PrinceofLight2000

A suit shouldn't have taken place from either side. The twelfth article of faith compels us to obey, honor, and sustain the law. This includes respecting the Constitutional process. The only reason the church decided to take it to court was because the liberals had already challenged the initiative. However, rather than trying to get the court to appeal to our own morality and trample states' rights and legislative powers, the stronger legal argument would be that it's not the court's place to decide. Remember, what we were discussing before was a means to prove how the initiative was constitutional (through legislating morality), not to have the court impose our morality through judicial activist oligarchy. It's a shame that court rulings are extrapolated in such a fashion. When a judge concurs with reasoning for keeping a law constitutional, that doesn't mean any reasoning present for a law which might have opposite morals is suddenly unconstitutional. Such laws can be used to replace each other. Instead, the courts have decided to use their power to clarify what the Constitution allows as means of adding to and distorting it to suit their own morality. Since the judge ruled prop 8 to be unconstitutional through a misuse of judicial review, he usurped the people's and legislature's power and took it upon himself to arbitrarily declare morality. This is how fictitious rights not present in the Constitution are created. The proper way to include a fundamental, natural right is by an amendment; such was done with race equality and women's equality. Regardless, marriage is not a right and should remain unlisted. It's a privilege bound by moral criteria, (which is neutral in the Constitution and thereby not a constitutional issue; meaning the courts can't touch it) and subject to legislation. Voting for representation which passes legislation is a powerful moral statement from the masses, and an initiative is an even more powerful one because it involves a direct vote. This, from a government which is supposedly by the people, of the people, and for the people.

The judge actually ruled on the basis of principles present in the federal Constitution, namely equal protection and due process.It doesn't violate due process because the legislation was done constitutionally (morality is neutral in the Constitution), and it doesn't violate equal protection under the law because the law would define marriage and who receives the rights given in marriages. Since gay marriage wasn't legally defined as state recognized marriage, no married couple would be denied their equal protection. You're correct about the reasoning why conservatives sought an amendment. It really shouldn't be a court issue, but the liberals have decided to break the process and make it one. An amendment isn't needed, either. Legislation is fine. Which is where the legislature is authorized to come into play. Because the Constitution is neutral toward morality in this case, legislation (in this case directly supported by the people through an initiative) authorizing or banning same-sex marriage is constitutional.

1. Bold - That's my point.2. Cain knew killing Abel was wrong, prior to the act. Before then, no murder had taken place. 3. People who choose to be homosexual don't need to have homosexual tendencies. And this can and has happened on a mass scale. See: Sodom and Gomorrah. 4. Tainting the gene pool doesn't destroy humanity within a few generations when implemented. Heavenly Father most likely knew this when He decided to command polygamy of certain called Saints. 5. Legally, yes, the moral decision of the people of either pro or anti-polygamy would hold up regardless of whether it defies God's word. God gave us our agency for that purpose. Are we not free to create our own laws as we see fit as well? 6. All legal reasoning must be based on hard data, and can't be inferred from fact? I could pull up statistics for you that show social tolerance of homosexuality has increased it in the United States, and I could look up statistics that show homosexual behavior has increased in Massachusetts or California because it was allowed legally. You're forgetting that there are a whole slew of gay people who don't get married because they respect the law. 7. I'll say it one more time. All legal issues are inherently moral issues. I'll just move to agree to disagree. We're going in circles with this, now.

The data would be negligible, if it even exists. Any driver knows this. It's not a "measurable" effect. That's exactly what you asked for. So the idea of murder can't be feared until the act takes place? Concepts can exist well before the concept actually presents itself in reality. Just have a look at any scientific theory. Your dinosaur analogy is a straw man. Any form of tolerance, legal or social, of any given behavior will inevitably increase that behavior. Yes, it is the place of the people to decide. This is the essence of the representative democratic process. There is a very clear impact on a second party, whether or not it is legally acknowledged depends on the morality of those who write, enforce, and determine the law. You're starting to scare me a little bit with your rhetoric unless you're simply playing devil's advocate. No man is "entitled" to a "right" to marriage. It's a privilege, and one defined by morality. This is exactly what I meant before about the judiciary creating fictional Constitutional rights instead of using the amendment process.

