Prop 8. and temple recommends

[PrinceofLight2000]

The morality of the issue doesn't concern me, really. You may think it is immoral, and that is fine. That is your opinion based on what you believe is revealed truth. There are other religions who disagree. While this is an LDS forum and I must concede to your morality point simply on the basis that the church rules it as such, in the secular sphere your argument doesn't hold up.

You seem to be saying that a homosexual person cannot be a moral person. I highly disagree. In addition, I think you would have a hard time justifying the inability of a homosexual to be moral outside of a religious context.

I could turn your secuarlist morality around on you by saying it is immoral to vote away a civil right of a minority (and since sexual orientation is a protected class in California, and the May 2008 ruling of the court specified marriage as a civil right in California, that is exactly what prop 8 did. I realize this doesn't apply federally or to all states at this time, just in California).

Morality is too subjective to be legislated without justifyable cause. You may have made a morally secular argument, but you left out the justification. It isn't enough to say gay unions don't do anything for society (a point I discredited with legal testimony, but that you simply dismissed without justification). To claim homosexuality is immoral you must show that it harms others - which you simply cannot do from a secular, scientific point of view.

By the way, the science is not out on the mutability of homosexuality. Every credible scientific organization agrees it is not mutable. You said that "maintaining" such tendencies are a choice, but you are misinformed. The tendencies don't go away when ignored. If you haven't been through reparative therapy (as I have), you really have no idea. Of course, if you know how to make such tendencies dissapear, I'm sure there are therapists around the globe who would welcome such knowledge.

Can one choose celibacy? Sure. But that doens't make one less gay. It makes someone a celibate gay. Whether one chooses celibacy is a religious question, not a secular one, and it certainly should not be forced on all members of society because of your definition of "moral."

Ironically, to do so would be rather immoral...

That's how your morality appeals to you, so legislate it. Don't take it through the courts. If you truly believe marriage is a basic, natural civil right, at the very least be a good citizen and respect the Constitution and the rule of law - propose an amendment. Additionally, yes, an actively homosexual person is not by any means a moral person. Those with homosexual tendencies who keep those tendencies in check, however, are very moral people. That's how my morality appeals to me.

The judiciary has no place in declaring rights out of whole cloth, unsubstantiated in the Constitution. What you're speaking to promotes the tyrannical idea of judicial activism and oligarchy. Again, if you believe marriage despite sexual orientation is a right and not a privilege, amend it into either your state constitution or the federal one. Morality is neutral in the Constitution so that we may legislate it, and also by being silent it gives states the right to put forth morality in their own constitutions. In order to change that neutrality, we must change the text of the Constitution itself, not the meaning of the Constitution based on the whim of an activist judge.

As I stated in a much earlier post, defining a "justifiable cause" for legislating morality is a completely moral discussion in and of itself. Because of this we're legislating morality no matter how you slice it. We agree that all morality should be legislated based on direct harm to others. However, we part ways because we define what classifies as harm based on our respective views on morality.

Additionally, I'm disturbed by this attitude you have in which morality must be determined by a "secular, scientific point of view". As I pointed out before, morality can be independent from religion and faith. I can believe homosexuality is wrong for alternative reasons aside from "God says it's wrong" as I see fit. Secondly, science has absolutely no bearing on morality whatsoever. To claim that science governs morality is an extremely dangerous attitude. By that logic, we must accept the random nature of evolution, abandon our sentience, and live as animals do because the science of Darwinian evolution is interpreted as saying we're no different from animals except by having stronger brains.

As for science having a consensus on homosexuality being immutable, they're simply incorrect. There are anecdotal cases in which formerly homosexual people have claimed to be fully heterosexual, and do not have any susceptibility for homosexual tendencies. You seem to forget that Heavenly Father has power over all things, including the biochemistry of your brain. In which case, I would ask you how much you truly desire your homosexual tendencies to be removed. When we align ourselves with Heavenly Father, we are blessed beyond what we, or even science can perceive. I should be more clear about my definition when stating "Maintaining the tendency". Maintenance of that tendency is created by doing nothing to silence it, which circles back to what you desire.

Should it not be forced on society? Your morality dictates that conclusion. My morality differs. Regardless, neither of us should be abusing and warping the court system to determine constitutional problems with things that have nothing to do with the Constitution. So legislate your morality. Don't impose it on me by tyrannical oligarchy.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Prince: Personally, for all of the adopted children and parents out there, I think it should look like this:

Adoption <= Propagation, although I'm sure some will argue it is even >=.

Since we're discussing morality, I don't see how it is moral to strip these children of stable families because they are adopted, even if you do think their parents are immoral. Can you elaborate please?

In addition, you forgot this one:

Surrogacy == propagation

That equation is incorrect. Adoption can never be anything equal to propagation. It doesn't bring new lives into the world, though it may put existing ones in a better living environment.

