skippy740
-
Posts
5396 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by skippy740
-
-
38 minutes ago, JoCa said:
It's not the one I'm looking for but there are now sons/daughters of homosexual families who are starting to speak out. I have read several blogs about the trials of children who grew up with homosexual parents and the pain, suffering and horror they went through simply for wanting a dad. And b/c homosexual couples are now "good", the child can't say "hey I want a dad"-the response is "what's the matter kid you have two parents who love you!" Better that they grow up in a divorced home, right?? Yeah except a divorced home had a fundamental basis in goodness even if it became wrecked. A homosexual couple has no basis is goodness.
Look, I (sort of) have personal experience with this. Up until about two months ago, I did not have full custody of my children. My daughter lived with her mom and her grandmother. She was doing some inappropriate things - sneaking out at night, inappropriate texting, etc. Not showing the best of judgment.
Well, my ex-wife was going to go on a cruise with her mom and needed me to watch my three kids for 10 days - which was no problem. But once my daughter went back, she sneaked out of the house again. We had her here and made an ultimatum: If she sneaks out again, she'll be moving in with me.
She did it THAT night. (One would think she'd wait a week or two so she could stay with her mom, go to the school she wanted, and be close to her friends... but NOOO! lol)
She's been with me for the past 2 months... and absolutely no problems! My daughter doesn't sneak out (which was attributed to a panic attack), she's been on top of ALL her school work (something she has struggled with for the past 5 years), and is VOLUNTARILY going to seminary! (I don't make it a requirement so she can take pride in that effort herself. She's only missed one day in the past month!)
So yeah, I GET it. Right now, my daughter needs her daddy and I'm available. But does that diminish her MOTHER and GRANDMOTHER? No, it's simply different and I'm glad she's flourishing.
-
26 minutes ago, JoCa said:
Lol . . . you are obviously not a parent or this issue has so clouded your judgement and thinking.
How curious that, because of my posts, you are making assumptions about me and my personal life. You must think I'm on my way to the Telestial Kingdom.
I have three children - my daughter will be 14 this week, and two sons - 11 and 9.
-
9 minutes ago, JoCa said:
It is child abuse to purposefully place a child in a homosexual environment. It is sick, it is twisted, it is evil. How someone can not be strongly against placing an innocent baby in a home that is 100% contrary to God's laws is beyond me. To me, it is a sign at just how slick the homosexual movement is at convincing people (including members of the Church), there is no sin in homosexuality.
Can you prove this LEGALLY? So far, this is simply your opinion. It is rooted in the gospel, but it is your opinion.
The problem we have is in separating legal vs moral. Legally, there is no problem. Morally, it's a big problem. But if you can't substantiate it LEGALLY, you have no case.
-
This whole thread has been about "a TEST". This thread is a good example, so let me summarize this.
The test is this: How can you adapt to an ever-changing government, who is determined to eliminate gender bias, gender identity, and any form of discrimination or thought in how it governs the laws and lives of its citizens while latter day saints try to live the gospel?
Everything of the past is being challenged, and LEGALLY speaking, there are some things that simply don't make sense OUTSIDE of a gospel or faith perspective. This is the 1st Bill of Rights - that the Government will not establish a religion and make its citizens conform to a state religion.
What's being tested, is the removal of ANYTHING that is REMOTELY faith-based in government and society to be "fair". Which means that SOCIETY will not be a confirming influence on faith. Not anymore. It becomes more INDIVIDUAL and UNIQUE to each person.
When it's no longer peer-supported or government supported to be a person of faith... will you continue to be... or not?
Will you count on the Church to teach your children the gospel... or will YOU do it in your homes?
The time has come for members of the church to become STRONGER because the nature of our government will show additional freedoms to those of differing lifestyles in order to not show 'preference' of one lifestyle over another. Government will not be allowed to use Judeo-Christian motives and beliefs in creating laws. They must be more objective - and that objectivity has far more freedom than a more controlling government normally allows.
Are you ready for THAT test?
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng
Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.)President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!
We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.
M. J. Sobran wrote recently:
“The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …
“What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61.)
What *I'm* saying... is that this has already happened. I'm taking the counsel of the First Presidency and applying it directly to my own life and teaching it to those who are of our faith. I won't get in the way of someone wanting to live life as they want on their terms... but our PERSONAL morality and direction, and that of our FAMILIES... needs to be inline with what the First Presidency teach for us.
-
You need to bring associative context to these two statements.
"Why do we 'need' to protect children... from same-sex marriage?" (It really helps when you complete a thought.) And I had asked compared to what? Compared to being in an orphanage? Foster care? Single parents? Yes, we have a GOSPEL perspective, but even THAT does not answer the question.
"You TRUST your government to create laws that benefit humanity." That's a statement I made regarding your perspective, not mine regarding laws that are passed today. I don't trust government to not have some other influence or design behind laws being passed, so I always ask what the purpose is and who can take advantage of it.
