Same sex marriage. Impact begins


Islander
 Share

Recommended Posts

A few days ago I posted a few times in response to a thread about how negligent the impact of same sex marriage was going to be. Some of the posters are from outside the US and ignore our court system and the activism that takes place in this country.

Here is an article from NPR just today. We will continue to hear many more just like this one. By legalizing homosexual marriage, the California court elevated those relationships to a right under the law. ANYONE that objects will be found liable in civil court and possibly face criminal charges for discrimination. It is the ultimate use of the arm of the government to compel speech and submission even over religious objection and freedom. We are not very far from the end or "religious based services" like schools, counseling, camps, etc.

A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

For those that are non-Christian, or if their own brand of Christianity allow for a liberal position on the issue above this should not be a surprise. For me at least is a frightful reminder that the plan is to make God irrelevant and ultimately the enemy of society. In a few years, the mere mentioning of God in public will be grounds for chastisement. Just watch.

Edited by Islander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I appreciate your perspective and have similar feelings. There are ways to allow all people the same general opportunities, but marriage was one of the last sacred institutions protected. The slope gets very slippery from here. One cannot allow same gender marriage and disalow plural marriage, or other non traditional sinful practices. The vista ahead is not serene for the conservative, spiritual God fearing soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the more reason for government to get out of the marriage business entirely.

You seem to miss the point. It is too late for wishful thinking. The government crated this problems by meddling with and later ignoring the will of the people. Now this is going to be shoved down our throats until the Supreme Courts weights on it (hopefully in a pro-family position). In the mean time brace yourselves for the litigation and accusation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Xzain

From the article:

A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business.

1- The doctor referred the woman to another doctor who would do the procedure. Why the fuss? I fear the only reasons are malicious...

2- So, legal justices are advising Christians and other like-minded people to find alternate lines of work?!?!

This makes me physically sick...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANYONE that objects will be found liable in civil court and possibly face criminal charges for discrimination.

Well that's completely false. I object - did you suppose I will be found libel in civil court? Are the rest of your arguments that misleading?

It is the ultimate use of the arm of the government to compel speech and submission even over religious objection and freedom. We are not very far from the end or "religious based services" like schools, counseling, camps, etc.

So, using your (mis)logic, laws allowing male female marriage are also ultimate use of the arm of the government to compel speech and submission even over religious objection and freedom.

Sheeze. Try and not make up random stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory.

The university receives state funding and tax-exempt bonds; therefore is subject to anti-discrimination laws, and rightly so.

Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples.

Catholic Charities received the vast majority (often over 80%) of its monies from state and federal funds.

Therefore, it was subject to applicable anti-discrimination laws, and rightly so.

A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case,

This was not a free speech case. The practice fired her because she violated its anti-discrimination policy.

and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.

The doctors (there was more than one) had been treating the patient for a number of years, and knew she wanted IVF. They even gave her the hormones that go with the procedure. So the doctors had known for a significant amount of time that she wanted children, and would need the required procedure. Yet they did not tell her until it was time to perform the procedure.

Their discrimination put her in an impossible situation, as her insurance would only pay for procedures from these doctors. However, they did recommend a different practice, and did have the procedure, though she had to pay all the expenses herself.

As for the “get another job” comment, what the judge meant is that if the doctor knows she is going to refuse treatments based on religious convictions, then she should not specialize in that practice. Denying treatment to lesbians is a foreseeable consequence of being a gynecologist; therefore, common sense would say she should not choose a specialty that is going to discriminate against a woman because of who she is, i.e., because she is a lesbian.

I agree it should be the doctor's right to specialize in any field she wants. However, if she violates company policy, she risks being fired.

Additionally, she is subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that prohibit her from discriminating against anyone based on race. Therefore, she should consider another specialty to avoid having to refuse her services to someone based on her religious convictions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In general, the following is applicable:

If a company receives federal funds, it is subject to applicable anti-discrimination laws, as it should be.

If a company has a tax-exempt status, it is also subject to anti-discrimination laws, as it should be.

In a few years, the mere mentioning of God in public will be grounds for chastisement. Just watch.

Nonsense.