The definition of a stable family is also an entirely moral discussion. I'll quote the TV show CSI, I believe it was.

"I'd rather have my daughter know a bad father, than no father at all."

Now, apply that quote to a lesbian couple. Also, apply the word mother in place of father for gay male couples. I believe it's morally and socially important for children to be raised in families with a father and mother, male and female respectively, in order to function best in a society where men and women have distinctive roles. Only a mother can mother, and only a father can father. Two fathers does not include a mother.

Also, I believe surrogacy is also immoral when it is used to further homosexuality. Which means we can legislate that.

Edited August 9, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[GaySaint]

Additionally, yes, an actively homosexual person is not by any means a moral person.

From a secular or religious standpoint? If secular, I'd be interested in hearing your justification for this.

The judiciary has no place in declaring rights out of whole cloth, unsubstantiated in the Constitution.

Why not? This has been done loads of times. The famous example? Marriage and race. There are also two federal case laws that directly define marriage as a right (Loving vs Virginia and Perez v. Lippold). It can legally be denied to homosexuals only because sexuality is not a federally protected suspect class.

Morality is neutral in the Constitution so that we may legislate it

I disagree. I think it is neutral because it cannot be fairly legislated

As I stated in a much earlier post, defining a "justifiable cause" for legislating morality is a completely moral discussion in and of itself. Because of this we're legislating morality no matter how you slice it. We agree that all morality should be legislated based on direct harm to others. However, we part ways because we define what classifies as harm based on our respective views on morality.

I gave you secular justifiable cause for my position. You ignored it because it doesn't provide a benefit for you. You have yet to do this (and I can show how I am harmed by your morality). I have no issue with your justification being religious, if you would just say so, but you seem intent on the secular, which is why I'm continuing this conversation. Hash it out dude, and present it please.

Additionally, I'm disturbed by this attitude you have in which morality must be determined by a "secular, scientific point of view".

You said you had a secular reason for denying same-sex marriage that was based on secular morality. I was just trying to find out what that was. I agree that morals don't need to be secular - but you are the one who claimed you could defend this position, and that intrigued me.

As I pointed out before, morality can be independent from religion and faith.

I agree, which is why I think homosexuals can be moral.

I can believe homosexuality is wrong for alternative reasons aside from "God says it's wrong" as I see fit.

Agreed. I just haven't heard you say what these reasons are!

To claim that science governs morality is an extremely dangerous attitude.

I didn't mean to claim it did. Was I unclear?

As for science having a consensus on homosexuality being immutable, they're simply incorrect. There are anecdotal cases in which formerly homosexual people have claimed to be fully heterosexual, and do not have any susceptibility for homosexual tendencies.

The exception, not the rule. Even the church teaches that most will not have this outcome.

You seem to forget that Heavenly Father has power over all things, including the biochemistry of your brain. In which case, I would ask you how much you truly desire your homosexual tendencies to be removed. When we align ourselves with Heavenly Father, we are blessed beyond what we, or even science can perceive. I should be more clear about my definition when stating "Maintaining the tendency". Maintenance of that tendency is created by doing nothing to silence it, which circles back to what you desire.

Hmmm... too bad you know nothing about me, or what I've been through in this regard. It's easy to blame failure on "not wanting it enough" or "not trying hard enough" when you have no idea what you are talking about. I find this attack on me personally (not that I mind - I kind of get used to it), laughable.

For the record I really like talking to you! I find it refreshing to hash out how I'm feeling, and hope I'm helping you do the same. We'll probably never agree, but both of us are sharpening our positions. Thank you.

[GaySaint]

Only a mother can mother, and only a father can father. Two fathers does not include a mother..

You should know that, again, every credible scientific study done in this area concludes that a child raised by same-sex parents can be just as well off as one raised by heterosexual parents. I'll provide links so you can review the studies yourself if you'd like.

That said, I agree with you. I don't think a father should try to be a mother, or vice-versa. My children will have two fathers.

I have quite the extensive data on this subject. But, again, from a religious context, I understand your concerns with this, and am not trying to change your mind. You should just know that discussing this issue, particularly with someone who doesn't believe in God, is going to require a bit more than "only a mother can be a mother."

[Soulsearcher]

That equation is incorrect. Adoption can never be anything equal to propagation. It doesn't bring new lives into the world, though it may put existing ones in a better living environment.

The definition of a stable family is also an entirely moral discussion. I'll quote the TV show CSI, I believe it was.

"I'd rather have my daughter know a bad father, than no father at all."

Now, apply that quote to a lesbian couple. Also, apply the word mother in place of father for gay male couples. I believe it's morally and socially important for children to be raised in families with a father and mother, male and female respectively, in order to function best in a society where men and women have distinctive roles. Only a mother can mother, and only a father can father. Two fathers does not include a mother.

Also, I believe surrogacy is also immoral when it is used to further homosexuality. Which means we can legislate that.

