Same-Sex Marriage and the Persecution of Civil Society

[Islander]

I find it very interesting how the courts act as agents onto themselves and overturn the vote of the people. I find it difficult to equate racial equality with the gay marriage issue but that is another post.

I suggest that the court should find it equally that the State can not prove it serves any particular interest to keep the age of consent at 18. Since statistics show that 65% of adolescents have sex before age 18 we could present a very compeling case agains that arbitrary age. since sexual behavior is both hormonally and socially driven I suggest we can allow sex right after the age of estrus for females, say 13. since sex is consentual I think the Sate can not present a compelling case agains such.

The same for voting, buying alcohol, or purchasing a weapon. These are limitations imposed by the state with no specific scientific or social argument. Why should they remain? The same holds for polygamy and incest. There is no real reason for enacting laws against it or even criminalizing such behavior. How about Marijuana? There are many countries where it is legal, heck in California it is legal to buy it and trust me you can get a prescription really easy. The State can not show any significant impact. Best evidence is alcohol. It was outlawed at one time and it became legal again. Cocaine and Heroine were as well legal at one point. Social outcry against it put them on the black list not socially noticeable impact.

Just a few thoughts.

[RachelleDrew]

^ Interesting points. Just for the record, I believe almost all of the things you listed should be legalized. The only limits I think should be enforced on guns would be that people with a violent history or a severe mental disorder should not be allowed to own them for obvious reasons. As far as incest goes...ew. But in my mind as long as the people in question are sterile and both are consenting adults then whatever floats your boat.

Same with polygamy, as long as no one is forced into it, or children aren't cajoled into it then I don't know why it should be illegal.

Marijuana I have never had issues with. I think it should be legalized. I personally gave that up when I grew up. But I do think it should be illegal to drive under the influence, once again common sense.

The age of consent is a tricky one. I feel bad for the 19 year olds who are on sex offenders lists for the next ten years of their life because they made the stupid mistake of being intimate with someone only two years younger than they are.

Although when middle aged men try and woo 14 year old girls in my mind it's pretty obvious that they are preying upon their ignorance. There is not much difference in sexual maturity between a 16 year old and an 18 year old, but there certainly is in the previously mentioned situation, but I digress.

I always manage to get threads off-track. Interesting points although.

[Misshalfway]

With regards to polygamy, what about guys who go around the country marrying women without telling them all? What about people like that????

Edited June 22, 2008 by VisionOfLehi
Language

[Islander]

I was obviously trying to prove a point above and I think I did it quite successfully. Social mores and values change at the whim of the people. God truths endure the test of eternity. but if we remove God, He being the only source of ethical and moral thinking, then we are free to make stuff up as we go along.

The court based their ruling on the fact that they could not find that the State (the people be da--d) had a compelling argument to deny gay people the right to a legal marriage. The forced question is, by the same token, why does the State prosecutes polygamists? How about incest? or "sexual misconduct also called statutory rape? There is no compelling argument!!! it is just a state issued legislative directive. Since the voice of the people is not worth much any longer then the State and the courts operate on their own and, by the looks of it, catering to a very small special interest group.

By next month the lawsuits will begin. Left and right people will be accused of discrimination (read civil rights infrigement) and legally/financially liable for taking a moral position. The activists will

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" Isa 5:20

It already happened.

[omega0401]

Well GoodK, from your reply you seem to enjoy belittling people and I could easily do the same with what you wrote but it’s beneath me to do that. It’s abusive. But I’ll respond to what you wrote.

Allowing homosexuals - fellow US citizens - to exercise the same freedom to marry that heterosexual couples enjoy is a persecution of civil society? You can't be serious. How?

That’s not what the articled is about. Did you read the article? I’ll quote part of it, “Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes. Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.”

Holy smokes. This makes no sense. I guess the answer to your question (is it really a question) is an enthusiastic NO WAY. First and foremost, no one is forcing "us to contribute in their sin" by any stretch of the imagination.

How did you arrive at such a conclusion?

Again, read the article.

Never. No one is forcing you to attend a gay couples wedding. No one is forcing you to watch them have intercourse. No one is forcing you to partake of anything. I can't believe the irrationality, intolerance, and ignorance being displayed here. Truly a sad sight to behold.

Did you forget the part about the photographer in the article?

I asked you this question.

My answer was in my first post.

Will all churches be force to marry gays?

No. And you can't honestly believe that they would be.