I don't think Heavenly Father would give us an answer to that. We really don't need to know right now. It's a non-issue. Evolution could have been the tool by which He created man, or it may not have been. That doesn't change the fact that He created us, which is really all that matters.

Speeding one mile over the speed limit can't possibly produce measurable adverse effects on a second party, yet technically it remains illegal. This point is irrelevant however because same-sex marriage does adversely effect a second party. I already gave the argument for what would happen to future generations if everyone on the planet were to become homosexuals and engage in such marriages. Aren't all laws predicated on fears, as well? Doesn't the rape victim fear rape, so they demand it outlawed? Doesn't the relative of a murder victim fear a repeat offense, so they call for it to be outlawed? We have determined homosexual behavior to be a choice. If homosexual behavior is legally tolerated, it is logical that the entire human population could choose to become homosexual, and end humanity by doing so.

Wrong, both of those are immoral. God commands us to procreate. I don't know why you think I lump people physically unable to have children in with the ones who choose not to; one can't help being physically unable to do something and God understands that. However, society has a vested interest in prohibiting same sex marriage and protecting itself, again, because there is no possibility of procreation within them. And thereby a legal, secular argument. You're assuming this behavior can't occur in 100% of the population by choice. Additionally, homosexual behavior is a choice. Homosexual tendencies are uncontrollable and may be medical. Same sex marriage falls under homosexual behavior.

That doesn't mean it could not have occurred otherwise. Morality can be independent from faith. My entire point in posting in this thread was that all legal issues are inherently moral issues, and that we already legislate morality to levels defined in the Constitution.

Except that people who decide they'll never have kids hardly ever follow through with it. A distinct line needs to be drawn. The possibility of procreation, defined by gender, is in these marriages. It has no possibility in same-sex marriages. Tolerating that behavior, morally and legally, will ultimately threaten society. Some would argue how the government applies the right to privacy is incorrect.

Can't someone say "I believe this is wrong" from their own conscience (albeit God-given) rather than saying "I believe this is wrong because God said it's wrong"? My entire point was that a similar moral conclusion does not have to come from a religious basis, rather it can also come from the human mind itself.

I already stated fornication is an entirely different legal animal. Procreation may not be a legal requirement to marry, but there is no physically possible chance of it occurring in same-sex marriage. Married couples who can't have children are medical exceptions to this rule because their gender would have allowed them a chance if not for their medical problems or their choice to be sterilized. Married couples who don't want children are free to change their minds. Because same-sex marriage has no chance of physically causing procreation, if accepted and practiced on a wide scale, it threatens society itself and the lives of those yet to be born.

Tell that to a true relativist and he'll scoff at you. It's not a point of religious morality, it is of morality in general. Morality can be derived from many places and for many reasons, including religion. Can lead to, are very key words here. Not to mention, the only branch that I stated is allowed to regulate a population by morality is through the legislature, and that's because legislation can always be repealed by our method of governance. Sharia law doesn't fit that model. Again, I'll repeat myself. Determining harm in those circumstances is entirely a moral argument. In some things we know there is harm because God tells us (morality) there is harm (do the Ten Commandments ring a bell?), others however view human life as worthless and something that can be taken at their own pleasure. This isn't about applying faith to a secular government, it's about applying a generally accepted morality to society. Whether or not you draw your morality from faith is entirely irrelevant to this process. Morals are the stitches that hold societies together. That said, it's rather ironic that most of our legally applied morality comes from God.

The procreation argument specifically applies to same-sex marriage because procreation can't happen in such relationships. The fornication issue is a completely different legal animal.

The definitions of what actively harms others and how, and how rights apply to us are also largely defined by morality. Same-sex marriage can be seen as harmful to society because it goes against nature and undermines the pivotal role the traditional family has in procreation, and by extension, the survival of that society, and by extension from that, the right to life. If you're LDS, obviously you believe the spirits to be born in future generations have the right to live. If every society tolerated behavior that undermined the procreative aspects of the family, and everyone adopted that behavior, humanity itself would collapse.