Yes adoption doesn't equal propagation, doesn't mean it can't make a family, as you said it can contribute into making a child's life better.

As for the quote depends who said it. If it was the character i think it is, she's speaking as a single mother with an ex husband who is a lil messed up and a really poor example of what a father should be. Now there's a few flaws in this argument. The quote made i believe was made by a single parent who was hoping a child could know her other parent in some little way so she knew him, and had him in her life even if at a slight distance so as not to corrupt the child. So this doesn't cover a same sex home with two parents. In the case of a same sex family both parents are there, capable of the exact same faults and graces that any other family can exhibit. We see mixed families exist with two mothers and two fathers and the complications that come from this, but we embrace it even though it really can do damage to the kids if the integration goes poorly.

It is legal for single women to have children, is it moral? not my place to say, but it is legal. There are men out there who are raising kids alone as a choice as well, again this is legal. Is it the perfect ideal, not at all, but it happens. Kids now are facing a higher chance of being raised in a single parent home, with no contact at all from the other parent and while society does not always like it, they do not regulate it except to makes sure the child is well cared for.

If we hold society to the perfect norm we are tossing out the reality of the way the world is and will be. Lots of single lds parents and more than a few who limit or exclude the other parents from their child's lives. The excuse that a child is missing a father or mother isn't an argument to keep kids away from gay people it's a comment that sadly this already exists in society and gay couples are trying to give children home in which they are loved, supported, taken care of and raised to an ability that is equal to that of any other person trying to raise a child. Men and women aren't born knowing how to raise kids, getting married doesn't make anyone a fit parent. It comes from trial and error and who the person is. Yes mothers and fathers can offer things to their children, but it's not all based on gender roles. I know mothers that can't mother to save their child's lives, and i know fathers that make better mothers than their wives ever could. People supporting the family's are scared of what might be, or the damage that might be done, they like to blame liberal society for the damage done to families, but they forget that it's the families that are to blame. The parents make choices, the children make choices based on what they are taught or the level of interaction of the parents. Does society play a small part, you bet, but i find it's the easy way out, blame others for what you do to your own family. It's not the gay people that are going ot destroy families, families are already going down hill. We aren't going to make a difference that's noticeable, it's just the expectation of families that's been allowed to slide by society in general, and yes sadly LDS are part of this, just read through the post here and notice it. People put so much of the blame on everyone but them when it comes to why things go bad, so why not add gays as a scapegoat instead of realizing their mistakes?

[Justice]

Justice: I have to take issue with your idea that the only reason someone would engage in same-sex behavior is because of addiction.

I didn't say it was the only reason, I used that intending to counter the claim that it may be an addiction for some. But, it was one of the reasons I addressed.

In fact, I said even when it is an addiction, it is still a behavior choice, and it was a behavior choice that led to the addiction if it is an addiction.

Same sex behavior is a choice. I believe I said that. And, I said all sexual behavior is a choice.

Same Sex Attraction isn't a choice. A person doesn't wake up one day and decide to be attracted to the same sex. I believe a person's experiences and upbringing *can* have an influence in some cases. But, if the SSA wasn't already in a person they would never decide to have SSR.

I think you read what you wanted. I certainly never said addiction was the only reason. However, I agree that I may not have been clear.

[PrinceofLight2000]

From a secular or religious standpoint? If secular, I'd be interested in hearing your justification for this.

Why not? This has been done loads of times. The famous example? Marriage and race. There are also two federal case laws that directly define marriage as a right (Loving vs Virginia and Perez v. Lippold). It can legally be denied to homosexuals only because sexuality is not a federally protected suspect class.

I disagree. I think it is neutral because it cannot be fairly legislated

I gave you secular justifiable cause for my position. You ignored it because it doesn't provide a benefit for you. You have yet to do this (and I can show how I am harmed by your morality). I have no issue with your justification being religious, if you would just say so, but you seem intent on the secular, which is why I'm continuing this conversation. Hash it out dude, and present it please.

You said you had a secular reason for denying same-sex marriage that was based on secular morality. I was just trying to find out what that was. I agree that morals don't need to be secular - but you are the one who claimed you could defend this position, and that intrigued me.

I agree, which is why I think homosexuals can be moral.

Agreed. I just haven't heard you say what these reasons are!

I didn't mean to claim it did. Was I unclear?

The exception, not the rule. Even the church teaches that most will not have this outcome.

Hmmm... too bad you know nothing about me, or what I've been through in this regard. It's easy to blame failure on "not wanting it enough" or "not trying hard enough" when you have no idea what you are talking about. I find this attack on me personally (not that I mind - I kind of get used to it), laughable.

For the record I really like talking to you! I find it refreshing to hash out how I'm feeling, and hope I'm helping you do the same. We'll probably never agree, but both of us are sharpening our positions. Thank you.

1. Religious. But it doesn't have to be, as I said before. One can believe homosexuality is wrong because it damages society.