Yes I do. Didn’t you read the article? Let me quote it for you. “...Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.”

And another example of what the governments are doing to religion... “In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.”

A government should not be telling religion that same-sex marriage is acceptable. What would happen if a Bishop did not allow his ward to be used so that two gays can have a marriage ceremony? Would the church be taken to court for discrimination and force a religion to change their beliefs?

Will all teachers in all church owned schools be forced to teach that gay relationships are not a sin but acceptable?

No. Are teachers in church owned schools forced to teach that gay relationships are sinful?

Reread the Mennonite story.

You are posting in the United States, right? You know this is a free country, don't you? Why are you insinuating that this is a step towards communism? Propaganda? Shock value? Attention grabbing? You honestly can't believe what you type. I hope you don't.

Yes, I’m in the United Stated and yes this is a free country but your remark clearly shows you didn’t read the article. So I’ll quote part of it again. “A doctor has been sued because she didn’t want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple.” Pretty amazing for something like this to happen in the United States huh?

Sigh. This is so dissapointing. Might I say that this poster and his/her comments are not representative of the Church of...

Not representative of the church? You are kidding aren’t you? Have you forgotten our Marriage Proclamation? I’ll even quote part of that for you too, “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

Does it seem our government is promoting the strengthening of the family from what you read in the article? The family being defined as it always has been defined as husband, wife, and children if they are so blessed to have children.

Have state governments started rewriting God's commandments? I fear this is just the beginning.

I really doubt even YOU believe this.

Oh but I do believe it. Simply ask the Mennonites and the Methodists mentioned in the article if they believe it.

We have been living in the last days for thousands of years.

Now that definitely is not what our doctrine teaches.

How on God's green Earth would it affect the whole country? Are you aware of Shirley Phelps Roper? Do a google search, and take a good hard luck at the company you are in.

Then let me quote part of our church’s The Marriage Proclamation, “Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

The proclamation includes the world not just our nation.

Edited June 13, 2008 by omega0401

[Moksha]

Even looking back on the Homeland Security Act, I do beleive it will be abused soon or later.

One could make the case that the Homeland Security Act already has been abused.

[Moksha]

With regards to polygamy, what about guys who go around the country marrying women without telling them all?

You are right. There as so many things to get morally indignent about. It is ignoring these items to put all your eggs in one basket and jump on the Reverend Phelps bandwagon.

[Fiannan]

With regards to polygamy, what about guys who go around the country marrying women without telling them all? What about jerk-offs like that????

That's called bigamy, not polygamy.

[Fiannan]

^ Interesting points. Just for the record, I believe almost all of the things you listed should be legalized. The only limits I think should be enforced on guns would be that people with a violent history or a severe mental disorder should not be allowed to own them for obvious reasons. As far as incest goes...ew. But in my mind as long as the people in question are sterile and both are consenting adults then whatever floats your boat.

Isn't adult incest legal, or not prosecuted anymore? I was watching a talk show a few years ago (actually, not one of the gladiator style ones) in which this lady was a porn actress and was really mad at her twin sister for not wanting to go into the business because she claimed they could make a ton of money working together. On another talk show (one of the gladiator style ones) there were two twin sisters who were intimately involved with each other. One could argue that since they cannot reporduce together they could get married if gay marriage became legal.

Same with polygamy, as long as no one is forced into it, or children aren't cajoled into it then I don't know why it should be illegal.

Agree 100%.

Marijuana I have never had issues with. I think it should be legalized. I personally gave that up when I grew up. But I do think it should be illegal to drive under the influence, once again common sense.

Again, I agree -- why have a deadly drug like alcohol legal while a relatively less dangerous drug illegal? I heard several thousand young people (college age) die each year from alcohol overdose in the USA while the number of people who have died from marijuana overdose worldwide is 0.

The age of consent is a tricky one. I feel bad for the 19 year olds who are on sex offenders lists for the next ten years of their life because they made the stupid mistake of being intimate with someone only two years younger than they are.

There have to be guidelines in law but there also has to be common sense. Ironically, did you know that three have been cases involving adult females raping 12 or 13 year old boys, getting pregnant, and then the courts forcing the boys to pay child support? Strange, huh?

Although when middle aged men try and woo 14 year old girls in my mind it's pretty obvious that they are preying upon their ignorance. There is not much difference in sexual maturity between a 16 year old and an 18 year old, but there certainly is in the previously mentioned situation, but I digress.

