CrimsonKairos

rameumptom, don't take everything so personally. Who's reading prejudices into the scriptures? Somehow you're concluding that if I thought Canaanites in Africa developed black skin after their land was cursed with heat, that I somehow hate blacks or think the priesthood ban on blacks in our day was justified. Which is the most incorrect assumption you could make. You don't need to turn a scripture discussion into an argument about who is prejudiced and who isn't, don't take it personally. I've been citing scriptures, archeology (because I know it's so important to you) and logic to discuss Moses 7. It is disappointing to have you retreat by saying, "Your evidence is garbage and your logic is screwed up but most damning of all, CrimsonKairos, you are projecting your prejudices onto the scriptures. Shame on you!" Uh, okay. Guess this discussion will have to end with an "agree to disagree" since you're obviously no longer interested in even-handed discourse. Just a hint for the future: I wouldn't recommend the thought process of, "If someone disagrees with me, it must be because they are prejudiced and ignorant." Intelligent people disagree with each other all the time. Have fun reading and interpreting the scriptures.

Ask the Lord for forgiveness. Talk to your Bishop. Follow his counsel and correction. Your main fear seems to be losing custody of your kids in any amount. I'm unsure courts and judges award custody based on whether spouses were 100% into each other at the time of divorce. Seems that things like emotional stability as evidenced by a record or lack of record of civil/criminal convictions, ability to provide, etc are more influential in judging who gets kids what percent of the time. If you do get divorced, lawyers are there to help hammer out custody arrangements. Its not like just because you file for divorce you automatically never get to see your kids again! Best of luck with all of this, or rather, I hope you and your family receive the blessings you need to get through to the other side, whatever that consists of. But talk to your Bishop. First step.

Something else about idioms: they usually involve a "phrase" or more than one word. So simply calling something "black" isn't always an idiom. Specifically, here in Nahum 2:10 is says "the faces of them all gather blackness." A face gathering blackness is a great idiom for "becoming sad, depressed, frightened." But saying a face gathers blackness (referring to a facial expression and by extension, an emotional state) is nowhere near the same thing as saying a skin of blackness came upon the Canaanites. In Nahum, they were talking about the skin of the face. In Moses 7:4-9, Enoch is apparently talking about all of their skin...I say apparently because Enoch includes no modifier to let us know if there is a specific area of the skin surface he saw turn black. Here it's talking about gates being "black unto the ground," clearly an idiom or description of burned, destroyed gates such as Nebuchadnezzar might leave in his wake. Gates and skin are not exactly the same thing. As important as idioms are, context is equally important. So basically your last post clears everything up. Enoch saw God curse the valley of Shum with heat after the Canaanites murdered everyone else living there, and Enoch then saw a skin of "gloom" and a skin of "dejection" come upon the Canaanites. Of course, we're using Hebrew words as a reference point in Nahum and Jeremiah, but the Book of Moses was translated (read: received by revelation) by Joseph Smith with no actual physical text to reference. So it seems a bit of a stretch to say, "Because Biblical writers around 600 B.C. used the word "black" as part of various idioms, then Enoch--who would have written much earlier than 600 BC--must have had those same idioms in mind when he used the word "black" regardless of the context!" Ah, but idioms derive from cultures which exist within contexts. Idioms wrenched free of their historical and cultural context are useless. Jeremiah was talking about the ruins of city gates destroyed by invaders. Nahum was talking about the facial expressions (and inner emotions the face reveals) of afflicted people. Enoch? He was talking about the skin of an entire people, and the skin of the people somehow turned black right after the land was cursed with heat. Hmmm. See, if an idiom existed in the scriptures where "skin of blackness" meant "sad people" then that'd at least be a start. But to draw a conclusion after mixing and matching the contexts of war ruins, human emotion, and human skin...seems to me a bit off the mark.. Thanks for the post though, it was well thought out and supported by scriptural examples. That makes your post more plausible than like 80% of posts which make claims without scriptures or sources to back them up. :)