2. Simple. Race discrimination has its own amendment. Prior to that amendment, courts had no jurisdiction in determining morality by race, the legislature did. Also, defining what classes should be suspect and on what basis is yet another question of morals. In this debate, race is irrelevant from a secular standpoint because heterosexual couples of differing race do not preclude procreation.

3. Again, morals determine what is fair and what is not. The only concept of fairness originally outlined in the Constitution was to respect the legal process and to not deny natural, inalienable rights currently existing in the Constitution.

4. Just because you used morals defined by secular ideas doesn't make it somehow less a moral discussion. My point is that both religious and secular moral reasoning should constitutionally be on a legally equal plane because of the Constitution's neutrality, although that has been usurped by the judiciary. Additionally, you may believe you are directly harmed by my morality, but I argue your morality harms society and thereby indirectly harms others.

5 & 6. I simply stated secular reasoning can be used in addition to religious reasoning, not that it must be. Apparently you determined that because you seem to reject religious morality on the whole.

7. My reasoning is that homosexuality, again, does nothing for the state vested interest in propagating society.

8. Yes, you were unclear, haha.

9. They are the exception based on great faith. As you said, only celibacy is required of those who cannot overcome their homosexual desires because they lack the faith in Heavenly Father for it, while not lacking the faith in obeying his commandments. That does not mean it isn't possible for every homosexual person to be able to come to God and receive the blessing of having those desires lifted from them. I believe each homosexual should actively work to achieve that goal, to overcome.

10. Grow your faith. You may not be to the point where it's strong enough to overcome your desires, but you can still reach that point. Others have done so. Use them as an example. Furthermore, must we not all do the same thing to overcome our unrighteous desires to be at one with Heavenly Father's will? I admit that yours is an incredibly difficult challenge, and I can't imagine how difficult it would be for myself to face such a test. But that just proves all the more that you are the type of person who has the potential to be more valiant in the Lord's word than I am. Our individual trials are a reflection of the true potential of our inner strength to overcome them. I pray that someday you will come to terms that your chosen lifestyle is not in line with the truth of God's word, and that you will defeat it no matter what the difficulty is. As our hymn says, "Do what is right, let the consequence follow". I testify this last point to you in the name of Jesus Christ.

I like talking to you too, lol. There's quite a difference in disagreeing and being disagreeable, isn't there? Either way, we made our points and it looks like neither will be swayed. So thanks for the discussion.

Edited August 10, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Justice]

But to claim gay people can't have joy in having children is ludicrous (and I realize you aren't saying this exactly). Like I said earlier, there are millions of children being raised by gay couples in the US every day.

"Being raised by..." is VERY different than "couples having children."

If all relationships were homosexual, it wouldn't take long for man to be wiped out.

You should put a little thought into what people say. This is a no-brainer.

The fact is courts can only give homosexual marriages the same rights as heterosexual marriages as far as they can have children. Property is easily divided. Children (that are had in common) cannot be divided. Children are the great product of marriage... and a homosexual marriage is incapable of producing them.

The two marriages are not the same. They never will be. It doesn't matter what people who have SSA think or say. The children that come as a result of marriage is one of the two great purposes for marriage, and what defines a marriage. You cannot compare it to heterosexual couples who cannot have children because after the resurrection they will be able to. Homosexual marriages will STILL not be able to have children after the resurrection. It is not in God's purposes or design. It is a challenge or trial, nothing more.

Male and femal are eternal genders. Both are required for offspring.

[Soulsearcher]

"Being raised by..." is VERY different than "couples having children."

If all relationships were homosexual, it wouldn't take long for man to be wiped out.

You should put a little thought into what people say. This is a no-brainer.

The fact is courts can only give homosexual marriages the same rights as heterosexual marriages as far as they can have children. Property is easily divided. Children (that are had in common) cannot be divided. Children are the great product of marriage... and a homosexual marriage is incapable of producing them.

The two marriages are not the same. They never will be. It doesn't matter what people who have SSA think or say. The children that come as a result of marriage is one of the two great purposes for marriage, and what defines a marriage. You cannot compare it to heterosexual couples who cannot have children because after the resurrection they will be able to. Homosexual marriages will STILL not be able to have children after the resurrection. It is not in God's purposes or design. It is a challenge or trial, nothing more.

Male and femal are eternal genders. Both are required for offspring.

Can you please post where there is a legal definition of marriage that requires that a couple reproduce?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Yes adoption doesn't equal propagation, doesn't mean it can't make a family, as you said it can contribute into making a child's life better.

As for the quote depends who said it. If it was the character i think it is, she's speaking as a single mother with an ex husband who is a lil messed up and a really poor example of what a father should be. Now there's a few flaws in this argument. The quote made i believe was made by a single parent who was hoping a child could know her other parent in some little way so she knew him, and had him in her life even if at a slight distance so as not to corrupt the child. So this doesn't cover a same sex home with two parents. In the case of a same sex family both parents are there, capable of the exact same faults and graces that any other family can exhibit. We see mixed families exist with two mothers and two fathers and the complications that come from this, but we embrace it even though it really can do damage to the kids if the integration goes poorly.