I always manage to get threads off-track. Interesting points although.

I do have to agree here as well. When the man is willing to marry the girl I think that is different in a way but I'd venture to say 99% of such cases are just some guy wanting to use the young woman. However, when marriage is something both parties want I think that states should regulate it -- as most that allow 14 or 15 year old females to marry currently do. Once someone is 18 then if they want to run off with Bill Clinton or Hugh Hefner then that's their choice.

[GoodK]

Well GoodK, from your reply you seem to enjoy belittling people and I could easily do the same with what you wrote but it’s beneath me to do that. It’s abusive. But I’ll respond to what you wrote.

Interesting. I'd be interested to hear what exactly I wrote that you found belittling. It's beside the point, but an odd interpretation in my opinion.

That’s not what the articled is about. Did you read the article? I’ll quote part of it, “Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes. Unfortunately, these government-enforced changes conflict with a wide array of ordinary liberties, including religious freedom and ordinary private property rights.”

Sadly, I read the article twice. Again this morning, just to make sure that what the author was saying was void of any references or citations for the events the writer is claiming to have happened. Sorry, but I don't wish to swallow what some writer posessing an anti-homosexual agenda says without some sort of factual basis.

Let me add some bold and color for you:

There is no factual basis to support the author's anti-homosexual hysteria. And real journalists cite their sources. I find it suspect that you quote a catholic website when it suits you. Do you know the Vatican recently condemned the church for its baptisms for the dead and geneology work? I guess whatever suits YOUR agenda is useful, eh?

Again, read the article.

Twice is enough, more than it deserves.

Did you forget the part about the photographer in the article?

If this is even true - there is no way for us to know, as the author forgot to cite her sources like a real journalist would be required to do. I guess the sumbission guidelines over at the Catholic Register are a bit lax, eh? But if it was true, so what? People get sued all the time, for no good reason. Welcome to America, my friend. I can guarantee that the photogropher wasn't thrown in some Soviet-esque jail cell.

Yes I do. Didn’t you read the article? Let me quote it for you. “...Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.”

You are really relying on this Catholic Register article, aren't you? We have no way to know what happened, the journalist never cited a source. We don't even know if it is true, let alone the details. Who owned the facility? This is most certainly nonsense, or spin. (but in my personal opinion, and this is for another thread, church's don't deserve tax-exempt status).

And another example of what the governments are doing to religion... “In Quebec, a Mennonite school was informed that it must conform to the official provincial curriculum, which includes teaching homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.”

Nonsense. Prove it.

A government should not be telling religion that same-sex marriage is acceptable. What would happen if a Bishop did not allow his ward to be used so that two gays can have a marriage ceremony? Would the church be taken to court for discrimination and force a religion to change their beliefs?

A government is not telling religion that. Religion is, in fact, trying to tell government what is acceptable. And that is foul and runs in the face of everything that is American.

Reread the Mennonite story.

No. Don't you have any original ideas, or do you rely solely on this authors shoddy "article".

Yes, I’m in the United Stated and yes this is a free country but your remark clearly shows you didn’t read the article. So I’ll quote part of it again. “A doctor has been sued because she didn’t want to perform an artificial insemination on a lesbian couple.” Pretty amazing for something like this to happen in the United States huh?

You must not have been in the country long, because this is absolutely not "pretty amazing". I really doubt that frivolous lawsuits against doctors can be attributed to homosexual marriage. But anti-homosexual propaganda clearly has no regard for what is true or not. Just as long as they can work anti-homosexuals into a frenzy.

Not representative of the church? You are kidding aren’t you? Have you forgotten our Marriage Proclamation?

Ya, I'm kidding. An anti-homosexual article in the Catholic Register is representative of the church. YOU have got to be kidding me.

Does it seem our government is promoting the strengthening of the family from what you read in the article?

It's not the government's job to promote strengthening of the family. Why would you want the government to? Do you wish to turn America into a theocracy? It is not your job to interfere with other families. Live and let live. As much as you would like to pretend, none of your rights are in jeopordy as a result of a homosexual marriage.

Simply ask the Mennonites and the Methodists mentioned in the article if they believe it.

I'd love to, but I have no clue who they are. Or when this supposedly happened. I guess that's what happens when you rely on faux-journalism.

