Same-Sex Marriage and the Persecution of Civil Society

[Truegrits]

Goodk:

I think it is possible to reason your way out of that sort of thinking.

It is difficult sometimes to convey ones feelings on-line. And often HOW you approach a topic is just as important as what you have to say. If the person you are reasoning with is turned off by your tone, by your attitude, they will tune you out. Then you will have accomplished nothing. Unless there is common respect, a real intent to coverse, well, IMO one would be wasting their time.

[checkerboy]

What the heck are you talking about? I never mentioned your apparent conversations with the Lord.

He didn't ask you, or any of us, to do anything about it.

Apparently you did.

Well your knowledge is certainly lacking, then. Perhaps you should read up a bit. (I'll give you a hint, but you really need to do your own homework: not a single civil union law in any state offer gay couples every right that comes with marriage.)

Well perhaps I am mistaken, but tell me this then what serious rights are not granted by civil unions?

Spend your time doing something more productive. Instead of lobbying politicians to interfere with personal relationships and freedoms, why not lobby them to end poverty and hunger in third world countries? Why not go out and pick up some trash along the highway? Why not lobby for recycling programs in apartment complexes? In fact, I could probably think of thousands of things that would benefit humanity, society, America, and you personally better than trying to prevent people from marrying eachother.

Once again your ignorance is showing. How do you know I don't pick up trash along the highway? How do you know that I don't work towards ending poverty and hunger? I am growing tired of your glib style of arguing here.

Of course not. It would be funny, if you didn't seem to believe this yourself. How could anyone possibly think this? We've known for more than 50 years that disease is not caused by sin. This belief - I almost dare not repeat it - that AIDS is sent from God to punish people who aren't having sex the right way, is not rooted in doctrine, church teachings, common sense, science, logic, or even careful thought. I can't believe you said that.

Yes disease isn't caused by sin but catching a disease certainly is. Now I am not stupid and know that HIV can be transmitted other ways besides sex and drug use but those are the two most common ways that it is transmitted.

So it's your job to punish sinners? Why do you think that?

Once again you misunderstood what I said as well as pulled what I said out of context to prove your point. I never said it is my job to punish sinners. I said that the LORD rarely comes down himself to do the job himself. I can count on one hand the number of times God the Father has appeared to man. That is why we have prophets they speak for the LORD.

No, I do not take that to be the Lord asking us to defend marriage. I think the Lord is probably more concerned with how we live our lives, not what we do to change the way other people get to live theirs.

Ok with that argument I suppose you are not in favor of missionary work then. Because that would be doing something to change the way other people live their lives. And according to you the LORD doesn't care about things like that.

We NEED them to interpret and implement the laws.

Actually my friend you are mistaken. Maybe it is time for you to do some homework. Trying reading the Constitution and you will come to understand that the Judicial Branch of the government was never given the responsibility of interpreting laws. You will also see that it isn't the job of the Judicial Branch to implement laws that would be the Executive Branch's responsibility. The pattern of interpreting laws was started by justice Marshall back in the early 1800's. It has since become prescedent but is not constitutional in the least.

See I can pick apart posts too. It is obvious to me that you are a 23 year old bully that thinks he knows quite a bit but your condescending attitude is getting very tiresome. Try treating people with a little respect and you will see that more people will listen to you.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

There is so much wrong in that article I don't even know where to begin. I will say, however, that some of the things the article claims happened to those who refused to recognize same-sex unions are wrong. It is wrong, for example, to try forcing a private religious school to teach things contrary to their beliefs, or to try forcing a wedding photographer to take pictures. However, it does not logically follow that allowing for same-sex marriage is wrong or must necessarily lead to those actions. If I were one of those Mennonites, I would make a legal battle of it on the basis of religious liberty. If I were the wedding photographer, I would fight the suit on the basis of it's none of the government's business who I take as clients (although why the couple in question doesn't just go to another photographer is beyond me). In any case, the whole premise of the article is flawed. The author is arguing that if gays are allowed to marry, then those silly lawsuits and government intrusions must and will of necessity follow, and that's just not true. People tend to test the boundaries, and that is exactly what they are doing when they file lawsuits like that. The answer to the problem lies not in denying gays their civil liberties, but in fighting abuses of the system. DH

[KayaLove00]

I totally agree with Rachelle above. EVERY single person does share the same right, including gays and lesbians in this country. While a lot of people agree it is a sin, including myself, I don't think using the commandments and the fact that it goes against what Christ teaches is relevant because not everyone is christian or even believes there is a god. No one is forcing anyone to like homosexuality, but I think as a country we need to realize that this is a "free country" and not everyone shares the same view on who should be married.