Sure was. But see, I'm not talking about the curse pertaining to the priesthood that you assume I'm talking about. I have been speaking of Enoch's vision of the specific episode involving the Canaanites in the valley of Shum. Their skin became black after God cursed the land with barrenness and heat as a consequence of the Canaanites murdering all the other inhabitants of the valley of Shum. Basically, God saying: "You may be the only inhabitants of the land now, but I'm going to make it unbearably hot and unfruitful for you. Just so you get the point that murdering your neighbors to benefit yourself is never a good thing." :) So yes, at that point in time the Canaanites having black skin in the valley of Shum was a SIGN/INDICATION that they were among the group who had murdered everyone else and brought the curse of heat on the land. This episode has nothing to do with priesthood, being able to bear it, etc. Of course, murderers probably don't qualify for the priesthood, but this whole valley of Shum episode is separate from and distinct from the Hamitic priesthood curse that you probably assumed I was talking about. Moses 7:4-9 doesn't say anything about God taking away the priesthood from the Canaanites in the valley of Shum as a curse on their murderous acts. It just says God turned the thermostat way up in Shum, and it's possible the valley of Shum refers to an ancient region that corresponds to where the modern Sahara desert exists, which is allegedly where most "blacks" originated. I have said nothing about a curse banning a person or his descendants from qualifying to bear the priesthood. I've been talking solely about Moses 7:4-9. :)

Interestingly, Martain, in one key respect Freemasons may be closer to the Millenial inhabitants of the earth than most others. Specifically, their ecumenical "all faiths welcome" attitude--requiring only that a Mason believe in a Supreme Being--is a good thing. We know that in the Millenium, not everyone will be a baptized member of the LDS Church. Sure, everyone will bow the knee and confess with their tongues that Jesus is the anointed Savior of mankind. But not everyone will choose to worship God the same way, even during the Millenium when Christ is on the earth! Now if you believe some shady conspiracy that Satan is the "true Supreme Being" the Masons worship, I clearly can't say anything to persuade you otherwise. However if you, like me, study history and conclude that Templars and other Roman Catholic dissidents from the 1300s through the 1600s were the original "masons" in England and Scotland, and that the Masonic ban on proselytizing or even discussing religion in the lodge was a natural outgrowth of disparate groups of "heretics" banding together for literally a life-and-death struggle...it all seems understandable to me. I know the Grand Master of the Utah Freemasons in 2008 was Mormon, and he or someone else in his position said basically, "I'm a freemason because I get to meet people I'd otherwise never meet." In other words, he gets to meet adherents of other religious traditions that--outside of a lodge--might never speak to each other because of their perceived differences in tradition, belief, etc. But through Freemasonry, this Mormon was saying he gets to fellowship with non-Mormons in a way he'd otherwise never be able to. Have there been evil Freemasons? Sure. Same with Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. The point isn't "are there evil Freemasons," the point is "does Freemasonry teach its adherents to hate God and Christ and worship Satan?" And the answer to that query is a resounding, undebatable "NO!" Interestingly, the modern Freemasons are the intellectual descendants of Catholic heretics from the medieval ages, and since religious freedom is pretty well established in America at least, I personally wouldn't see a huge motivation for myself to become a Freemason since they originally began as a secret society of mutual protection from the Catholic Church which pretty much dictated every aspect of secular and religious life for many, many centuries in Europe and elsewhere. State differently, I have too many things I'm trying to do in my life and family, to justify spending up to three hours per degree of initiation in Freemasonry, all just to learn what Catholic dissidents (Templars, mathematicians, philosophers, astronomers) added and overlaid on Masonic traditions as they struggled to avoid arrest, torture and execution, beginning with the 1307 A.D. suppression of the Templar Knights in France under King Philip IV and Pope Clement V.