Then let me quote part of our church’s The Marriage Proclamation, “Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”

Gay marriage does not equal the disintegration of family. And if it did, it isn't your job to change that. It's the Lord's job to dish out consequences for sin, not yours. Get it?

I'm simply godsmacked that some people feel obligated to mold this government into what they want it to be. They seem to enjoy freedom when it benefits them, yet they can't stand to see other people enjoy a freedom they don't find acceptable. Hypocritical?

Why not just leave people alone? Why not just let people be? Why concern yourself with what people do in the privacy of their bedroom? I think that if the Lord really had a problem with gay marriage, He would do something about it. He didn't ask you, or any of us, to do anything about it.

Edited June 13, 2008 by GoodK

[Islander]

For the skeptics, they should read 1984 from G. Orwell. It was published in 1949 but ABSOLUTELY everything it proposes and that sounded like Sci-Fi at the time actually came to pass.

If anyone objects to homosexual behavior and/or teaching of any kind in public you WILL be suit and liable for civil rights infringement. You will be guilty and liable for discrimination. Say a female teacher begins to discuss her "wife" on my 2nd grade daughter's class, brings pictures to share and talks about her "family with two "moms". If I object, on whatever grounds, and want to have my daughter changed to another class not taught by her I am in jeopardy of being suit. The fact remains that the court has elevated homosexual behavior to a constitutional right. ANYONE that objects on WHATEVER grounds will be violating civil rights laws.

My issue is not with they sexual orientation, choice, lifestyle or desire. My issues relate to my right to object based on my moral, and religious foundation has been eroded. The constitution does not guarantee such rights to anyone; to ignore their faith and individual creed on account of the laws of men. Beyond that, God as inspiration and foundation of the constitution, also says that homosexuality is an abomination. I find it repulsive to be intimidated into acceptance of something I find offensive before the eyes of God.

Just my thoughts.

[LegendadryPerc]

It's not the government's job to promote strengthening of the family. Why would you want the government to?

...

Gay marriage does not equal the disintegration of family.

...

I'm simply godsmacked that some people feel obligated to mold this government into what they want it to be. They seem to enjoy freedom when it benefits them, yet they can't stand to see other people enjoy a freedom they don't find acceptable.

good thoughts.

I can't seem to find the article, but don't really want to read it anyway, except for I am curious about the court ruling against voters. I am curious about this, because there are two ways it could be played out. One: I only feel safe in a democracy where religion can't be voted on. Two: we talk of "balanced" powers being devided into 3 branches. I don't know history very well, but in my adult lifetime (since I've actually been allowed to vote), it seems that we live more (as some have pointed out) in a dictatorship, ruled by judges "interpretation of the law", "interpreted" to mean "If I'm the judge, I can twist those words to mean whatever I want." This makes voting on a law seem useless, as however well we seem to word it, a judge will be able to claim it "means" something else.

I don't know which of these two concerns the ruling falls under, as I didn't read the article. I don't like reading negative stuff, so, other than that, I don't really want to read it anyway. On that same note - so as not to confuse people - I have not read many of the articles linked to or posted on here, for that same reason.

The fears about force "acceptance" of untraditional marriage, expressed on this thread, are not irrational. One needs only to glance at the abortion situation, to know that fear of it not being "just" about 2 people's rights to do whatever they want, is legitimate.

I think also the conflict of "feeling safe in the good old USA" and "It's the end of the world!" has a lot to do with where in the good old USA one lives. It's like nature. Here we talk of conservation, other places they still talk of the fight for survival of man vs. nature. Big cities on the coasts, I dare say it is fight for survival of the right to follow basic moral values. Small landlocked farming town in the bible belt, one could entertain the illusion that these are exagerations. My examples are extremes, but I think ones surroundings and the laws and way the laws are interpreted where one lives, seems to make a huge difference.

That said, I think that the things cited as fears of legalized untraditional marriage, are not directly caused by it. In fact, I believe they are caused by the same thing that causes people to call untraditional marriage illeagal: govt. involvement!

It is the same thing we see all too often in other areas where laws claiming to protect freedoms, really destroy them. Take religion in public schools for instance. The argument, if religion was allowed in public schools, the govt. would be forcing religion on every kid. No one stops to think that it may be the govt. forcing - mandatory cumpulsary school (laws that say the govt., not parents, gets to decide that every kid must go to govt. schools, or "allow" exceptions.) - that it might be the govt. forcing aspect of it, not the religious aspect, that makes it wrong. So we ignore bad govt. forcing laws, and futily pursue anti-religion laws, in the name of freedom.