Elphaba

Edited by Elphaba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reminded of this scripture:

Mosiah 29

12 Now it is better that a man should be ajudged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.

26 Now it is not common that the avoice of the people desireth anything bcontrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the cpeople to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

27 And aif the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People who believe in God, His laws, and stand up for them are accused of discrimination, being judgemental, and forcing our beliefs upon those who don't.

Well,... how different are they from us then? Aren't they doing the same thing they complain about us? Why do we have to accept their beliefs, behavior, and decisions, and they won't accept ours, and persecute us for it?

The only difference is that our decision and beliefs are based on laws given and instituted by God, not by men which most of the time are created to appease, justify, and satisfy themselves.

Brothers & sisters, let follow the counsel in Alma 1

25 Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith; nevertheless, they were asteadfast and immovable in keeping the commandments of God, and they bore with bpatience the persecution which was heaped upon them.

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once discussing with a co-worker, who is a Muslim from Egypt, about this subject, he said a few things that I found quite interesting:

He mentioned that all major religions agree and support each other in some basic principles; and that the subject of same-sex marriage "is not a matter of rights, but having a concept of right & wrong.

Every society has to impose laws to determine what is right & wrong, and in this case, he feels the people who are fighting for, supporting this, and make it a law, they are trespassing the common knowledge of right and wrong, and imposing upon society."

He also said that "If people makes this a law, and allow same-sex marriage, what moral value will they have to say that it is unlawful for a person to have relations with his/her own mother, father, sister, daughter, brother, son,...? It's the same principle; it's unnatural!!! Something has to define right & wrong, make laws accordingly, or society just will do whatever it will, whatever will come to their minds; it's going to be chaos; people will just begin pressing for laws that will justify whatever they want! So, why not make it legal to steal?"

He also said, "it not a matter of accepting whatever they say about who they are, what they want, if they want to live together, that's their problem... Accepting we do, we have no choice; that's ok, but to make it a law to marry those individuals is going beyond; they are pushing it down our throats, and making a mockery out of marriage! Marriage has a concept of a man & a woman, if they can't accept it, they should just do without it! Why do we have to accept them doing this to marriage? It's not a matter of civil rights, but right & wrong!!!"

I just wanted to share with all of you from someone else's point of view; someone whom I respect and is of a different faith. We have several exchanges about our faiths, and topics as such, and we learn from each other, and share our views about many things; his wife is also from the same place, and they are just wonderful people.

Peace!

Edited by PapilioMemnon
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It goes back to history in repeating itself again, as it was in Noah’s day to Abram of the plain. Abram faced the same problems in seeing five cities of the fertile region located next to the Dead Sea, which turned from beautiful, robust economic kingdoms, to a decayed depraved idol worshipping society. What happened to them when they refuse to repent? They were removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once discussing with a co-worker, who is a Muslim from Egypt, about this subject, he said a few things that I found quite interesting:

He mentioned that all major religions agree and support each other in some basic principles; and that the subject of same-sex marriage "is not a matter of rights, but having a concept of right & wrong.

Every society has to impose laws to determine what is right & wrong, and in this case, he feels the people who are fighting for, supporting this, and make it a law, they are trespassing the common knowledge of right and wrong, and imposing upon society."

He also said that "If people makes this a law, and allow same-sex marriage, what moral value will they have to say that it is unlawful for a person to have relations with his/her own mother, father, sister, daughter, brother, son,...? It's the same principle; it's unnatural!!! Something has to define right & wrong, make laws accordingly, or society just will do whatever it will, whatever will come to their minds; it's going to be chaos; people will just begin pressing for laws that will justify whatever they want! So, why not make it legal to steal?"

He also said, "it not a matter of accepting whatever they say about who they are, what they want, if they want to live together, that's their problem... Accepting we do, we have no choice; that's ok, but to make it a law to marry those individuals is going beyond; they are pushing it down our throats, and making a mockery out of marriage! Marriage has a concept of a man & a woman, if they can't accept it, they should just do without it! Why do we have to accept them doing this to marriage? It's not a matter of civil rights, but right & wrong!!!"

I just wanted to share with all of you from someone else's point of view; someone whom I respect and is of a different faith. We have several exchanges about our faiths, and topics as such, and we learn from each other, and share our views about many things; his wife is also from the same place, and they are just wonderful people.

Peace!

Actually, if by "natural" you mean "of nature" then it is not wrong. Many advanced species (apes, dolphins, dogs) practice homosexuality as well. If you had a male dog you would know better, they'll mount just about anything.