Or maybe I am. Exit From Eden | DiscoverMagazine.com See that's where I disagree. There is no evidence there weren't any black Canaanites. Like, there's no ancient electrified fence with a sign saying, "Keep Out of Africa: Blacks Only, No Canaanites Allowed!" Is there evidence there WERE black Canaanites? Yup. The above "Discover" article is clear archeological evidence (since you like archeological evidence so much, haha) that ancient Nubia / modern Sudan and elsewhere in Africa used to be covered with greenery, rivers, lakes, all sorts of animal life. Then, it all went away and the Sahara desert is what's left. So... Fact #1: Ancient Nubia and elsewhere used to be lush and green, but then became the Sahara desert Fact #2: You claim blacks came mostly from Nubia and it's surroundings; okay, let's assume that's correct Fact #3: In Enoch's vision, the valley of Shum became cursed with unending heat / made barren AFTER the Canaanites slaughtered all the inhabitants in the valley of Shum. Which means... Fact #4: Before the Canaanites' invaded the valley of Shum, it was a pretty nice place to life: food, water, plants, the works (probably why Canaanites invaded in the first place) So if you take Facts #1 - #4 above, and add them up using any semblance of ordinary logic, I think the average person could indeed say there is sound evidence that while the Canaanites might not have been black to begin with (and the original portion that stayed in Palestine might never have been black), the Canaanites who slaughtered those in the valley of Shum were subsequently exposed to a curse of immense heat and an unfruitful, barren land (Moses 7:7-8) that caused their skin to become black. Now we know explicitly Cain's descendants were black (Moses 7:22). Did any of them survive the flood? Or more specifically, did Cain's descendants end up leading to Ham's wife Egyptus, giving her darker skin? Who knows. All I'm saying is that (and I think this is pretty open-minded) it is possible that some number of the Canaanites became the black inhabitants of Nubia/Sudan after God cursed the valley of Shum (based on archeological evidence of the pre-Sahara desert garden paradise). Seriously? I've been saying the opposite: the Canaanites' skin BECAME black after the valley of Shum was cursed with barrenness, heat and so forth. So Ham and his wife could well have been "white" or olive skinned like modern Palestinians / Jews. The point is the Canaanites became black-skinned after the land was cursed, which clearly suggests their skin wasn't black before the curse, so I've been saying the whole time that Ham and Egyptus were not black.

Yes, Martain, I have studied Masonry extensively myself which inevitably led to websites containing everything a Mason would know and hear during their initiations / ceremonies / degrees (first seven degrees of the York Rite, specifically). Much of what you will read concerning Masonry, it's origins, etc, is completely false and made up, including--until recently--what the Masons said about themselves (that they originated in medieval stonemason guilds, something thoroughly disproven and refuted in the book mentioned below). If you want a scholarly, plausible and rational/fair analysis of Masonry's origins, I recommend "Born In Blood: The Lost Secrets Of Freemasonry" by John J. Robinson. He isn't a Mason, and as importantly, he isn't an anti-Mason. He consulted all the records of Masonic museums, libraries and lodges he could get his hands on. He traveled to Oxford, consulted medieval archives and histories of England, Scotland and France back to the 1100's, and his premises/conclusions are both well thought out and even-handed. He doesn't reveal the grips and other explicitly "secret" parts of Masonic rituals, so he was as respectful to the organization as he could be. To give you a summary (you really should read the book for yourself, as should all Masons or anyone interested in Masonry), Robinson bases his conclusion on the histories of the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller, the Peasant's Revolt in England in 1381, and the power struggles between King Philip IV of France, Pope Clement V, King Edward II of England, and the various claimants to the Scottish crown at the time. Once King Philip IV and Pope Clement V condemned the Templars, dissolved their order, and sanctioned their arrest, torture, murder and seizure of all their money, manors, serfs, etc, in France on Friday the 13th, October, 1307, there was a period of three months before King Edward II of England began to execute the Pope's decree. In those three months, the Templars in England--learning what was done to their brother monks in France--went underground in England and of necessity founded a secret society of mutual protection against the Roman Catholic Church, King Edward II and other secular authorities, and the Knights Hospitaller in England who had received all the Templars' monasteries, chapels, lands and most of their money and would want to eliminate their rival monastic order (Templars). Guess what the King of Scotland did with the Papal decree? Nothing, didn't even have it read or proclaimed in Scotland as he was focusing on Scotland's independence to the exclusion of all else. Which made Scotland a very safe haven for any Templars (now officially deemed heretics and traitors) seeking to escape persecution and death by torture. This Templar secret society of mutual protection was the origin of Secret Masonry (Masonry as practiced before the London 1717 "coming out" as it were), including the oaths, penalties, and Old Charges of Masonry (which make no sense for stonecutters to abide by, he explains more in the book). Furthermore, originally there were only two degrees of Templar secret Masonry (for lack of a better eponym): Entrant, later called Entered Apprentice; and, Fellow, later called Fellow Craft. Most things beyond the first two degrees were appended later as other enemies of the Roman Catholic Church sought a safe haven (scientists, mathematicians, astronomers, etc who like Galileo made claims thought to be injurious to the Papal authority). This is where the tools of the stonemason, the mathematical emphasis and other details were woven into and overlaid on the existing two degrees. After the coming out in London in 1717 of four lodges forming the first Grand Lodge of England, and it's transmission to France by a Scotsman/scholar/royal tutor, over one thousand degrees were invented and administered (this claim was made by a masonic historian, read the book). So all that's similar between the original, Templar Secret Masonry and the LDS Temple Endowment, is that religious men (Templars, Mormons) who were being persecuted by the dominant sects/faction(s) of Christianity at the time (Roman Catholicism, Protestantism respectively), needed a way to ensure their mutual protection from their enemies who would kill the "heretics." The doctrines, covenants, promised blessings and spiritual perspective of the LDS Temple Endowment is 180 degrees different from the Masonic ceremonies and "doctrines" underlying hand grips and oaths. The Penalties--both in Templar Secret Masonry and LDS Temple Endowment--were meant to impress upon the candidate's mind the seriousness of not betraying each other to those looking to shed blood. The LDS Temple Endowment is more progressive than Masonry in that once the threat of physical harm was well past, the LDS Church removed the penalties from the endowment which in no way altered the religious teachings and blessings. So yeah, Masonry isn't an arm of Satan or evil, it was originally a way for dissidents from the Roman Catholic Church to unite and protect each other no matter your religious persuasion. Hence the requirement that Masons only believe in a Supreme Being but it doesn't matter how you worship because Templars, Scientists, Mathematicians all had one thing in common: they needed to be safe, they believed in God, and they had no priesthood or formal system of worship once the Pope had condemned them...who would give them the Eucharist, perform the holy sacraments, etc? No one, so their religious life changed over night, though their spiritual beliefs did not necessarily. Why was belief in a Supreme Being so important that atheists aren't allowed to be Masons? (outside of France, anyway) Because if you make an oath whose penalty will ostensibly be carried out by God, but you don't believe in God, why would you fear to break your oath if no one Above was watching / punishing oath-breakers? The outcry over similarities between the LDS Temple Endowment and the Masonic degrees/ceremonies are much ado about nothing. It's like saying, "Hey, that math teacher uses chalk and a chalkboard to teach his students, but that French teacher was using chalk and a chalkboard first! The math teacher must have just copied the French teacher but changed the foreign language to math! Conspiracy! Fraud! Impostor!" HOW the information is presented, memorized and absorbed is separate from THE INFORMATION that is presented. So Masons and Mormons both "use chalkboards" (read: similar rituals) to teach their adherents. So what? What's "on the chalkboard" is completely different and the LDS Temple Endowment is inpsired of God. Period. :)

