Gay Marriage?

[DigitalShadow]

it's by far the best reason on earth to object to this legislation

what you DO NOT BELIEVE holds just as much weight and is just as important as what I DO BELIEVE

I say that unless there is good reason against it, why not? You say the reason is that it is immoral and God opposes it. I say that my God said otherwise, what now? Who is to say which God is right, or even exists? That is exactly why our government is not a theocracy and laws have to have logical reason behind them, rather than religious doctrine.

[Hemidakota]

Either we abide by eternal laws or we are rejecting what GOD has already declared is morally wrong. It is not for any government to make an issue or a stand when it comes to moral issues. If so, they are in violation of the amendment of the constitution - separation of church and state. The government is no position to make such a ruling.

If would remember our global history with any empire of the past that numbed in accepting this moral decay, namely Rome, Cities of the Plain, Greece, and so forth. As one writer put it, it is numbing effect overtime is what the minions want for now and eventually bring down church.

"In the past few years, homosexual behavior and other "alternative lifestyles" have come to seem increasingly legitimate, especially as they have been validated by the public acceptance implied in the high-level political appointments of openly gay men and women, a court decision allowing gay marriage, and recent changes in U.S. policy on homosexuals in military service.

Some of the recent changes in public attitudes toward sex and sexual orientation are driven by a growing advocacy for more tolerant and more flexible attitudes about lifestyle choices generally. One therapist who claims to represent mainstream attitudes among psychotherapists wrote in a professional journal that most people in his field believe that "human disturbance is largely associated with and springs from absolutistic thinking," and that, therefore, being inflexible or extremely religious amounts to "essentially emotional disturbance."

Whatever the causes and the detailed statistics, clearly the view of chastity taught in the scriptures has far less public, and private, support than was the case a generation ago. Society is now numbed, if not suffocated, by a dense fog of sensuality, which cannot help but influence our attitudes and dull our normal sensibilities. One writer has described this basic change in national attitude by reference to Playboy magazine:

While Playboy is much the same thing that it was during the 1950's, it is not exactly the same thing, and the difference is crucial. During the 50's, there was, of course, pornography. We used to get it at the newsstand from the old man with the black cigar who would produce it, literally, from "under-the-counter." Sometimes it would circulate through the boys' locker room—usually pictures of fat [women] with missing teeth. It was available, all right, but one came by it ["out behind the barn," so to speak].

But now that the Playboy philosophy has been declared innocent by the grand jury of public opinion, now that it "is involved in the mainstream of our culture and values," it is acquired, and consumed, as thoughtlessly as a pound of bologna. You pack Mildred and the kids in the station wagon, buzz down to the local drugstore, plunk your two bucks down on the counter, and bring home artful pictures of young women who have straight teeth, deep suntans, and college educations. Every one of them is a former cheerleader, a current jogger, concerned about ecology. Middle class. When you get home, you throw your copy on the coffee table promiscuously [alongside Time and Newsweek], a public pronouncement that you buy Playboy for the literature. It's true: the difference between the 50's and [today] is that we don't give pornography a second thought any more.

And that is exactly what is going wrong—the public doesn't give a second thought these days to pornography and other evidence of an increasingly decadent culture. The willingness of people to accept these things is so widespread that there is really nothing to compare with it in many centuries of civilized society—not since Rome, not since Sodom and Gomorrah. The very scope of the attitudinal drift is what makes these times so treacherous. Even as we are surrounded by abnormality and evil, everything somehow seems so normal."

Do moral decadences rule today? Yes!

[Elphaba]

EVERYONE has a religion.

I just have one clarification: Fourteen percent of the country, labeled atheists, do not have a religion, nor do they believe in any god.

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

Elp, even Atheistic is treated as a belief but not in a god.

[WANDERER]

It's a democracy...people have the right to object and seek to influence legislation regardless of whether you support their beliefs and practices or not. This is true for the gay rights group and correspondingly true for LDS members.

[captain_nephi]

We, and by we I mean all humanity, are a religious people. Dating all the back to whenever. How can we not be affected by morality. You show me a secular man who says it is scientifically beneficial to allow same-sex marriage and I will show you one who said it was scientifically beneficial to surpress free speech. The point being, that man's short-sightedness does not allow us to have the vision nor wisdom necessary to make far-reaching laws on our own.

We must rely upon the divine to do so.

So what two consenting adults do may be our problem--especially if God says it is for reason that we may not be able to understand at this time.

And yes, there have already been times when being the minority means that you are going to suffer. And I have no doubts that those times are still here today and will be here tomorrow. That is why we have a prophet who can make sense of any situation today, when we need it most.

The message wasn't a if-you-are-inclined-to-do-so type of message. It was an edict, a command. Now, I suppose not everyone does need to follow it. But if you don't, I am sure you will have to explain yourself before the Lord. And maybe you will be okay, maybe not.