Or the couple (years and years ago) who concieved and had a kid, because their other kid needed bone marrow or something, and her sibling was the only one who could give it to her, so they had a sibling. Huge hysteria over why people should or shouldn't be "allowed" to have kids. Arguements were made, and seemingly accepted, that if reasons for having kids were not regulated, this would lead to abortion harvests, where people got preg. just to harvest usefull and even lifesaving things from the unborn fetuses. Ya, lets regulate fertility rights in the name of freedom! Whereas, obviously (to pro-lifers like myself) the problem wasn't in lack of fertility regulation by the govt., but in abortion laws (won't go off on that - take too long, and I get too emotional!)

All the problems with gay marriage, that I have heard people talk about on this thread, are not "caused" by the evil of gay marriage, but by other laws (or imagined laws to be - though some are very justifiable fears!) that are wrong in and of themselves for varying reasons. The problems these laws cause with gay marriage are just one example of why these laws are wrong - not proof that gay marriage is wrong.

“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

I guess you'd have to define "promote" as well as what measures and how they strengthen the family. To me, the more and bigger the govt. gets, including defining marriage, the more they take away from the family unit. The govt. defining morals and what is "good" for kids and what is "bad", (aside from extremes - not for ignoring blatantly abusive parents), deteriorates the societal view of the family as the fundamental, and main, unit. Family choices in education, health care, marriage, even things as sacred as birth, are all currently regulated by our "free" govt. Yes, we are in desperate need to correct these. Giving the govt. more power, in the guise of protecting (promoting?) our values and definition of a family, is imo very dangerous.

[GoodK]

For the skeptics, they should read 1984 from G. Orwell. It was published in 1949 but ABSOLUTELY everything it proposes and that sounded like Sci-Fi at the time actually came to pass.

Examples? Skeptics of what?

If anyone objects to homosexual behavior and/or teaching of any kind in public you WILL be suit and liable for civil rights infringement.

I beg your pardon? This is absolutely and demonstratably false. I object to homosexual behavior, as in I do not engage in it, find it appealing, etc... but I have never been sued nor would any court in any state in America find me liable for my objection. You should really correct this statement.

You will be guilty and liable for discrimination.

You are mixing truth with fiction here. Discrimination is not tolerated, but merely "objecting" to homosexual behavior is not considered discrimination.

Say a female teacher begins to discuss her "wife" on my 2nd grade daughter's class, brings pictures to share and talks about her "family with two "moms". If I object, on whatever grounds, and want to have my daughter changed to another class not taught by her I am in jeopardy of being suit. The fact remains that the court has elevated homosexual behavior to a constitutional right. ANYONE that objects on WHATEVER grounds will be violating civil rights laws.

With all due respect, you are either lying or speaking from ignorance here. The court has not "elevated homosexual behavior to a constitutional right"

Why do you say such false things?

My issue is not with they sexual orientation, choice, lifestyle or desire. My issues relate to my right to object based on my moral, and religious foundation has been eroded.

Would you really like to live in a society that governs what goes on in your bedroom? You really want to live in a theocracy? How about Iran? Supposedly there are no homosexuals there...

The constitution does not guarantee such rights to anyone; to ignore their faith and individual creed on account of the laws of men.

Actually yes, it does. The constitution does give people the right to ignore their faith and individual creed. You have the freedom to be a Mormon, Jew, Scientologist, Jehova's Witness, member of PETA, NAMBLA, etc... and the laws of men are what is important in matters of government. The God fearing men that authored the constitution knew well enough to seperate church and state.

Beyond that, God as inspiration and foundation of the constitution, also says that homosexuality is an abomination.

God says a lot of things. He says you shouldn't eat swine. Should we make sweet and sour pork illegal? Is legalizing the consumption of bacon a persecution of civil society? Should we require people to pay tithing? Add it to their taxes? Just because you choose to cherry pick something out of the Bible and use it as justification to call something an abomination, does not mean that we need to turn our democracy into a theocracy. Respect is a two way street. You respect the rights of other citizens that don't believe what we believe, and they may respect your right to believe they are an "abomination"..

I find it repulsive to be intimidated into acceptance of something I find offensive before the eyes of God.

Just my thoughts.

And I find it repulsive to see that such intolerance is rooted in uninformed, poorly thought out reasoning.