Okay, see now you're talking about how the world classifies languages. I'm pretty sure Enoch didn't have phylogenetics in mind when he was recording his vision of the Canaanites slaughtering everyone else in the valley of Shum. I can just see him now..."Hmmm, now wait, before I write this I must keep in mind that it will be restored through Joseph Smith in the latter-days at which point linguists, archeologists and online forum members will have decided that Canaanites never lived in Africa. Shoot, what on earth can I call them then?" :) Sorry but that makes me laugh. Archeologists are still discovering (like in 2005) bullae in ruins near/within Jerusalem from the 6th century B.C. (think the prophet Jeremiah and Babylon sacking Jerusalem one last time in 587 BC). So we're still finding out what was happening 2500 years ago, but you're 100% sure no descendants of Canaan ever split off and moved to anywhere in Africa (whether Africa is home to the "valley of Shum" in Enoch's vision is irrelevant) around 4000 years ago? Wow, all the archeological evidence has been found, analyzed, catalogued and interpreted? Sorry for the sarcasm, it's meant to be more playful than anything else. I just laugh to think you are so certain none of Canaan's children or grandchildren ever set up shop in Africa. Like, they have only ever lived in Palestine, because that's what linguistics suggests. :) Sure it does, just not if you assume (like you are) that none of Canaan's descendants ever moved to / intermarried with anyone in Africa... Haha, sorry, but archeology is changing its mind and evidence every year as new discoveries are made. You're assuming that Canaan and his descendants only ever lived in Palestine. Which is really crazy, because what you're saying is that: 1-Canaan, who was Hamitic, not Shemitic, prevented his descendants from ever living anywhere outside of Palestine; and... 2-Even though Canaan was Hamitic, as long as a portion of his descendants (Canaanites) spoke only a Shemitic language then that makes that portion of Canaanites Shemitic If that's the case, what's the point of genealogy? Seems all we need to know is what language group we're speaking to determine who we are, regardless of who are actual ancestors were. :)

