already identified where we disagree. You believe that we have a moral government in our laws. I disagreed with that. You kept asking me for MY OPINION. My opinion is not the law. That's why we aren't conversing and understanding each other.

I understand you just fine. You're just wrong with your interpretations. I have posted multiple references, and apparently you haven't bothered to click on them. You think you're right. I can tell by reading the words you write that you are not. You are just slightly off... but it's to a degree that you need some realignment on. I can't teach it to you.

This isn't bi-partisan politics here. This is talking about the role of government and understanding that role. And I think it's central to your entire thread. Never mind. Just saw the post above yours, but there is a movement to remove all sense of morality from the role of government.

I agree with this, except for one part. It's up to US as members to help find people to teach - one-on-one, one-by-one. You cannot use the government to make people good or to teach a moral standard. In fact, that's to set up someone to be a KING and RULER over people. The government will only impose the moral standard that the people set. And we already know where that's going.

When a law is deemed unconstitutional, JUDGES overturn the law. Why? Because it's judges that INTERPRET the law.

I will agree to disagree with you because your interpretation of the Bill of Rights is not correct. You don't understand a republic form of government. You don't understand the difference between religion and morality. As such, when vocabulary and meaning are not understood, it is prudent to disengage.

And what's the opposite of morality? Immorality - because it's not an organized religion. Or as Neal A. Maxwell put it - irreligion as the state religion.

That's the problem right there. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The government will not impose RELIGION - meaning a STATE RELIGION. You know - a mandated religion for EVERYONE. That does NOT mean that there shouldn't have been a standard of morality, but the 1st amendment guarantees FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, not to abandon morality.

Too generalistic of an answer. And no. People do NOT make the law. This is not a democracy. This is a representative republic. The people vote for representatives to create and pass laws. And some of those laws are sent to the people for a direct vote. But SOMEONE had to propose the law in the FIRST place to get it past the legislature. That's a state representative or senator. Yes, the PEOPLE voted against same-sex marriage in California. But the PEOPLE also voted for the California Supreme Court that OVERTURNED that decision. And the PRESIDENT of the United States appoints judges to the United States Supreme Court. The PEOPLE voted for those they put into power.

And ever since it was overturned, it has been passing in multiple states since. I never said that. I said that same-sex couples adopting children is better than foster care or any other abusing situation. That is purely my opinion though. There's that "pursuit of happiness" thing again. That was a principle in the Declaration of Independence, NOT a legal right under the law. You do not have the "legal right" to be happy. Plus, with liberty (freedom), that will be used and twisted to mean that evil people (a judgment of morality) can do whatever they want - unless they inflict harm to another person. And that harm STILL would have to be proven. Prove it. As though it was on trial. You can't outside of a moral foundation and conviction. A government exists to protect its citizens. As wickedness grows, the government will CONTINUE to write laws for its citizens - for their protection. Wickedness is being protected. Calling something 'wicked'... is a morality judgment. The law without morality will see a rise in wickedness. But try to prove that without morality. You can't.

Your ENTIRE arguments are based on morality and gospel principles. You believe that the LAW is still MORAL. The law, judges, and people USED to be moral by Judeo-Christian standards. That is where we disagree. You're asking me for MY opinion when I'm talking about today's corrupt laws that are NO LONGER moral. In today's "everybody is equal under the law and discrimination of every kind is against the Constitution", it NO LONGER MATTERS IN THE EYES OF THE LAW whether you're a male or female for progeny. If you want to adopt a kid - as long as you are emotionally sound and financially secure, the law says that you can do it. The LAW won't insert any more discrimination beyond that. Why? The law doesn't want to be labeled as SIXHIRB: Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamaphobic, Racist, or Bigoted. If those labels can apply, it's seen as a social problem because "the government can't discriminate". What I'm telling you... is that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW (which has been corrupted)... morality is extinct... unless you can PROVE that there is danger OUTSIDE of a gospel or moral perspective. Unless you can use this "historical and scientific human benefit" to overturn the law, you're out of luck LEGALLY speaking. And I'm sure those arguments have been made to the Supreme Court, and the law still stands. Why is this? Because of the "pursuit of happiness" and how "happy" has become perverted into "whatever I want, I want and the Government can't stop it."