It is legal for single women to have children, is it moral? not my place to say, but it is legal. There are men out there who are raising kids alone as a choice as well, again this is legal. Is it the perfect ideal, not at all, but it happens. Kids now are facing a higher chance of being raised in a single parent home, with no contact at all from the other parent and while society does not always like it, they do not regulate it except to makes sure the child is well cared for.

If we hold society to the perfect norm we are tossing out the reality of the way the world is and will be. Lots of single lds parents and more than a few who limit or exclude the other parents from their child's lives. The excuse that a child is missing a father or mother isn't an argument to keep kids away from gay people it's a comment that sadly this already exists in society and gay couples are trying to give children home in which they are loved, supported, taken care of and raised to an ability that is equal to that of any other person trying to raise a child. Men and women aren't born knowing how to raise kids, getting married doesn't make anyone a fit parent. It comes from trial and error and who the person is. Yes mothers and fathers can offer things to their children, but it's not all based on gender roles. I know mothers that can't mother to save their child's lives, and i know fathers that make better mothers than their wives ever could. People supporting the family's are scared of what might be, or the damage that might be done, they like to blame liberal society for the damage done to families, but they forget that it's the families that are to blame. The parents make choices, the children make choices based on what they are taught or the level of interaction of the parents. Does society play a small part, you bet, but i find it's the easy way out, blame others for what you do to your own family. It's not the gay people that are going ot destroy families, families are already going down hill. We aren't going to make a difference that's noticeable, it's just the expectation of families that's been allowed to slide by society in general, and yes sadly LDS are part of this, just read through the post here and notice it. People put so much of the blame on everyone but them when it comes to why things go bad, so why not add gays as a scapegoat instead of realizing their mistakes?

Both parents are not there when you morally determine one parent needs to be a mother, and another to be a father.

It is immoral to use artificial insemination in that fashion, and because it's a moral question we can legislate it. The law right now says it's acceptable. I see nothing wrong with changing that through processes given by the Constitution.

Again, I would argue a child living with two same sex parents is akin to living with a single parent, because either a mother or father is not present. Whether the traditional gender roles apply in a mother-father family is irrelevant because children should be taught through their parents how to interact in societies that comprise both males and females.

No, marriage doesn't define maturity, but it's still a necessary step in procreation. A financial argument can be made for that, as well as a moral one of teaching a child that marriage is necessary by example.

The families may be to blame by choice, but the liberal societies are to blame by tolerance. Tolerance leads to acceptance, and acceptance leads to practice.

Same sex marriage does destroy the traditional family needed to effectively and properly propagate society as defined by my morals, it's being done on multiple fronts. Divorce is rampant, as are fornication and adultery, and children being born out of wedlock. Now we've got this to deal with.

Edited August 9, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Justice]

Just a few points.

The morality of the issue doesn't concern me, really.

You will find this to be true of every person who chooses to engange in immoral behavior.

Can one choose celibacy? Sure. But that doens't make one less gay. It makes someone a celibate gay.

True. Refusing to engange in SSR doesn't remove the SSA, but the SSA is not a behavior. It's the behavior that is condemned, not the attraction. It is the behavior that is the moral issue, not the attraction.

If a man who is married to a woman is attracted to another woman, it is not morally wrong. Unless, he feeds this attraction and acts on the urge and has a relationship with her. Now he enganged in immoral behavior.

Feeding these attractions and urges are what we have to avoid doing. The attractions that lead to immoral behavior can be overcome.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Can you please post where there is a legal definition of marriage that requires that a couple reproduce?

You seem rather fond of putting man's law ahead of God's law. Just because it's not legally required now, doesn't mean that it couldn't or shouldn't be through a constitutional process. Procreation is the one of the great miracles of marriage, marriage should never be determined solely by romantic love. Of course, people medically incapable of producing babies will be granted an exception because their gender allows them the opportunity had it not been for the medical problem. Not to mention that they'll be able to do so in the afterlife when exalted.

Edited August 9, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Justice]

Can you please post where there is a legal definition of marriage that requires that a couple reproduce?

I don't have to.

Without reproduction a species dies.

That's a good enough definition for me.

You are asking for a legal definition, which I will never cave in to.

I will give you this (please see the bolded paragraph):

“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

“In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

“We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

“Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. ‘Children are an heritage of the Lord’ (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

“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”

You may disagree with any points of this declaration, but I will not argue those points.

To think lawyers or legal devices can decide what marriage is and what its purpose is is ridiculous. God sets the terms for marriage and has dictated its purpose. It doesn't matter if the whole world disagrees... the majority can never decide truth.

[bytor2112]

Justice....I wish I could double or triple thank!