Now I'm confused. Semitic means descended from Shem, Noah's son. Yet we know Canaan was Ham's son, not Shem's son. So how are Canaanites considered Semitic? And what does archeology have to do with whether someone was born from Shem or Ham? Plus, I never said the black skin was a curse. I clearly quoted the scripture which says the land being blasted by unending heat was God's curse on the land...the black skin that developed was a side-effect and sign OF the curse. Didn't I say black skin wasn't THE curse, but a sign OF the curse? Pretty sure I did. :)

The "skin of darkness" of those living in Africa may have something to do with this vision of Enoch: 5 And it came to pass that I beheld in the valley of Shum, and lo, a great people which dwelt in tents, which were the people of Shum. 6 And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of Canaan, which dwelt in tents. 7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan; 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. (Moses 7:5-8) In the case of the Canaanites being cursed for murdering an entire people, the black skin isn't THE curse, it is a SIGN of the curse. Same with Cain. His "mark" was to warn people that just because he was cursed, it was not alright to kill Cain (Moses 5:39-41). Incidentally, if we're talking about righteousness and skin color being associated: in the history of the world I think it would be fair to say that more black and brown (Native American, Indian) children under the age of 8 have died than any other skin color. Heck, even just take today's stats on infant and children-under-8 mortality rates in Africa and India. Children under 8 who die go straight to the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 137:10). We typically interpret that to mean that those spirits were so righteous, they just needed to come get a physical body but it wasn't necessary for them to be "tested" in mortality since their purity and obedience was already known to God. (And after all, I believe God is the One who chooses when and where we're born...) So basically all of the above means that the most righteous spirit children of Heavenly Father have been black and brown, historically and statistically and doctrinally speaking. Dang the curse of my pasty white skin! (he said somewhat jokingly, somewhat not, and somewhat something else) :)

Trying to reduce gun-related crime by banning and confiscating the firearms of law abiding citizens, is sorta' like trying to reduce drunk driving fatalities by banning and confiscating the cars of sober drivers. Makes sense to me (he said with a high-capacity magazine full of sarcasm).

I agree in general, but for now with our 4 year old "potty" serves the purpose. We'll get more detailed and "clinical" as she grows. As an aside, I think most everyone would know what a child was talking about if they said, "Someone touched my potty." :) Now if you taught a child that their genitals were "wing-wongs" or some other weird made up word, that could be confusing!

Educating young children about sex: not a fun position to be in. My wife and I discuss regularly how we will handle this though our children are 4 years old and 18 months. We try to keep things simple with our 4 year old: -No one touches your potty unless mommy or daddy are with you at the doctor to help you not be sick (turns out little girls can get yeast infections fairly easily depending on a number of factors) -We don't touch other people's potties (this actually deals with oral sex generally without having to explain all the ways people touch other people's "potties") -Heavenly Father made Adam and Eve and married them. If a man and woman are married they can have babies. Heavenly Father didn't make men to have babies with men, or women to have babies with women (never mind for now the complexities of fertility treatments, sex changes, etc, again, general is good enough to set the basic principles down) ETC... 10 years old is not at all too old to deal with rape (and the attendant issues of coercion, threats, kidnapping, etc). Good luck! :)

In addition to all that's been said, you might want to make sure you can distinguish "the message" (the covenants, promised blessings, doctrines) of the LDS endowment, from "the ritual" (how the message is conveyed). There are similarities between LDS Temple and Masonic rituals. The messages of the two groups, though, are quite distinct in their purpose, scope, authority and doctrinal basis. :)

Hi All, It has been a loooong time since I posted here. I've missed those of you who I grew to call my friends while I was an active poster here. For those I don't know (and vice versa), glad you're here, especially the new Mods I may not know. Being a Moderator is a tough job, but some user's gotta' do it. :) Update for my old friends here: You all probably remember me saying at one point in the recent-ish past that I was married in 2008. Well, now my wife and I have a 4 year old daughter and 18 month old son (names withheld on this public forum, child predators and all that stalker jazz that unfortunately happens all too often in our world today). Speaking of ne'er-do-wells / stalkers / predators, et al: I finished film school at BYU. My wife and I produced, I wrote/directed/editied a feature-length web series called, "Think Outside The Blog." It's about victims of human trafficking, what a person is willing to do to help those victims who escape, and what laws might be altered to help make a dent in prostitution which is almost invariably associated with involuntary sexual slavery, coercion, intimidation, a no-other-options-left attitude, etc. It would probably be rated TV-PG if on a network due to the adult themes, though there's no nudity, harsh violence, etc. You can watch it here for free, all 20 webisodes: Think Outside The Blog on Vimeo My next project coming up, a documentary I shot in 2011 and am only now able to edit due to previous business partners that I've since bought out and now own all the rights to my baby, preview it here: Mom, I'm Dating a Mormon It feels good to be back on the site formerly known as LDSTalk. I'll pop back in as often as life and family/work commitments allow. Missed you guys! :)

I wasn't trying to single anyone out regardless of who I responded to. It's nothing personal.