I'm going to disagree entirely here. The same-sex marriage bill and Prop 8 are both examples of legislating morality. We already legislate morality on a day-to-day basis. Murder, rape, theft, and indecency laws, just naming a few, are all very moral issues which are outlawed; just because more people disagree on the morality of this issue for different reasons doesn't make it any less expedient for the legislature to address. Need I also mention that our entire legal system is deeply rooted in Mosaic law, which shapes the law around morality as outlined by God? My point here is that legislating order based on a larger shared morality (hopefully based on God's word) held by a populace in question is key for any free society to hold itself together. The founders knew this, so they left the Constitution neutral in terms of defining morality, apart from stating it was immoral for governmental powers to take the God-given rights therein away from others. Both pro and anti-gay marriage laws are constitutional, but we hold pro-gay marriage laws to be immoral. If the leftists in California didn't like Prop 8, they should have moved to have the initiative repealed. Instead, they took it to court, and this has just become another issue of judicial activism where the judge has trampled states' rights and the concept of federalism, defined morality in place of the people defining it through the direct vote inherent to initiatives, and has arbitrarily usurped and prevented the representative legislature from legislating against gay marriage on behalf of the people. "Constitutionally protected" rights are created out of whole cloth, and as we all know, Supreme Court decisions are ridiculously hard to overturn. Oligarchy rears its ugly head once more.

This is exactly what I was wondering about earlier, thank you for the input, Justice.

Did you bother to read past the first and second posts?1. I'm LDS. 2. Last night I WAS tired, and because of that I WAS researching, as I stated earlier. I couldn't find any explanations for this passage on any LDS sites. So I thought the posters here would be able to enlighten me on the passage. 3. I DON'T think Christians misinterpret Deuteronomy, I was making note of how these gay rights activists were making a gigantic paraphrase to use the Bible for their own warped ends. I'm on your side here, way to jump to huge conclusions based on the thread title alone. 4. All I was trying to do was to get someone to clarify on what exactly the passage meant. Does it mean what it says, or is there some other overarching principle that it implies?

You missed an edit I had made earlier, but you are correct sir. haha. I went back and fixed it.Thoughts?

I got that, you didn't have to repeat yourself. Again, I'm trying to find out what it means relative to the days of the Old Testament.

Yeah, I know. I'm LDS too. Yup. I entirely agree with you, but that wasn't my question. I'm gonna refer everybody back up to my second post in this thread. I'm trying to get a handle on what this actually means since apparently people love to twist it around every which way, and I figured you guys might know something about it since I can't find anything to read on it.

Oh. Well, as Snow noticed before I did and upon looking at what's going on in the background, it appears to be some sort of gay rights protest. I see a sign advertising a Unitarian Universalist church and one that says "LET US MAR[RY]". So that's what it looks to be.Edit: Rainbow-colored flags. It's DEFINITELY gay rights. lol.

Deuteronomy 22 13 ¶ If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. The question I had in mind is whether or not (in the days of the OT) a marriage is invalidated if the daughter is not a virgin (has had sex). This would imply that any woman who has had sex in any previous marriage cannot re-marry. However, I'm thinking it's referring to the woman being married to the man under false pretenses of her being a virgin. Also, that picture has to be the biggest paraphrase I have ever seen, haha.

I'll make this short and simple. I found this picture on another forum i go to. I'd like to hear some LDS-perspective responses, since I'm too tired to brainstorm. =P

I saw my error here. haha. Since we were having a gospel related discussion I temporarily forgot that it wasn't a private discussion. Won't happen again.

YouTube - Overexcited Kid If this happened to me during the heyday of pokemon (I was in second or third grade) I probably would have had the same reaction. On a side note, I bought a pack of cards when I was like 15 for old time's sake. I opened it up and got a holo Mew and a reverse holo Charizard, I immediately thought of this video and what I would have done if I were 8. hahaha.