[Soulsearcher]

Both parents are not there when you morally determine one parent needs to be a mother, and another to be a father.

It is immoral to use artificial insemination in that fashion, and because it's a moral question we can legislate it. The law right now says it's acceptable. I see nothing wrong with changing that through processes given by the Constitution.

Again, I would argue a child living with two same sex parents is akin to living with a single parent, because either a mother or father is not present. Whether the traditional gender roles apply in a mother-father family is irrelevant that children should be taught through their parents how to interact with societies that comprise both males and females.

No, marriage doesn't define maturity, but it's still a necessary step in procreation. A financial argument can be made for that, as well as a moral one of teaching a child that marriage is necessary by example.

The families may be to blame by choice, but the liberal societies are to blame by tolerance. Tolerance leads to acceptance, and acceptance leads to practice.

Same sex marriage does destroy the traditional family needed to effectively and properly propagate society as defined by my morals, it's being done on multiple fronts. Divorce is rampant, as are fornication and adultery, and children being born out of wedlock. Now we've got this to deal with.

It's not a matter of making a parent be either. Again mother and father is something that with today's gender roles has been blurred quite a bit and in single parent families they play both parts.

A great many of families don't properly teach children to properly interact with anyone. Children honestly gain most of their interaction skills through school and social activities, parents can help but for the most part they don't have the impact a lot of people think they do in this area, and i think this is a good thing, considering the amount of dysfunctional marriages, if kids used this as the only example it would be worrisome.

Marriage under the law has nothing to do with procreation, it's a vital part to procreation in a religious sense to remain in good standing but has no legal backing.

tolerance leads to acceptance only goes so far. We've had gay marriage here for a few years, haven't seen it really affect people who were against it when it started. This will affect people who are with in this group of people, you can swear it's going to make things worse, but considering it didn't exist and marriage in general from a secular point of view became a joke, there really can't be enough that wasn't done already.

As you say, you are judging the situation by your morals, which you have all the right to do, that doesn't give it any legal backing. Take your morals out and look at the facts and you don't seem to have much to stand on as has been pointed out by a few people.

[Soulsearcher]

I don't have to.

Without reproduction a species dies.

That's a good enough definition for me.

You are asking for a legal definition, which I will never cave in to.

I will give you this (please see the bolded paragraph):

“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

“In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

“We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

“Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. ‘Children are an heritage of the Lord’ (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

“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”

You may disagree with any points of this declaration, but I will not argue those points.

To think lawyers or legal devices can decide what marriage is and what its purpose is is ridiculous. God sets the terms for marriage and has dictated its purpose. It doesn't matter if the whole world disagrees... the majority can never decide truth.

I won't argue the church position, i support it in the fact that it's a personal belief. However you've said in a number of posts that there is a requirement from something other than a religious need to limit marriage to people who can procreate. It's not a matter you cave into, it's a matter you've suggested the fact more than once as a legal argument.

Procreation is not a legal requirement for any marriage, therefore it can't be used as a legal argument against same sex marriage. Keep using it as a moral argument, that's what you hold dear, but it has no legal standing.

[PrinceofLight2000]

It's not a matter of making a parent be either. Again mother and father is something that with today's gender roles has been blurred quite a bit and in single parent families they play both parts.

A great many of families don't properly teach children to properly interact with anyone. Children honestly gain most of their interaction skills through school and social activities, parents can help but for the most part they don't have the impact a lot of people think they do in this area, and i think this is a good thing, considering the amount of dysfunctional marriages, if kids used this as the only example it would be worrisome.

Marriage under the law has nothing to do with procreation, it's a vital part to procreation in a religious sense to remain in good standing but has no legal backing.

tolerance leads to acceptance only goes so far. We've had gay marriage here for a few years, haven't seen it really affect people who were against it when it started. This will affect people who are with in this group of people, you can swear it's going to make things worse, but considering it didn't exist and marriage in general from a secular point of view became a joke, there really can't be enough that wasn't done already.

As you say, you are judging the situation by your morals, which you have all the right to do, that doesn't give it any legal backing. Take your morals out and look at the facts and you don't seem to have much to stand on as has been pointed out by a few people.

Father and mother cannot be blurred, for they will always be male and female, respectively. What their roles are in respect to how that family works best for its own needs are what change.

Utterly and despicably wrong. It is first and foremost the parents' responsibility to teach the child about interaction, not the government's. My parents insisted to me ten years ago when I was a child that fornication was wrong, whereas the government now takes a position similar to "If you're gonna do it, use protection". Also, there should be a distinction when a teacher acts as a friend, not a teacher, and shows the child a strong example of a traditional family, as opposed to teaching what that family should be in the classroom.

You're right. Tolerance doesn't affect people who are adamantly against gay marriage. It does, however, affect children who haven't learned the difference, or people who are on the fence regarding the issue.