Do you want to add a "neener-neener-neeeeener" to that comment? Soul, it's clear you're the type who uses word games to derail discussions and confuse conversations. I think I've made my point eminently clear, and feel no further need to discuss this issue with you. The sharp divide between sides of this issue will remain as razor sharp as ever as long as one or both sides engage in politics, "tag, you're it" arguments, and close-minded interchanges.

No, I don't think that's okay. Give them equal ability to see their partner in the hospital? Sure. Take my money and give it to them? Nope. Not at all. So if civil unions necessarily involve "financial equality," I'm against civil unions too.

Soul, again you're playing semantic soccer and it's not something I enjoy. I think you know what I was getting at by saying "biologically capable" of having kids. I'll be blunt so there's no confusion: Two men's private parts cannot create a baby. Two women's private parts cannot create a baby. Is that absolute enough for you?

But you see, laws are not about making concrete something we're merely hoping and wishing for. Laws are not about making legal something that is a "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if..." type of thing. Having everyone in society--regardless of personal beliefs--nod their heads and plaster a smile on their face and say, "Your gay relationship is equal to my heterosexual marriage" is not something laws are for. Laws are society's act of giving government permission to exercise force in some way to secure the inalienable rights of the individuals in that society. And you can't make a law that says, "There is a God-given right to gay or heterosexual marriages, so everyone has to accept gay relationships as normal and respectable." Well I guess enough people COULD make that law a reality, but 7 million people (52%) of Californians didn't say that and don't want that law. Of course. Just don't try to use the law as a blunt instrument to force people to show respect for every lifestyle choice. Ultimately, here's what's happening from both perspectives: Heterosexual Perspective Gay couples are metaphorically coming up, twisting my arm behind my back and while taking money from my wallet saying, "The courts say I can do this so you will be forced in some way to believe my gay relationship is equal to your heterosexual relationship, and that gay couples are not wrong or disgusting." Homosexual Perspective Conservative couples are metaphorically answering their door, at which point a gay couple asks them to donate $50 or whatever to help pay for their monthly utility bill, at which point the conservative couple says, "Sorry, no," and closes the door. Do you see why heterosexuals consider this "simple" issue of gay marriage to be a violation of their right to personal property? And do you see why heterosexuals don't see the legal or moral problem with being able to choose who they give financial assistance to? It's a choice between forcing the majority of the population to give you some of their money, or securing the majority's ability to spend their money on causes they approve of...

Again, the issue is not ethereal, conceptual or hypothetical. Tax dollars go towards subsidizing the benefits that married couples receive. If I believe that couples who can't biologically have kids don't require the assistance that marriages have traditionally conferred, I shouldn't have to pay to support their relationships. It's a tangible, concrete and financial issue and nothing gets people angrier than the government taking their hard earned money away. Paying the troops? Sure, I could use the money but we need an army so take some taxes from me to finance a defense force. Easing the financial burdens of George and John? Sorry, that's not something I'd support or pay for. And that is the issue. That's a bit confusing but I think what you're saying is, "If I claim that marriage is about children, and if a heterosexual couple cannot or will not have children, then not all heterosexuals should be able to get married, or the definition of marriage should be changed." Your examples would require Big, Big Brother in order to perfectly fulfill the spirit of the law (of marriage). If a couple could only get married if they COULD have kids and WERE going to have kids, how would you determine that? Medical exams confirming all the plumbing works? Psychoanalysis confirming their desire to have kids after they're married? Lie-detection to confirm the above confirmation? Regular check-ups to continually assure society that children are on their way or are at least planned soon? What I said is that traditionally marriage is about giving assistance to those who can or do have children. How are we to determine 100% that a couple who decides not to have children will not change their minds one year in the future? The questions go on and on. What is not debatable is that traditionally (read: before modern scientific advances) men with men could not conceive children, and women with women could not conceive children. That is why marriage is traditionally between men and women, because there's no way to guarantee they WILL have children, but it is at least POSSIBLE biologically for them to conceive children which would then entail the financial and other hardships that raising children gives rise to. The issue is: Will the traditional purpose of marriage remain, or should scientific advances change a millenia-old purpose and role? And 7 million people in California said no, science will not change the traditional role and purpose of marriage.