[RachelleDrew]

GoodK - While I share a lot of your opinions and viewpoints on civil liberties and politics, I have got to tell you that you need to be careful. I know you aren't meaning to be hateful with your posts, but others could easily interpret them as such. You and checks are both very intelligent people, so at this point the discussion really has nothing to do with one knowing more about laws than the other, but more so about interpretation of said laws. I know that it's easy to get frustrated when trying to argue a point, but don't let it get to the point where debate turns into belittlement. It's very easy to cross that line.

Your passion is evident in all of your posts, and sometimes your discussions get out of hand. I just don't want this to escalate and you winding up banned. I like reading your posts. :)

[omega0401]

Sadly, I read the article twice. Again this morning, just...

Thank you for reading the article.

My post was simply to point out the problems that legalizing same-sex marriage would cause. I saw another article that talked about the legal problems it would cause between states that I didn’t share. That sounded like a real mess.

No one is out to stop any and all sorts of sins. Everyone has their free agency and they will have to bear the responsibility that comes with it. This is about how other people’s choices are forced upon others by governments and minorities and I’ll give you a recent example other than what was discussed in the article.

There are seven judges that overturned the voice of the people in California and allowed same-sex marriages. Who gave seven people the responsibility to redefine marriage for the millions of people living in that state when that was already voted on in 2000? I will call that a branch of the government forcing homosexuality into the sacred grounds of marriage even after there were many who opposed that in 2000. And I don’t think it will end there.

I can go on answering each of your points but the way in which you wrote, it makes me feel you would rather argue the point as though you were angry at someone or something. I won’t participate in that. You know my views and I know yours and in some points they are totally opposite. But it was interesting. Thank you.

[Guest Xzain]

Well I am sorry to hear that. I assure you my intention is to engage in conversation. And I would be lying if I didn't say my intention in this thread is to steer people away from what I find to be an ignorant and intolerant way of thinking. I think it is possible to reason your way out of that sort of thinking.

So... agreeing with the Church's official position- that same-sex 'marriage' should not be made legal- is ignorant and intolerant? Or, just reasoning that you don't see as logically sufficient?

You've asked how others' homosexual 'marriages' or lifestyles or abortions would affect me, personally. I ask you, how does any act of crime- that doesn't involve you, personally- affect you, personally? The only ones hurt by an immediate crime are, of course, the ones involved- yet it is the nature and possibility of the crime that must be outlawed. To advocate any position based on the argument 'Hey, it wouldn't hurt me!' is not wise.

The only reason one could justify a desire to see same-sex marriage legalized would be a lack of belief in the immorality of practicing homosexuality. It is only when one reduces marriage to a state of mutually reciprocated, positive emotion coupled with sexual relations can one finally accept, logically, same-sex 'marriage' as legitimate. Any believing Mormon should abhor the idea of reducing marriage to such a superficial, surface relationship.

I do not want my children growing up in a world where good is called evil and evil called good, and I will fight to my dying breath and do what I can to prevent the world from getting that way. I believe this to be a repeated, divine mandate given from God Himself.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Xzain

[Guest Xzain]

I totally agree with Rachelle above. EVERY single person does share the same right, including gays and lesbians in this country. While a lot of people agree it is a sin, including myself, I don't think using the commandments and the fact that it goes against what Christ teaches is relevant because not everyone is christian or even believes there is a god. No one is forcing anyone to like homosexuality, but I think as a country we need to realize that this is a "free country" and not everyone shares the same view on who should be married.

The thing about the nature of law is that it does condone or condemn practices based on moral merit. Simply because religion is a driving force in moral values of society, does not mean that those moral values are invalid. Indeed, to think so is to think the only valid values are the ones not encouraged by true religion. Those values would include hate, cruelty, intolerance, open rebellion, etc.