There are "universal" right and wrongs (among atheistic and thesistic people alike), and then individual right and wrongs. What makes america great is the fact that it protects EVERYBODIES fundimental rights, which is the way it should be!

"universal" right and wrong are very basic, and our laws would be better if we followed basic morals, and not theistic morals (in my opinion of course)-

1.) Do not cause harm to other people

2.) Do not take what is not yours from other people

3.) Support these rights for all people.

Sorry to say, but 2 homosexuals getting married does not harm anyone, nor does it take anything away from anyone else ;) .

Now, a brother and a sister getting married and bringing a child into the world- Damage to the child = harm to the child = violation of rule #1.

Stealing from someone= taking what is not yours from other people = violation of rule #2

Let's try a couple more-

Man getting drunk in the privacy of his own home= no problem, not hurting anyone but himself, Okay!

Man getting drunk and then driving his vehichle= damage to other people= violation of rule #1 and possibly #2

Man getting drunk and then beating or neglecting his kids... see where this is going?

And how dare homosexuals make a mockery of Britney Spear's 48 hour marriage!?! How dare they!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not our place to be judgemental. We are put on this earth to Love and to share God's Love with others. If we sit in judgement we send a message to others that God is selective in his Love and that is not the case. God IS Love. I think people would be better to focus on the good people do, and encourage them, than to focus and banter over something is only going to encourage negativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) Do not cause harm to other people

2.) Do not take what is not yours from other people

3.) Support these rights for all people.

1) Didn't Lenin say a person has the right to say anything they wanted but he reserved the right to have them shot for doing so? Mao said that morality is dictated from the barrel of a gun. These were very powerful figures in 20th. Century history -- were they wrong? If so, why?

2) Wow, isn't all of human history filled with this? Seems to be part of our genes I suppose. We take someone else's girlfriend, we take terrotory in wars, people used to take slaves all the time and still do in parts of Africa.

3) Why? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something my beloved friend, President Kimball, wrote about concerning his disposition as a Apostle and Prophet viewing the world during his tenure.

The World's Acceptance of Immorality

Society has accepted immorality as normal. In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, said Paul. (See 1 Timothy 4:1.) These are the latter times. We are the Latter-day Saints. These are the days when some shall depart from the faith. ... I think it's not just so much the disbelieving apostate, but more likely this permissiveness. They would give heed to the seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. It seems that the devil has a way of making very attractive the things that he proposes to mankind. (76-20)

Your time covers a period when magazine and book writers and public speakers tear down the old monuments of trust and faith and honor, leaving the debris at the feet of new idols, attractive to many, made of brightly colored sand, decorated with tinsel and fool's gold-when rainbows are stolen colors, put together by hired specialists, and pots of gold at the ends of the improvised rainbows are filled with gold-colored froth and scum. (68-06)

Again we see history repeating itself. When we see the pornography, the adulterous practices, homosexuality gone rampant, the looseness and permissiveness of an apparently increasing proportion of the people, we say the days of Satan have returned and history seems to repeat itself.

When we see the depravity of numerous people of our own society in their determination to force upon people vulgar presentations, filthy communications, unnatural practices, we wonder, has Satan reached forth with his wicked, evil hand to pull into his forces the people of this earth? Do we not have enough good people left to stamp out the evil which threatens our world? Why do we continue to compromise with evil and why do we continue to tolerate sin? (75-15)

Once the carnal in man is no longer checked by the restraints of family life and by real religion, there comes an avalanche of appetites which gathers momentum that is truly frightening. As one jars loose and begins to roll downhill, still another breaks loose, whether it is an increase in homosexuality, corruption, drugs, or abortion. Each began as an appetite that needed to be checked but which went unchecked. Thus misery achieves a ghastly momentum. (78-08)

Today we have a so-called new morality wherein the sexual revolution turns itself loose and "everything goes." We now have liberty becoming license and libertinism moral decay. ...

When a nation will send its young, vigorous sons to a faraway country without their families and take no steps to prevent their impregnating the native girls, leaving a quarter million or more such fatherless children who are accepted neither by their Oriental relatives nor their new Caucasian relatives, certainly life is complex and a world rotting. Abortions are numerous now. "Beget and destroy" seems to be the slogan.