Even if I agreed that this was true (and I don't) you and others are then basically saying we should not do what we think is right if our behavior is abrasive. That's like saying, "Well you're being a jerk, so you can't tell me not to speed," with the speed limit being a metaphor for religious beliefs about there being a limit on what marriage should consist of. I'm not saying gays have no basis for feeling angry and wanting to change things. That's a given. I AM saying that gays have no basis for claiming there is a right to marriage. Here is the issue, at its core, and we all need to remember this or we'll just end up in needless fights. By the way, I think that many Christians have no idea why they oppose gay marriages other than that they've been told its wrong and God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Still, their ignorance does not diminish the correctness of their position, which is: - By nature, only heterosexual couples are biologically capable of creating children on their own; and, - Traditionally, across many cultures and continents, marriage is a contractual relationship meant to grant benefits to those who have or may have children, recognizing that children increase a couple's financial and physical burdens; thus, - Couples that are not biologically capable of creating children on their own cannot enter into a marriage contract or receive the benefits attendant thereto, though they are free to love and live together. Marriage is not about whether your emotional connection to someone else is valid or not.

Incorrect. I don't require that gays believe as I do. What I require is the ability to live my life without my government taking my money to assist lifestyles I disagree with. I think you'll agree (but I could be wrong) that gays don't think heterosexuality is "wrong." In fact, they claim over and over that there is no "right or wrong" only "fair treatment for all no matter what." So if homosexual tax dollars are used in any way to support a heterosexual lifestyle, it's not like they're saying, "But wait, I fundamentally disagree with men and women being married!" On the other hand, apparently a majority of heterosexuals DO think homosexuality is "wrong" and they ARE saying, "But wait, I fundamentally disagree with men and men or women and women being married!" So the issue is completely different because one side is coming from a religious tradition of "right and wrong" that is millenia old, and the other side is coming from a "there is no right and wrong" progressive stance decades old.

Goodness, just substitute the words "strongly dislike" in place of "hate". It was a figure of speech. Instead of focusing on the diction and syntax, let's deal with the ideas.

I think its apples and oranges. In the case of the LDS church, we were initially involved in so many court cases because the government and local militias were targeting us solely because of our personal beliefs. That's a violation of the "separation of church and state" that so many people cite but so few people understand. When the majority is violating your God-given right to believe as you wish (not act however you wish), then the minority is obligated to use the law to amend the crisis. It's not my job to make people feel all warm and fuzzy about the lifestyle they choose to live. All lifestyles were NOT created equal. On the other hand, I don't want to go around making people feel miserable for their choices either. But I certainly can say, "I don't agree with your choices and I don't think the law should be able to force me to financially subsidize a lifestyle I disagree with." That's a rather crude way of putting it. Prop. 8 proponents were saying that marriage carries with it legal benefits meant to assist couples in raising children, and that they didn't think those legal benefits should be extended to people who biologically cannot have children together. This was an issue long before anyone had an intelligently articulated stance against gay marriage. The issue is people hate religious folk who think they know what's right, and people hate being judged so much that in revenge they want to use the law to make religious values meaningless. It's sort of like a kid in a wheelchair popping the tire of another kid's bike just because the wheelchair-bound kid can't ride one. Real mature. The law has no duty to make sure everyone feels "happy" and "accepted" by society. The law is meant to be the absolute least amount of force required to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property chiefly. I think it's about much, much more than getting respect. If everyone against gay marriage were to tell gay couples, "I wouldn't choose to live the way you do, but I don't wish you ill and I have no desire to harm you or belittle you," they wouldn't perk up and say, "Well gee, all this time we were just waiting for someone to say that!" It's more like someone being told the Chevy truck they bought isn't as good as a Dodge truck, and the Chevy owner getting ticked off and asking the city to force the Dodge owner to help pay for his Chevy as an act of retribution and anger. No one is saying, "You have to believe as I do." What we are saying is, "We think it is wrong for the law to require us to financially support a lifestyle we disagree with."