All legal arguments are inherently moral ones. All legislation is inherently legislation based on morals. Just because you interpret what is moral differently than what I do based on man's law, doesn't make it any less constitutional for me to impose a higher law which is also based on morals by the same process of legislation. Again, we must draw a line between what is constitutional and what is moral. The judiciary has jurisdiction over constitutional matters. The legislature has jurisdiction over moral ones.

Edited August 10, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Soulsearcher]

Father and mother cannot be blurred, for they will always be male and female, respectively. What their roles are in respect to how that family works best for its own needs are what change.

Utterly and despicably wrong. It is first and foremost the parents' responsibility to teach the child about interaction, not the government's. My parents insisted to be ten years ago when I was a child that fornication was wrong, whereas the government now takes a position similar to "If you're gonna do it, use protection". Also, there should be a distinction when a teacher acts as a friend, not a teacher, and shows the child a strong example of a traditional family, as opposed to teaching what that family should be in the classroom.

You're right. Tolerance doesn't affect people who are adamantly against gay marriage. It does, however, affect children who haven't learned the difference, or people who are on the fence regarding the issue.

All legal arguments are inherently moral ones. All legislation is inherently legislation based on morals. Just because you interpret what is moral differently than what I do based on man's law, doesn't make it any less constitutional for me to impose a higher law which is also based on morals by the same process of legislation.

I never said government played a part of socially forming interactions i said it happens at school. Peers play a huge part in forming children, a lot of times more than their parents. As to your comment on the teachers, is this implying that along with teaching what the curriculum says that you support them bringing their personal view into the classroom?

I'm not sure i really see the issue with people accepting but not agreeing with gay people. We are what we are, like it or not most of us believe we were born this way, we know people disagree and you have as much right as we have to believe what we do about you, it hasn't been proven either way. Accepting we are who we are and letting us live our lives really is not going to have the impact people think it will. There's always going to be fear, hate, misunderstanding, and religious condemnation, just like there will always people who sympathize with us. I don't see this as a world ending thing. It reminds me of an analogy on the process of elections in the states. " 40% are republican, they don't care what the candidate says, just that he's republican. There's 40% for the democrats, who are in the same boat. that leave the hands of the country in the hands of the last 20%, people who vote the issues, they read, listen, do their home work, and in the end go with their hearts and minds" You're worried about that 20%, problem is that they are going to make a choice and it's usually an informed one. Yeah there might just be the fools who follow culture and fads, but for the most part people are going to make a choice that's right for them. Tolerance isn't going to be enough to sway them, it might play a part, but in the end it's not going to be enough. Both sides like to use fear. The gay side uses fear of things done to us in the past and what we might lose. The religious people fear what might be, what they might be forced to give up. Families aren't going to decline because out of 6 billion people less than 500,000,000 are gay, give or take. 5.5 billion people will be there to carry on the race. Families aren't going to decline because we see another group of people go through exactly what mainstream goes though. What we add to society is more people seeking to show a committed monogamous relationship rather than what society is starting to show people. We aren't going to turn kids gay because a) to us they are born that way and b) not sure how many of us forget the hell we went through growing up like that and wishing we could change it or be different. The fear of the temple thing, i really can't promise, i can say i hope we have enough good taste to never try and force the issue, but really teach a group to hate enough and it's funny to see how far they are willing to go.

I have no issue with the religious moral conflicts, and yes they spill over to your secular conflicts as well, might not like it but it's true. We aren't going to agree, but that being said make sure you are fighting the right battles here. Look at the countries that have these laws and notice no huge changes yet, and yes i know i use the word yet, but you are sure these things will happen, but you can't know for sure.

Now every time i ask for you to provide a legal basis for your claims on procreation being a legal limit to marriage you have redirected. It's ok that you don't have one cause we know it's not there. It was a moral argument and i get that. Please do not use a legal argument that does not exist, you can keep making arguments about constitution and legislation and why it's ok for one persons morals to appear higher than the others, a classical fault by the way, but if you present an argument as a legal basis without backing it in any way then it just wastes my time and your time.

[PrinceofLight2000]

I never said government played a part of socially forming interactions i said it happens at school. Peers play a huge part in forming children, a lot of times more than their parents. As to your comment on the teachers, is this implying that along with teaching what the curriculum says that you support them bringing their personal view into the classroom?