What could the gospel do for this? There would be no unwanted babies, no fatherless children, no mothers who feel burdened, no children who grow up spurned by all.

We talk of pollution with oil slicks, of cans and bottles, of waste papers everywhere, of indestructible plastic, old car bodies, or pesticides and smoke, and industrial wastes; but pollution is not only in the realm of the physical. The more serious pollution is in the spiritual and mental phases of our lives. There is lewdness and licentiousness; there is pornography and V.D.; there is pollution growing everywhere in men's minds and their souls are contaminated.

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not commit fornication. Thou shalt not commit sexual perversions. Thou shalt not be guilty of petting nor do anything like unto it. When a generation lives for sex and translates every message into that language, what can be expected of its people?

The importance and necessity of virtue, real virtue, total virtue, is as old as the inhabited world. If we had the record we would probably find that Cain was promiscuous, for seldom do great crimes travel in single file. (71-17)

The world teaches that sexual license is desirable. There are many other "physicians" in the colleges, on the streets, in business places among us who have worsened the patients. They have laughed at the conventions; they have proclaimed a gospel of error; they have advanced the hellish doctrine that sexual promiscuity is not only allowable but beneficial and normal and proper.

Numerous times have I interviewed young men who have been told by people in whom they had confidence that masturbation was normal and natural and necessary. Numerous times have I visited with young people who have been advised to greatly limit their children. More than a few times have I been advised by frustrated people that they have been advised to seek promiscuous sexual life to cure their maladies. (64-05)

Many errors are induced by society's approval. The subject of chastity is hard to preach about. In nearly every group in meetings, firesides, etc., there is a mixed group, both sexes and youth of different degrees of mentality, training, and experience. To clear the thinking of one youth would put ideas into another mind. I think we should clarify the thinking for the people, but it must be done with great care. If we think and talk sex too much, harm can come from it; and if it is too little, harm may come, so it is hard to know just how far to go. These interviews with singles are most satisfactory. If every youth would voluntarily come to someone in whom he had confidence and discuss boldly and frankly these matters, much good could come. Many missionaries have enthusiastically thanked me after an interview in which I have tried to properly and decently and understandingly discuss with them the dangers and possible damages which can come from masturbation, petting, and especially "heavy petting," and the sin of unchastity. Many young men have seemed a bit surprised that the Church could not wink at the former two. They told me that at the university the doctor and the physical education instructors had spoken of the thing as a necessary thing or as a habit, universal and without harm. Several prospective missionaries have said, after our interview: "Thanks, Brother Kimball. I am so glad you spoke to me of these things. I didn't know. I can wholly give it up and shall do so. I didn't know the Church considered it immoral."

Again, may I sum up by saying that many of the things done are not immoral in and of themselves, but it is the thinking and attitudes and feelings associated with those things. (5/31/48)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Didn't Lenin say a person has the right to say anything they wanted but he reserved the right to have them shot for doing so? Mao said that morality is dictated from the barrel of a gun. These were very powerful figures in 20th. Century history -- were they wrong? If so, why?

Were they wrong? They were giving their opinion of life, how can an opinion be wrong? How does that change the fact that general consenses for morality of theists and non-thesists alike state that a person should not harm another?

2) Wow, isn't all of human history filled with this? Seems to be part of our genes I suppose. We take someone else's girlfriend, we take terrotory in wars, people used to take slaves all the time and still do in parts of Africa.

Yes, it does happen. Did my post say anything about how having those general rules would STOP them from happening? I was saying that laws of the land should be based of what theists and non theist alike both find appalling. You are pulling some crazy tangents here...

3) Why? :D

Because most theists and non theists alike believe that all humans should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Redbeard let me ask you a question. Why should laws be based on non-theistic morals?

Now, that is a new one. I am afraid the claims to ethical and moral behavior away from God's domain are impossible. Before God there was no morality or ethics. It is like talking about furniture without mentioning wood. The argument is interesting but not substantive IMO. The West is not the norm but rather the exception. It is dangerous to attempt to see all human behavior under such generalizing glass. It does not hold water in most of the globe.

Edited by Islander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest User-Removed

Hey Redbeard let me ask you a question. Why should laws be based on non-theistic morals?

Checks...excellent point...Every murder statute in just about any part of the world is based on a theistic moral??????

Most theft statutes have a moral basis...