But for them to make such a public statement means there is a lot on the line. And obedience is of the essence.

[Islander]

I say that unless there is good reason against it, why not? You say the reason is that it is immoral and God opposes it. I say that my God said otherwise, what now? Who is to say which God is right, or even exists? That is exactly why our government is not a theocracy and laws have to have logical reason behind them, rather than religious doctrine.

Digital - that is precisely the issue. You claim to ignore or discount what God says, you chose to believe that He does not exist. OK. That position should have no more weight in the argument than mine that sports a position to the contrary. Or, in fact mine is as good as yours.

So, we have to move into the constitutional arena. When you can force me to do something using the government is compelled speech and coercion under the color of authority. In other words, I do what you tell me or you'll will sue me. When I have an objection on moral grounds and the government forces me to ignore it to accommodate you I find that quite troubling. When I can be found liable of breaking the law for disagreeing with you on moral grounds I find that an abuse of government and a trampling of the constitution. Mind you, the one that says that ALL the rights you have are given to you by GOD.

[Hemidakota]

Wanderer, not when they strive to backdoor something that the people are admittedly objecting too...even try to push this in our education system by the same method. I have no pity for these people when they sink to a new low.

[DigitalShadow]

Again, you should go back and read the thread that tried to tackle this issue a few weeks ago.

I participated in a few of these threads, but they kept going around in circles (as this one is bound to) and so I gave up on them. I really didn't mean to get into this thread either, it was just another futile effort to clear up some misconceptions floating around.

This is a moral issue not a political issue. THEY made it a political issue by involving the courts. What people choose to do in private should not be anyone's concerned. but in the case in point they are using the courts to legalize it and force me to accept it, thus the problem I have with it. We are entitled, according to the constitution, to have a moral position on an issue.

"They" are not forcing you to do anything though. You are the one forcing them to not have the same rights of any other married couple. I really don't see how you are the victim simply because you are disgusted at what other people do. You are entirely free not to participate in gay marriage.

Your rights end where mine begin. If you, by using the government, can infringe in MY rights you bet I am going to object. You advocate a secular position with no real historical or social fundamental, I claim the right to align myself with God on this issue. I see no reason why not to hold on to my value system since you insist on forcing yours on me. You fail to see the constitutional issue at hand so I suggest you go and read on it. Your analogy about hair color is infantile and lacking substance. Behavior is a choice.

This is exactly my point. You are trying to infringe on their rights. You can believe whatever you want, no law is stopping that. You can align yourself with whatever deity you want to believe exists, but that still doesn't change the fact that unless you are planning on marrying someone of the same sex, this law doesn't even effect you, let alone infringe on your rights. Your instance that your rights extend beyond what even effects you completely baffles me.

[Hemidakota]

We, and by we I mean all humanity, are a religious people. Dating all the back to whenever. How can we not be affected by morality. You show me a secular man who says it is scientifically beneficial to allow same-sex marriage and I will show you one who said it was scientifically beneficial to surpress free speech. The point being, that man's short-sightedness does not allow us to have the vision nor wisdom necessary to make far-reaching laws on our own.

We must rely upon the divine to do so.

So what two consenting adults do may be our problem--especially if God says it is for reason that we may not be able to understand at this time.

And yes, there have already been times when being the minority means that you are going to suffer. And I have no doubts that those times are still here today and will be here tomorrow. That is why we have a prophet who can make sense of any situation today, when we need it most.

The message wasn't a if-you-are-inclined-to-do-so type of message. It was an edict, a command. Now, I suppose not everyone does need to follow it. But if you don't, I am sure you will have to explain yourself before the Lord. And maybe you will be okay, maybe not.

But for them to make such a public statement means there is a lot on the line. And obedience is of the essence.

Beliefs come in many forms, whether it is the Gospel of Christ to science, as the center of our daily worship or focus.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Hemidakota

[captain_nephi]

Beliefs come in many forms, whether it is the Gospel of Christ to science, as the center of our daily worship or focus.

But truth is truth. And when it doubt, turn to the prophet, scriptures, and the Father in prayer.

True science and the Gospel are never at odds.

[bytor2112]

Gays already have the liberty to live their lives as they choose, set up housekeeping, share income and expenses, make contracts and wills, and transfer property. What they are now demanding is respect and social standing for a lifestyle that others believe is immoral (like mixed-gender cohabiting).

That amounts to the minority forcing its views on the majority. Nobody is entitled to respect for behavior of which we don't approve.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would not merely permit a small number of people to choose alternate lifestyles (they are already doing that). It would force the rest of us to accept a public judgment that personal desire outweighs the value of traditional marriage and outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers.