When the government legalizes something, it is giving a stamp of approval on that action. When the government outlaws something, it is condemning that action. When the government doesn't legalize or outlaw something, it is up to the people to decide. That is one reason why the most effective governments are governments that protect and acknowledge the moral miasmas and stay away from them. The only truly great government is held tightly by the reins of the people- a people educated, moral, and wise, knowing what to leave to the government, and what issues to keep in purely nonpolitcal arenas. Sadly, in America we see people wanting the government to make the hard moral decisions for them- something the government cannot do and maintain its integrity.

I am deeply saddened that the issue of homosexual marriage has been brought to the limelight- I would have preffered it to remain a strictly moral, religious issue- but now that activists supporting it have made their voices heard, it is time that those with knowledge and wisdom from on high to make their influence known. In the 'Proclamation to the World', the prophets clearly stated that the disintegration of the family would lead to the 'calamities foretold by the prophets of old'. Legalized homosexual 'marriage' is a serious blow to the societal reality of what constitutes a 'family'.

[Fiannan]

Well yes, ok. Good point. But if you legalize polygamy, doesn't it open the door to bigamy? Who gets to participate in it? When is it unethical and when is it ok? And how would you legislate that. Would you maintain that polygamy would be illegal unless you live in Colorado city?

Polygamy is allowed in a lot of countries and has worked for centuries -- so the law would not be a problem, just something to be worked out over time.

The two, polygamy and bigamy are totally different from one another. In polygamy all parties, the man and the wives, enter into the arrangement while bigamy is when the other women are unaware of each other -- at least in a pure diffinition.

Who would participate in it? I guess anyone who wanted to. I guess it would be great if we could mandate that only men with excellent health and a high IQ could take multiple wives but I am unsure our society is ready for that yet.

As for gay marriage I have to site Freud on this one -- much to the horror of Elphaba I would guess. Carl Jung felt that homosexuality should be accepted in society as he felt men who were neurotic and unable to take on the demands of being a husband and father could find homosexuality as an option -- and therefore kinda get weeded out of the gene pool. Frued disagreed with him maintaining that acceptance of homsexuality would create societal confusion (many young people would be confused with receiving the message that some people go this way, others that way) and felt the costs would outweigh the benefits to society. I think that his views have a lot of merit. Many people have tendencies that could propell them into homosexuality but perhaps one barrier is that if they choose that route they sacrifice marriage and family as well as entering into an arrangement that is still socially unacceptable, especially at the individual family level. However, wh knows what the situation could evolve into if we adopted same-sex marriage and then promoted homosexuality in the schools as equal in all respects to heterosexuality.

[Guest User-Removed]

Oh my goodness.

All of the horrible things going on in the world and we think gays marrying is a sign of the end times?

Everyone needs to calm down. I still have yet to see what all the fuss is about.

So...in other words...you're comfortable taking a contrary view to that of our Prophets, Seers and Revelators, when it comes to the issue of Gay Marriage?

Edited June 22, 2008 by MyDogSkip

[Guest User-Removed]

Welcome to the forum....

My wife is a current subscriber of her site. Both of us will be voting again over this issue [from our previous vote in 2000] again.

Hemi...it's interesting to note that the Homosexual Agenda has filed suit to stop the people of California from exercising their God given right to vote on this issue...They seem to like judical activism....

[Guest User-Removed]

Sometimes I think that the people's votes should be overruled. The vast majority of the US probably would have voted to deny African Americans and women their rights at one point too. Good thing some people, however small the number was in the beginning, saw how silly that was.

I agree that homosexuality is a sin. However, certain religious groups consider it a sin to eat pork. What if they were the majority in the US? Would it be fair for them to ban the consumption of pork products based on their beliefs?

Of course not. Why? Because in a society that values freedom of religion we shouldn't create policies based on religious doctrine alone. Not everyone in the US believes that homosexual activity is a sin, and the only reason anyone can come up with against homosexuals marrying is that it's sinful. That to me is simply not a good enough reason.