This old hackney cliche about moral neutral laws...is just alot of situational ethics codswallop...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, if by "natural" you mean "of nature" then it is not wrong. Many advanced species (apes, dolphins, dogs) practice homosexuality as well. If you had a male dog you would know better, they'll mount just about anything.

It usually amuses me when people do this.

I feel that comparing animal behavior to human behavior is not an accurate resource to base beliefs, and much less behavior itself. With all the love and respect I feel for animals, they are what they are: Animals. Irrational living creatures that act on instinct without the capacity to think, reason, and choose a behavior; they act to fulfill physical needs/appetites and defend themselves.

In some cases, comparing animals to people is an offense to them, the animals.

People were created and allowed to “have dominion,” over all other things (Gen. 1:26); people were given the ability to think, reason, and make choices (Agency) as well as be held accountable for them (Responsibility, consequences), making them a superior specie since they rule over all others.

Animals do not sit and plan, are not crafty; they just act based on need/instinct/defense. They do not plan murder, or justify behaviors, and choices by comparing themselves to humans either; they do not compete or compare. They don’t have jobs (People make money out of them), they do not go to school, they don’t make money, laws, don’t pay for rent, food, etc.

If they can’t fulfill all other things that humans are able to, then let’s leave them in their place, and not isolate only the types of behaviors and species that do something out of animality (Merely satisfaction of physical appetites) to compare to what humans choose to do to justify human choices & behavior.

My dog is here; when I feed, and walk her, her needs are satisfied!

My older son says, "The reason male dogs do this is not to create a same-gender relationships, they just react to hormones, and will go on anything. To reproduce, they look for a female by the scent. When the physical need is satisfied, they are done with it."

p.s.: I've had many animals (Cats, dogs, rabbits, hamsters, chicks, white mice,...), and males dogs as well; I know animals well!

* Some female hamsters eat their young... Does this behavior compare & support parents who murder their children?

I and, as far as I’m concerned, all people were created in the image of GOD, in His likeness; we were created to fulfill a purpose, and “He created man in His own image,… male and female.” They were told to “Be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth.” (Gen. 1:27-28). Male & female are a perfect fit for each other! The only way to reproduce is uniting a male cell with a female cell; this is the innate purpose, the natural method; this fulfills the purpose of the male and female gender. If same-gender attraction is natural, it should be able to reproduce with same-gender cell as well; the fit should give the same results: children; well, it doesn’t! It is contrary to the purpose; the fit is wrong.

I know someone who has been baptized at the church recently, and she told me she had these inclinations and had same-gender relationships many years ago. Then, she decided to read the Bible because despite that she believed in the Lord. Then she said, “When I realized this was contrary to the Lord’s will and purpose, I stopped, ended my relationship of years, and remained on my own to this day.I realized it was wrong to act on it!

And I’ll leave it to that!

If you chose to compare yourself, your behavior, and people who are inclined to same-gender attraction (Those who chooses to act on) to the behaviors of inferior species, be my guest; maybe in this case you’re completely right, and the comparison is completley appropriate!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are "universal" right and wrongs (among atheistic and thesistic people alike), and then individual right and wrongs. What makes america great is the fact that it protects EVERYBODIES fundimental rights, which is the way it should be!

"universal" right and wrong are very basic, and our laws would be better if we followed basic morals, and not theistic morals (in my opinion of course)-

1.) Do not cause harm to other people

2.) Do not take what is not yours from other people

3.) Support these rights for all people.

Fundamental is defined by "essential part of... People need food, water, clothing, and shelter: those are fundmental rights! Sexual satisfaction is not fundamental to human survival, and no one will die or be harmed either if they don't get married.. Marriage came from "theistic morals" and principles.

As you expressed in your opinion, they should follow "basic morals," and not theistic ones. They should not alter the law to simulate the theistic notion of marriage going contrary to its definition and purpose (Union between a man & a woman) if they don't like or fit the definition!

I do not go to an Asian restaurant, and speak to the manager to change the menu to serve me Italian!

I do not advocate or support hate/violence torwards anyone, but support theistics & fundamental notions of what is right and wrong.

Yes, my fundamental beliefs, that I choose to follow, support, and obey, come from and are based on the Creator's teachings, words, commandments, not the creation!

Edited by PapilioMemnon
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share