-
That is a gospel perspective, not a legal one.
-
4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Why?
That question.
4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:You're sure doing your very best to avoid answering my question.
And that one.
-
Perhaps, but when someone is asking a LEGAL question, rather than a MORAL question... and is disappointed that they get an answer regarding the LEGAL question... it helps to clarify what you intended.
I'm simply responding to the question as it was asked. If the question wasn't clear, it wasn't my fault.
There is no accusation or animosity. Sometimes communication is a game and it's interesting to see where it goes.
-
I'd prefer to work out my own morality with God, rather than with man via Sharia Law. Sharia Law (who beheads Christians and throws homosexuals off of buildings), and requiring 4 men to be witnesses to a rape or it didn't happen, is taking JiHad and putting it in the hands of man, rather than God.
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:There's something decidedly surreal about having a conversation with someone who's, apparently, discussing something else entirely.
The difference in our conversation is this: You actually TRUST your government to create laws that benefit humanity. You think it's always to be better.
I don't. I question everything, particularly who will benefit, why was this written, why wasn't it a law before, and who could be trying to usurp power because of this or similar laws. Some times (perhaps many times) it IS good... but I don't trust it blindly until I study them out.
-
43 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:
I don't think breaking the WoW is a good comparison for using porn or getting physical with another person. It just isn't as hurtful to the other spouse.
Perhaps, but both can be considered as a cancer to a marriage, depending on how one views it. Severity is in the eye of the beholder - regardless of what science says, it's how we interpret and act upon it.
-
15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
Pedophilia? What in the world does that have to do with marriage? PROTECTION OF CHILDREN - That's what MARRIAGE is about. Why should a government codify marriage? To protect children . Why is it illegal to marry your brother? To protect children. Why is it illegal to marry at 13? To protect children. It used to be that it's not a marriage unless there are children. Because, outside of children, there is no reason to put yourself in a contractual obligation. Women, even before suffrage, were under the protection of their fathers and brothers. They need not get married for protection. A child born out of wedlock, on the other hand, becomes the sole responsibility of his mother.
Now, gay marriage is billed as "it doesn't hurt anybody". Yes, it does. It hurts children. Have you ever heard an LGBTQ movement proposing that they not have any rights to children or adoption? Of course not. In their minds, a child growing up in a gay household is just as advantaged as any other marital union. Because, as they say, there are a whole lot of single parents and divorced parents and dysfunctional parents, and abusive parents, etc. etc. etc. But, we didn't legalize divorce because Johnny and Jane were so excited to plan a marriage so they can divorce. Whereas, gay people are so excited to plan a gay marriage and put it up as a societal ideal no different than heterosexual marriage in the rearing and caring of children.
Protect children from what? Compared to what? How are they protected? How does gay marriage hurt children? You are insinuating that gay marriage only wants to exist so that these same-sex unions can exploit children for their own ends. That's called Pedophilia. And pedophilia exists in BOTH same-sex couples AND straight couples.
Children are RAISED in families. They are TAUGHT their parent's values in word and in deed. They are TAUGHT about the consequences of their decisions. They are LOVED.
Marriage is a legal contract - strictly speaking in the eyes of the law. With a legal contract, there are privileges. Tax benefits, estate planning benefits, medical visitation benefits, social security spousal continuation benefits... many things in a marriage contract have NOTHING to do with children, but in how two people can care for each other and how government SUPPORTS that union.
That was what Prop 8 was about - not having same-sex marriages receive government support via contract with the current rules and laws.
-
When the law has become corrupted, it is evil and for the purpose of enslaving mankind under those who have been appointed to be lawmakers and judges over us.
Helaman 5:2-3
2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the avoice of the people, and they who bchose evil were cmore numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were dripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.
3 Yea, and this was not all; they were a astiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction.
-
Evil... or regulation?
Evil is Satan and his plan.
Regulation is government and individuals seeking to gain and preserve power over others.
At times, they are one and the same. Other times, regulation is to help curb abuses.
It's an individual decision to determine each one, not all of them.
-
Then it comes down to this:
- Who would you rather be?
- How would Christ want us to be?
- If you met the family, what would you want to tell them? Words of support/encouragement? Or how wrong their family member was and dwell on it.
They are happy! That's obvious to me! They do miss their other uncle (whom I will not mention), but they remember him fondly.
For me, I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive.
-
Children are WHOSE responsibility? Their parents.
Can children DICTATE to their parents? Successfully? No, they cannot.
Can children leave their parents if they don't like it and parents abdicate their responsibility as parents? There may be, but it's not an automatic thing until children are 18 years old.
Now, to protect children, who UNDER THE LAW have no voice, they are a cause by lawmakers to fight for their protection. Perhaps it may get too strong, or not... but because UNDER THE LAW children have no voice and limited legal rights compared to legal adults, they need protection.