Why is it that heterosexual couples can marry dozens of times or have drunken Vegas weddings and get annulments the very next day? How is that respecting the sanctity of marriage? It certainly isn't, but we just roll our eyes and say "it's not our business" when stuff like that happens. I certainly don't think that homosexuals marrying is any of our business.

As for them getting married in the church, that's something that cannot legally be breached as that would be a violation of church and state. Homosexuals can whine and complain about it all they want, but the government cannot tell a church official who they can marry. That's why we have secular justices of the peace. If a church WANTS to marry homosexuals then that's their prerogative. But nobody is going to hold one of our bishops down and force them to sign a marriage license.

Why is everyone so terrified of gays infiltrating their church and school anyway? They aren't contagious, it's not like we are all going to catch the "gay" virus if their marriage is legal. I don't recall turning black when learning about the Civil War, or turning into a Nazi when being taught about the Holocaust.

However, the subject just shouldn't be broached in school public school for the same reason that homosexual marriage should be legal. Because not everyone believes that it's okay and it's unfair to shove beliefs down people's throat.

If you do your job as a parent correctly, then when your children hear about homosexuality being "normal and acceptable" then they will either debate it in an intelligent and respectful manner, or laugh it off as rubbish and go on with their lives.

If children become traumatized by someone talking about homosexuals in their presence then they are going to have a rough time in the world.

I certainly understand your concerns about this hemi. It's often difficult in a world so full of sin to sit back and watch be legalized on your tv. In my opinion, God will not be mocked and homosexuals will certainly change their mind about their lifestyles a few moments after they pass away.....

Oh my...you'll cry crocodile tears for the homo's....while seeking to take the righteous people's vote away....(BTW...your opinion is lock step with the Homosexual Agenda...they did just that...They got 4 people to over ride hundreds of thousands)

You and Senator Morrill would have gotten along just fine...

So...let's see...you're against the Proclimation on the Family...

Would you also disagree with every Prophet, Seer and Revelator that the US Constitution is and was a divinely inspired document?

[Guest User-Removed]

Homosexual marriage will cause the downfall of society. Well it certainly hasn't caused the downfall of society in Europe and Canada. Big deal if they marry. Their marriages do not effect anyone else.

Europe is on the decline...their rejection of God and the embrace of the Homosexual Agenda will cause their demise...In other generation Europe will be predominetely Islamic...as they understand and reject...that which you embrace...

[Fiannan]

Europe is on the decline...their rejection of God and the embrace of the Homosexual Agenda will cause their demise...In other generation Europe will be predominetely Islamic...as they understand and reject...that which you embrace...

Got a good point there Skip. Our ancestors sacrificed a lot to put us here today. They worked their tails off to clothe, feed and shelter our ancestors all the way down to us. They had faith -- they held a belief that was the best that they could for their times and circumstances. They fought off Muslims who wanted to subjugate them or enslave them, they fought countless wars amongst themselves thanks to self-centered kings and queens, and they lived through a bunch of disease epidemics that (in numerical terms) makes AIDS look like a pretty unimportant issue.

Through all this they held firm to basic standards as well as a sense of owing to the next generation what the previous generation did for them.

Want to know whý shows like "Sex and the City" are so popular in Europe? Because that is the lifestyle that is glamourized by post-Christian capitalism. What once would have been listed by psychologists as neurotic narcissisism and failure to be able to commit, or what religious circles would have rightly called "whoredoms" today is featured as ideal female role models. Religion is mocked in today's Europe and even in affluent urban areas of the USA. Nationalism -- the one thing that is pulling Russia from the trash bin´-- is scorned in Europe. And then they have assanine laws in places like France where a famous actress Bridget bardaeu (spelling?) was fined and could have been jailed for being critical of Muslims over animal rights. Our missionaries cannot actively do missionary work with Muslims in Europe (direct work) maybe because of the danger posed to them, or to the lives of a potential convert by the families.

And so is it any wonder the native populations of Europe are dying out? Then there are people in the USA that look to spiritual black holes like Sweden as the ideal that America should follow. Puleeeeze.