If personal desire is to become the only criterion for public recognition of marriage, if equal rights and nondiscrimination require us to be neutral about who is eligible for marriage, how then can we deny marriage to those who want to marry a child, or a sibling, or more than one wife? All those practices are common in some other countries.

If a 13-year-old girl can exercise "choice" to "control her own body" and get an abortion, why can't she have the choice to marry? The Goodridge (Mass. same sex opinion) decision ruled that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."

Marriage must not be changed to mean merely two consenting persons agreeing to share quarters and start applying to the government and to employers for economic benefits. Marriage must continue to be recognized as the essential unit of a stable society wherein husbands and wives provide a home and role models for the rearing of children. -Phylis Schafley

Where was the harm in introducing a gay character to a sitcom or even gay characters on all tv programming? In my humble opinion it opened the door for the lifestyle to be viewed as "funny", not harmful or wrong really. Harmless actually. Books like Heather has two Mommies and attacks on Boy Scouts will definitely increase. Why? Because that is a big part of the agenda. Total and complete acceptability. Eventually, opinions like mine will be out lawed as hate speech, like it is in other more enlightened nations.

I don't want my children being taught that they must accept alternative lifestyles and be spoon fed classes on why this is just as normal and correct and ok as being in a traditional marriage. It really is a Pandora's box and is so unnecessary.

Edited June 30, 2008 by bytor2112

[Hemidakota]

Captain Nephi, impressive statement....to bad my friends who worship science could understand that.

[WANDERER]

Would this result in the closure of LDS temples if forced to conduct marriage ceremonies and temple recommends in order to enable them...I'm just wondering how far the legislation goes in terms of determining what is discrimination and where state and church decisions end or begin?

[captain_nephi]

This is exactly my point. You are trying to infringe on their rights. You can believe whatever you want, no law is stopping that. You can align yourself with whatever deity you want to believe exists, but that still doesn't change the fact that unless you are planning on marrying someone of the same sex, this law doesn't even effect you, let alone infringe on your rights. Your instance that your rights extend beyond what even effects you completely baffles me.

Taking a step back further. The ONLY natural law that exists are the laws of nature. Everything else is either divine in nature or man made. When you are dealing with divine law, God is the final arbiter of what is fair and right. When you are dealing with man-made laws, it is usually the majority, the reigning political power, or whomever has the biggest stick.

From a religious standpoint, we can sit and judge and say which laws are good and bad because we have either a direct or indirect divine reference.

Otherwise all bets are off. I mean if you are a despotic dictator and you constantly kill off your opponents, religious people would find that abbhorent--but non religious people may find it a problem or not. Depending on which side of the fence they find themselves.

And that is the problem with men meddling with divine laws.

[Hemidakota]

[COLOR="SeaGreen]Gays already have the liberty to live their lives as they choose, set up housekeeping, share income and expenses, make contracts and wills, and transfer property. What they are now demanding is respect and social standing for a lifestyle that others believe is immoral (like mixed-gender cohabiting).

That amounts to the minority forcing its views on the majority. Nobody is entitled to respect for behavior of which we don't approve.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would not merely permit a small number of people to choose alternate lifestyles (they are already doing that). It would force the rest of us to accept a public judgment that personal desire outweighs the value of traditional marriage and outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers.

If personal desire is to become the only criterion for public recognition of marriage, if equal rights and nondiscrimination require us to be neutral about who is eligible for marriage, how then can we deny marriage to those who want to marry a child, or a sibling, or more than one wife? All those practices are common in some other countries.

If a 13-year-old girl can exercise "choice" to "control her own body" and get an abortion, why can't she have the choice to marry? The Goodridge (Mass. same sex opinion) decision ruled that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."

Marriage must not be changed to mean merely two consenting persons agreeing to share quarters and start applying to the government and to employers for economic benefits. Marriage must continue to be recognized as the essential unit of a stable society wherein husbands and wives provide a home and role models for the rearing of children.

Where was the harm in introducing a gay character to a sitcom or even gay characters on all tv programming? In my humble opinion it opened the door for the lifestyle to be viewed as "funny", not harmful or wrong really. Harmless actually. Books like Heather has two Mommies and attacks on Boy Scouts will definitely increase. Why? Because that is a big part of the agenda. Total and complete acceptability. Eventually, opinions like mine will be out lawed as hate speech, like it is in other more enlightened nations.

I don't want my children being taught that they must accept alternative lifestyles and be spoon fed classes on why this is just as normal and correct and ok as being in a traditional marriage. It really is a Pandora's box and is so unnecessary.

It is a norm of 2-percent [those who subscribe to the Same Gender belief] of the population when society is governed by values. I forgot who actually said that though.