I have answered according to my limited knowledge of the law. Is there some moral question you are trying to ask or infer from all this?
-
I'm answering your question exactly. Maybe you should ask a different question.
-
5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:
Well, Im for creating Zion and in Zion you cant have wickedness. As we each do our part to eradicate evilness from society we need laws in place to protect the righteous. Thats Gods plan and Im all for Gods plan. Satans plan was to get everyone to sin, remain sinful, then bring them into his own kingdom to rule over them as his captive slaves.
The City of Enoch had NO DESIRE to do wickedness. That does not mean that it was against the law. Two completely different things.
-
6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Yes, that's "why" you say laws exist. I'm asking why we need to protect anyone? Why is protection important? Why is it that we "need" to protect those who don't have a voice -- or even those who do?
Incidentally, @LiterateParakeet, this ^ is what intentional baiting looks like.
32 minutes ago, skippy740 said:Laws have to do with how we treat and respect each other in society.
Or, it's about someone trying to gain power, influence, and authority over others.
-
23 minutes ago, skippy740 said:
Why? To protect children against foolish adults who may not recognize the severity of their actions on others who don't have a voice.
-
I explained that in that post.
-
2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:
Laws are based off the tolerance of people in their current states of wickedness or righteousness. In some places prostitution is legal, other places its not. In some places drinking or possession of alcohol is illegal, other places it is not. There are myriads of laws throughout the land from state to state, county to county, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A society that chooses a strict moral set of laws is not forcing their will on others. Satans plan wasnt forced obedience at all.
Yep - it's "live our way or leave". Ever go to these places and say "Wow. That's just insane?" In Kentucky, you have drive-thru liquor stores. (How about that Bible belt, huh?) Yet in Utah, you can't buy beer or liquor on Sunday. Better prepare in advance! It's not that you can't drink it - you just can't BUY it. Why not? Probably to ease the conscience of store owners who already feel guilty about opening their stores on Sunday, let alone selling alcoholic beverages. Sounds like that county clerk in Kentucky who wouldn't issue same-sex marriage licenses - it's a personal problem / cognitive dissonance with the issue and a failure to reconcile the values.
California and Colorado made pot legal. Why? Tax revenues and to avoid big drug sentences for what people are saying is a 'harmless drug'. The rest of the nation will follow suit over time.
California also legalized child prostitution. Well, no. That's not what happened. What happened was that California chose not to prosecute children who are in prostitution and not brand them for life as sex-offenders. This can also help with children who have smartphones who end up sharing nude pictures of themselves. Remember, that's child pornography and that's a problem. http://www.snopes.com/child-prostitution-legalized-in-california/
I suggest looking at various laws INDIVIDUALLY and asking "What is the purpose behind this law? Who does it serve? Who does it protect? Why is it this way?" We need to look at what's going on in society and view society AS IT IS, not "as we wish it to be".
Satan's plan was either forced obedience, the rejection of any law, or requiring the lack of thinking for ourselves and becoming just as carnal as an animal operating on instinct.
-
Laws have to do with how we treat and respect each other in society. Laws are for protecting me from you and vice versa (plural 'you' not you specifically).
Children need protection, so there are seat-belt and child seat laws. There are also laws against smoking in your car or home if you have children. Why? To protect children against foolish adults who may not recognize the severity of their actions on others who don't have a voice.
Show me how a same-sex couple in a "marriage" is anyone else's business in society that laws should be enacted for it? Who are they protecting them from?
-
7 hours ago, Grunt said:
Thanks, but she's not wrong. I could learn to be less blunt in my responses. I have a bad habit of calling things as I see them. I try to have compassion, and I truly believe I do, but I have no patience for not "adulting" about certain things. Personal responsibility is one. You can't fix a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it.
Don't change! Being a Challenger is what is needed most in this world - in all settings.
About a year ago, I came across this article in the Harvard Business Review regarding selling, but it can apply in many areas:
https://hbr.org/2011/09/selling-is-not-about-relatio
I identify as a "challenger". As long as you are adding new information and not "just" putting others down, you help people most by serving them, not 'pleasing' them - or telling them just what they want to hear.
Challengers teach their customers. Challengers tailor their message to the individual. Challengers take control on the interaction. Challengers dominate the world of complex "solution selling" (or providing advice) - meaning that they provide clarity where others just want to be pleased.
People pleasers, because they want to please and AVOID confrontation, end up at "wimp junction" where they surrender what they know might be best... to pleasing the other person.
There's more on this, but being bold and assertive (and perhaps blunt) does not mean that you are mean. In fact, you have MORE compassion because you care more about serving than pleasing.
-
I still wear cotton, so I guess I still benefit from and financially support the heritage of slavery.
a TEST is coming
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
And yes, I predict my sons will be coming over to me in the next couple of years.