The people of Europe need to go back to traditional families. It's time that people besides just the homosexuals desire to get married and have kids. It's time the people there started to grasp pride in their ancestor's sacrifices and finally find their place in the scheme of things.

There is still hope for Europe -- the Irish just gave the finger to the authoritarian EU constitution and it's time for people to look to Ireland for inspiration -- just as Ireland preserved much of the culture of Europe during the Dark Ages it could be the beginning of a backlash against the EU.

[Hemidakota]

Hemi...it's interesting to note that the Homosexual Agenda has filed suit to stop the people of California from exercising their God given right to vote on this issue...They seem to like judical activism....

I have yet to see any of this group make a proposal as a voting agenda since it is a LIFE STYLE and nothing to do with rights with the general public. They do know it will never fly in the voting agenda. This is their only avenue in getting something passed. Now, it is the general public votes that called this out and seeing that our civic rights were violated, let nature takes it course then.

Now, I think I had read somewhere that this life style group only can muster no more than 2-percent of the populace.

[Hemidakota]

Europe is on the decline...their rejection of God and the embrace of the Homosexual Agenda will cause their demise...In other generation Europe will be predominetely Islamic...as they understand and reject...that which you embrace...

It is believed that Islam will become the most predominate religion in Europe in two decades...

[JohnBirchSociety]

It is believed that Islam will become the most predominate religion in Europe in two decades...

When I was in France two decades ago, 12% of the people were Muslim.

[Islander]

People in our country have very little sense of historicity. That will be the downfall of many countries as it was at the time of Rome. Law, order, tradition, education and the everyday way of life is eroded because increasing number of people do not have those values not do they care to develop such traditions. They want to preserve and spread their own failed social values and cultural traditions destroying the social fabric from within.

I live about 2 hour from Los Angeles. I went to USC 15 years ago and the city is unrecognizable. There are portions of LA that you can not tell you are in the US. As this enclaves continue to grow, city ordinances disappear, law enforcement is reduced to a state of siege; them (the inhabitants) against us (the police). I was born in a foreign country and can sincerely tell you that it is a slippery slope and we are already sliding down hill.

[MichaelPAGuy]

Since when is homosexuality a lifestyler? Isn't being a heterosexual a lifestyle? People do not choose to be gay. It is as much a person as it is anyone's eye color, or skin color.

[Fiannan]

Since when is homosexuality a lifestyler? Isn't being a heterosexual a lifestyle? People do not choose to be gay. It is as much a person as it is anyone's eye color, or skin color.

Prove it.:)

Truth of the matter is there have been no genetic differences found between homosexual and heterosexual genetics. There is no "gay gene". A few years back it was proposed that homosexuals might have different levels of testosterone or estrogen. However, when studying hormone levels as well as receptor site abilities no differences could be found. Then there was the idea that brain structures might be different -- but that too comes under question as the brain changes its shape and weight of various regions all the time based on both behavior, stress and learning (for instance, when you start learning a new language the portions of your brain that store this new information become heavier). Then you could throw out the idea of what gets people "turned on" but that too can be heavily influenced by psychology. One could suppose that a heterosexual Arab might dispise Jews so much that if he saw a naked Jewish woman he might not respond in a typical manner -- same might go for a Grand Wizard in the KKK if he saw a naked black woman. Years of telling yourself (consciously and subconsciously) that you are gay could have the same effect on a male if he then is in the presense of a nude woman.

Then there was the idea that women who were prone to be lesbian had different shaped ears. Oh and let's not forget the one that women with longer ring fingers than index fingers were more prone for lesbianism as well. Gee, since my wife has that physical structure I guess I'd better keep a close eye on her when she is going to all-women functions in Church.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Fiannan

[Islander]

Friends, I would suggest that we have debated the subject long and hard with no changes in position. We should just leave it at that. This is human existential philosophy at ts best. Justification HAS to be achieved in order to validate anything that runs counter-culture.

By the way, those were the words of the G&L activists back in the 60's "Lifestyle" is a self-designation, just like "alternative." They all morphed into these pseudo theories about genetic predisposition. In fact, there is more evidence that alcoholics do engender children with the same genetic load and prone to be addicts than in homosexual behavior.

Again, I think we should just shift gears.