This is what the leadership is worried about - opening of a Pandora's Box. What’s next? It comes back to the two driving forces that are at work beyond the veil of mortality - Savior or Lucifer. We choose sides as we draw closer to the closure of the Telestial realm.

[Moksha]

It is not a political issue. It is a moral issue.

The issue is one of taking to the political arena to effect political change. Politics is that which goes into the ballot box. The moralizing comes in to form of justifying a political position.

[captain_nephi]

Would this result in the closure of LDS temples if forced to conduct marriage ceremonies and temple recommends in order to enable them...I'm just wondering how far the legislation goes in terms of determining what is discrimination and where state and church decisions end or begin?

Just 40 or more years ago, some courtrooms looked the other way when men, women, and children were lynched for the color of their skin. Women were treated as second-class citizens. etc. etc.

I would say anything is possible. And that is what concerns me most.

[DigitalShadow]

I'm leaving this discussion. I don't have time to respond to everyone and my view is in the severe minority here, so I'll leave it to everyone else to have fun in their pious gay bashing.

Edit: See apology a few posts later

Edited June 30, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[skalenfehl]

Would this result in the closure of LDS temples if forced to conduct marriage ceremonies and temple recommends in order to enable them...I'm just wondering how far the legislation goes in terms of determining what is discrimination and where state and church decisions end or begin?

And this is the perfect answer to DS's question of how it wouldn't personally affect another. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. History teaches us how one piece of legislation opens the door to more. It's called precedence. The more the secular world encroaches the religious or the moral world, the less room the moral world has. If I don't want to breathe in someone else's cigarette smoke, I can just walk away or go inside somewhere. If I don't want to enjoy TV anymore because of the garbage that is run nowadays, I have to turn it off. I might as well sell it. If I don't want to participate in the increasing secular or liberal activities of society then I might as well just stay home. Pretty soon, I won't have a place where my beliefs won't be affected. Let's just put all the moral people on reservations so the rest of the world can do what it wants.

If the government can say it is ok for homosexual people to marry, then why not allow them to be married in churches? And why not dictate to our prophet that gays are to be allowed in our temples? Hey, let's just threaten their legal status if they refuse? Let's tax the church's tithing next! Those Mormons work really hard. Heck let's appropriate some of their food storage! Does that sound radical? Does it sound improbable? This is how societies have fallen. They become corrupt and they fall. It doesn't take a genius to open up a history book and read about it. Just look at the qualities and characteristics of the citizenry, the government, and the rulers and you'll see we are falling in that same pattern. Most will say as long as it doesn't affect me personally...

Panem et circenses!!

[Hemidakota]

Bread and Circuses

For those who do not understand this latin phrase.

[bytor2112]

I am not "gay" bashing. I have stated my opinion about the subject. I disagree with there lifestyles but support there right to live that way. I just don't want the government stamping it with a seal of approval. I am sorry that Digital Shadow feels like an opinion opposite of his is pious "gay bashing". But, I think he did finally nail it, his view is in the severe minority and should not be made the law of the land. Edited June 30, 2008 by bytor2112

[skalenfehl]

I'm leaving this discussion. I don't have time to respond to everyone and my view is in the severe minority here, so I'll leave it to everyone else to have fun in their pious gay bashing.

Brother DS, I'm not gay bashing. I have friends who are gay and I participate in community functions with them and I am their friend. I simply stand on the opposite side of legislation than they do when it comes to what is unconstitutional and my reasons are far reaching. I simply look further down the road of consequence than others.

[DigitalShadow]

I am not "gay" bashing. I have stated my opinion about the subject. I disagree with there lifestyles but support there right to live that way. I just don't want the government stamping it with a seal of approval. I am sorry that Digital Shadow feels like an opinion opposite of his is pious "gay bashing". But, I think he did finally nail it, his view is in the severe minority and should not be made the law of the land.

I realize that you are not "gay bashing" and I apologize for the implication, I feel like crap today cause I have a cold and I'm somewhat frustrated and cranky. In the end, you are right that morality is dictated by the majority regardless of what the reasons behind it, but if you think I'm in the severe minority of the country, you are laughably mistaken. My view is in the severe minority of this forum because it is composed mostly of LDS members who have been instructed to directly oppose gay marriage, that is a no brainer. Keep in mind though, as you're touting how the views of the minority don't matter, that LDS members are in the severe minority of the country.

Edit: apology extends to everyone as well.

[DigitalShadow]

Brother DS, I'm not gay bashing. I have friends who are gay and I participate in community functions with them and I am their friend. I simply stand on the opposite side of legislation than they do when it comes to what is unconstitutional and my reasons are far reaching. I simply look further down the road of consequence than others.

Again, I apologize. Keep in mind though that the slippery slope argument goes both ways when looking into a hypothetical future.