[Misshalfway]

That's called bigamy, not polygamy.

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?

[checkerboy]

I'm simply godsmacked that some people feel obligated to mold this government into what they want it to be. They seem to enjoy freedom when it benefits them, yet they can't stand to see other people enjoy a freedom they don't find acceptable. Hypocritical?

Why not just leave people alone? Why not just let people be? Why concern yourself with what people do in the privacy of their bedroom? I think that if the Lord really had a problem with gay marriage, He would do something about it. He didn't ask you, or any of us, to do anything about it.

Once again you missed the point. As far as molding the government into what we want it to be, gee, I don't know, isn't that pretty much what we do every time we go to the polls to vote. Last time I checked this government was for the people, of the people, and by the people.

Your argument of just leaving people alone can go both ways. No ones is being denied any freedoms that are associated with marriage. To my knowledge most if not all the states have civil union laws that would allow gay couples every right that comes with marriage. So why can't they leave us hetros alone?

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. But you don't need to be married to do that. A piece of paper saying you are married won't change the fact that what you are doing is a sin.

So you don't think AIDS is the LORD'S way of dealing with promiscuous sex, (notice I said sex and not just gay sex.) Also how do you know the LORD never told me to do something about it? You aren't me you haven't had my experiences. The simple truth is that the LORD works through people. Very rarely has He come down and done the job himself. And like so many have posted He did reveal the Proclamation that has been quoted a few times. Do you not take that to be scripture or the LORD asking us to defend marriage between a man and a woman?

[GoodK]

good thoughts.

I can't seem to find the article, but don't really want to read it anyway, except for I am curious about the court ruling against voters. I am curious about this, because there are two ways it could be played out. One: I only feel safe in a democracy where religion can't be voted on. Two: we talk of "balanced" powers being devided into 3 branches. I don't know history very well, but in my adult lifetime (since I've actually been allowed to vote), it seems that we live more (as some have pointed out) in a dictatorship, ruled by judges "interpretation of the law", "interpreted" to mean "If I'm the judge, I can twist those words to mean whatever I want." This makes voting on a law seem useless, as however well we seem to word it, a judge will be able to claim it "means" something else.

We have a say in who the judges are. The Judicial branch has always been a vital aspect of our government. Justices interpreting law is not a recent development. We NEED them to interpret and implement the laws. It is naive to think that voters simply vote on laws, how they should be applied, and what happens to those that don't follow them. You don't simply check a box and Walah! the police are now informed of this new law. I suggest you try and search You Tube for the School House Rock that talks about how a Bill becomes law.

The fears about force "acceptance" of untraditional marriage, expressed on this thread, are not irrational.

I think you are confusing acceptance with tolerance. No one will be forcing you to accept something you believe is wrong. You just can't persecute people for it in an unlawful manner.

One needs only to glance at the abortion situation, to know that fear of it not being "just" about 2 people's rights to do whatever they want, is legitimate.

How does gay marriage affect you, personally? And feel free to follow that tangent, how does someone's abortion affect you, personally?

Giving the govt. more power, in the guise of protecting (promoting?) our values and definition of a family, is imo very dangerous.

Amen.

[Islander]

I find it quite strange that somebody would come into a religious forum to argue a secular view. It would be like me going into an atheist forum to advocate for the existence of God!!

Advanced societies accomplish and prosper because of sound rules and norms for social governing. These MUST be based on tangibles principles that should not be eroded with time or with the changes in mores and "values." Because society as a whole tends to be somewhat lethargic and only a small group of activists are usually the ones steering the social current, those principles are the only thing that protects the rest of society. Socially agereed norms are also indispensable for order and structure, for social learning and longevity of the collective experience. Otherwise every new political generation would throw away what was built previously simply because it may no longer see it as valuable or "reasonable" according to their philosophy.

I have traveled thru 40 countries and speak 6 languages. I can attest to the fact that there is nothing like the good old USA. That what made this country great was a constitution with no equal in the world, developed and inspired by God fearing men and on God's principles. It is naive to speak about furniture without mentioning WOOD. Ignoring that precedent in favor of a recent, socially induced philosophical position.

We should agree to disagree and conserve the emotional energy for more productive endevours than this exchange.

[GoodK]

Once again you missed the point. As far as molding the government into what we want it to be, gee, I don't know, isn't that pretty much what we do every time we go to the polls to vote. Last time I checked this government was for the people, of the people, and by the people.