Oh, well let me talk about a home teacher I had MANY years ago. He was, at the time, a new member. He was married and had two children with his wife. Once proposition 8 passed, he later LEFT HIS WIFE and married a man. Was he always gay? Maybe he was. But he still procreated with a wife. How can that happen? Biology. Want another example? Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. Caitlyn wasn't always a woman (actually Caitlyn identifies as trans). But before all this, perhaps by societal/family pressure (and the desire to 'stay in the closet'), Bruce was married and had children.

Being wise involves wisdom. Does our legal system use wisdom? Sure does. Whose wisdom is our legal system using? Man's wisdom... over God's wisdom.

It's not. For that perspective, it's entirely selfish in terms of contributing to the perpetuation of humanity. Of course, it's not possible for an entire species to be monogamously gay. Gay people can still procreate (their parts still work the same), they just can't do it with someone of the same gender.

"Pursuit of happiness" - to quote a phrase in the Declaration of Independence - which was substituted for the word 'property'. The Declaration of Independence may be a legal document in protest to King George, but does it have the force of law today? Per Wikipedia (Yeah I know): "The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law domestically, but nevertheless it may help to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws." Thank goodness that "Pursuit of happiness"... is not a legal defense. I can see it now: "This person has a fancy car and I don't. And it's my right in my pursuit of happiness that I should have that car, so I stole it." The problem today, is that the law has become corrupted with notions that everyone is "equal" under the law. You cannot argue reason and morality against a corrupted law. That's what you're all trying to do and it's not WORKING. It's because the defense of morality has become a moot point in the law today. You're arguing from the gospel perspective. If it wasn't a gospel perspective, then it would be illegal for same-sex couples to have children. That is not the case, therefore, the law is incomplete from a moral perspective for the protection of children. "Pursuit of happiness" has to only work within laws found in nature. If you want a particular car, you can get it by working and labor. If you want children, you can have them when you are aligned with natural law, marry someone of the opposite sex, and procreate. Same sex couples cannot procreate - at least not without some kind of assistance. The law today is corrupted against nature - against God. And unless you can find a LEGAL defense OUTSIDE of the gospel or other moral standard - such as PROOF of how the children of same-sex unions are damaged... you will have no defense against our corrupted legal system. Just because I agree MORALLY and within the GOSPEL does not mean that our legal system will also take that view.

And ANOTHER assumption. You do realize that I'm simply arguing the LEGAL perspective OUTSIDE of a gospel one? That's the world we're in now. It IS possible to think in both ways, right?

When you use an 'absolute', it's far easier to claim that "you win". You said ZERO chance. I simply gave an alternative scenario. :-) This has been fun.

Zero huh? So, you don't believe that a person who identifies with same-sex attraction can repent, divorce their partner, and find a spouse of the opposite sex? Sure, it's far-fetched... but it can happen. Don't you believe in repentance?

What about INVOLUNTARILY? What about a child whose father died - either at war, freak accident, or whatever? The STATE is not going to take that child away from her mother. What if that mother is sick and has no hope of remarrying "because their kid needs a father"? You have a lot of assumptions of what "should" be, rather than knowing that life is a series of adjustments and you have to make the best decisions that can be made at that time.

Now, compare MY children's experience with their DIVORCED parents... to my father's and uncle's experience in foster care. They were molested. Compare my Ex-wife's mother's experience with HER father. She was molested. And her father was prominent in the church way back in the day. She still questions whether her baptism was "legit" or not. There is IDEAL (loving mother and father) and then there is what IS. I believe that being with a same-sex couple can be superior to foster care and a sexually abusive father ANY day of the week.