Hmmm... maybe you missed my point. We do mold our government via voting and elected officials, yet we do not mold our government to respect select religious doctrine. It is not your job to mold the government to match your religious faith. That would be, gee, I don't know, a disaster.

Your argument of just leaving people alone can go both ways. No ones is being denied any freedoms that are associated with marriage. To my knowledge most if not all the states have civil union laws that would allow gay couples every right that comes with marriage. So why can't they leave us hetros alone?

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.)

And how are they not leaving "us hetros alone?" By not joining your faith, or calling themselves evil? By not changing the way they live in respect of your beliefs? Is there anything more unChrist-like than that?

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedroom. But you don't need to be married to do that. A piece of paper saying you are married won't change the fact that what you are doing is a sin.

You obviously do care, if you didn't why would you object?

If a piece of paper doesn't change anything, why do you care so much. Obviously the Lord won't recognize the marriage, so why do YOU feel the need to object to it. 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.

So you don't think AIDS is the LORD'S way of dealing with promiscuous sex, (notice I said sex and not just gay sex.)

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.

Also how do you know the LORD never told me to do something about it?

What the heck are you talking about? I never mentioned your apparent conversations with the Lord. To be frank, I don't care if you believe the LORD told you something about it. How do you know he didn't talk to ME about it?

You aren't me you haven't had my experiences.

Clearly.

The simple truth is that the LORD works through people.

And through virus', according to you.

Very rarely has He come down and done the job himself.

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

And like so many have posted He did reveal the Proclamation that has been quoted a few times.

I must have missed the part where the Proclamation said you needed to concern yourself with what other people do in the privacy of their own home. Feel free to quote it again, forgive me for being dense.

Do you not take that to be scripture or the LORD asking us to defend marriage between a man and a woman?

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.

[GoodK]

I find it quite strange that somebody would come into a religious forum to argue a secular view.

You can call it a secular view if you like. I didn't know dissenting opinions were not allowed here. Feel free to ask a moderator to ban me.

It would be like me going into an atheist forum to advocate for the existence of God!!

Hardly the same thing. And that never happens... does it?!

Otherwise every new political generation would throw away what was built previously simply because it may no longer see it as valuable or "reasonable" according to their philosophy.

I am certainly glad a new political generation decided that slavery should be thrown away. Or laws preventing interracial marriage. I'm glad they decided it was no longer "reasonable" to own humans as property.

I have traveled thru 40 countries and speak 6 languages. I can attest to the fact that there is nothing like the good old USA. That what made this country great was a constitution with no equal in the world, developed and inspired by God fearing men and on God's principles. It is naive to speak about furniture without mentioning WOOD. Ignoring that precedent in favor of a recent, socially induced philosophical position.

You are conveniently neglecting to mention that these God fearing men knew that it would be vital to seperate church and state. What precedent? The Old Testament? Are you kidding?

We should agree to disagree and conserve the emotional energy for more productive endevours than this exchange.

Like...

[Truegrits]

GoodK:

I didn't know dissenting opinions were not allowed here.

Of course they are. But the feeling I get from you is, you do not really wish to engage in conversation. Your format seems to be to dissect and to annihilate. IMO, your manner of conversing is confrontational, not inviting. But hey, we all have different styles...

[RachelleDrew]

I find it quite strange that somebody would come into a religious forum to argue a secular view. It would be like me going into an atheist forum to advocate for the existence of God!!.

Wow, what a bunch of nonsense.

This is a forum for members of the LDS church. Seeing as how i'm a member, I have just as much a right to be here as anyone else.

The church does not command that we all have exactly the same thought process. I'm not saying that you are wrong, i'm just saying that I view this issue differently. I can understand your point, it's just not the same as mine.

Sheesh.

[Hemidakota]

The church does not command that we all have exactly the same thought process.

Sheesh.

We know that is a 'truism'.

[RachelleDrew]

We know that is a 'truism'.

My apologies, i'm not sure what you are getting at by that statement hemi.

[Hemidakota]

We are not commanded to think alike. That would be a boring society. Reminds me of Lucifer's plan...

[GoodK]

GoodK:

Of course they are. But the feeling I get from you is, you do not really wish to engage in conversation. Your format seems to be to dissect and to annihilate. IMO, your manner of conversing is confrontational, not inviting. But hey, we all have different styles...

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.