I'm not sure i really see the issue with people accepting but not agreeing with gay people. We are what we are, like it or not most of us believe we were born this way, we know people disagree and you have as much right as we have to believe what we do about you, it hasn't been proven either way. Accepting we are who we are and letting us live our lives really is not going to have the impact people think it will. There's always going to be fear, hate, misunderstanding, and religious condemnation, just like there will always people who sympathize with us. I don't see this as a world ending thing. It reminds me of an analogy on the process of elections in the states. " 40% are republican, they don't care what the candidate says, just that he's republican. There's 40% for the democrats, who are in the same boat. that leave the hands of the country in the hands of the last 20%, people who vote the issues, they read, listen, do their home work, and in the end go with their hearts and minds" You're worried about that 20%, problem is that they are going to make a choice and it's usually an informed one. Yeah there might just be the fools who follow culture and fads, but for the most part people are going to make a choice that's right for them. Tolerance isn't going to be enough to sway them, it might play a part, but in the end it's not going to be enough. Both sides like to use fear. The gay side uses fear of things done to us in the past and what we might lose. The religious people fear what might be, what they might be forced to give up. Families aren't going to decline because out of 6 billion people less than 500,000,000 are gay, give or take. 5.5 billion people will be there to carry on the race. Families aren't going to decline because we see another group of people go through exactly what mainstream goes though. What we add to society is more people seeking to show a committed monogamous relationship rather than what society is starting to show people. We aren't going to turn kids gay because a) to us they are born that way and b) not sure how many of us forget the hell we went through growing up like that and wishing we could change it or be different. The fear of the temple thing, i really can't promise, i can say i hope we have enough good taste to never try and force the issue, but really teach a group to hate enough and it's funny to see how far they are willing to go.

I have no issue with the religious moral conflicts, and yes they spill over to your secular conflicts as well, might not like it but it's true. We aren't going to agree, but that being said make sure you are fighting the right battles here. Look at the countries that have these laws and notice no huge changes yet, and yes i know i use the word yet, but you are sure these things will happen, but you can't know for sure.

Now every time i ask for you to provide a legal basis for your claims on procreation being a legal limit to marriage you have redirected. It's ok that you don't have one cause we know it's not there. It was a moral argument and i get that. Please do not use a legal argument that does not exist, you can keep making arguments about constitution and legislation and why it's ok for one persons morals to appear higher than the others, a classical fault by the way, but if you present an argument as a legal basis without backing it in any way then it just wastes my time and your time.

http://www.lds.net/forums/525341-post136.html

There isn't currently a law that says it's a legal limit. However, again, all laws are predicated on a greater shared morality amongst the people of a society. It's certainly ok from a constitutional basis to impose such laws pertaining to the matter, from both sides of a moral issue. The relativist approach you're taking ("a classical fault") is a dangerous one. If we are not to determine legal standards based on morality, from what should we determine them? What the government says? Or should we let the people move toward populist anarchy and cause society to collapse? That's exactly what the Founders wanted to protect against by giving the power to determine and enforce morality to the people, by legislation.

Edited August 10, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Soulsearcher]

http://www.lds.net/forums/525341-post136.html

There isn't currently a law that says it's a legal limit. However, again, all laws are predicated on a greater shared morality amongst the people of a society. It's certainly ok from a constitutional basis to do impose such laws pertaining to the matter, from both sides of a moral issue. The relativist approach you're taking ("a classical fault") is a dangerous one. If we are not to determine legal standards based on morality, from what should we determine them from? What the government says? Or should we let the people move toward populist anarchy and cause society to collapse? That's exactly what the Founders wanted to protect against by giving the power to determine morality to the people, by legislation.

History has shown however that there are times the moral majority is wrong and needs to be put in it's place. The morals of the majority are not always what's best for the country. The problem by legeslating only popular morals is again, they have been wrong in the past and as a country the US only grew by leaving those morals behind and growing. the fact you use extreme examples rather than looking at possible solutions that are plausible and could make both sides happy goes to show why we worry about religious morality being the guiding force of the country, where does it stop? If people think the only good world is the world defined by a guy from 2000 years ago that even they can't agree on then the country is in trouble. You keep quoting the frame work of the country, but the founders made the judicial branch to help solve these questions. They knew times would come when it would be needed for people not to rule solely by morals, but by what the laws said. " the judiciary generally does not make law (that is, in a plenary fashion, which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case." The vote on prop 8 made the law, the gov made sure no gay marriages could take place, and a judge looked at application of the law and found it to go against the state constitution. Seems like everything worked just fine.

As for being relativist, depends exactly how you apply the term. The basic use is like saying " this is true for me but not for you." Not sure i have said that though if you want to point out exactly where i did you can. What i have said is this being a "moral truth" is subjective as really no one can prove which side is morally right. Each side has a opinion that will not be backed down from. so not sure exactly where i am being a relativist, but i know you'll point it out

[PrinceofLight2000]

Also, just one more quick point, Soulsearcher. You keep asking me for a legal argument. How is my constitutional/legislative argument not a legal argument? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

[Soulsearcher]

Also, just one more quick point, Soulsearcher. You keep asking me for a legal argument. How is my constitutional/legislative argument not a legal argument? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

You have said you have a legal basis to block gay marriage. Saying it can be blocked doesn't give a reason why. You've made the same comments over and over but haven't ever said a single thing about where the legal basis to block them is. You pointed to procreation as a legal basis but it doesn't hold up. The judicial branch was asked to interpret a law, which to my understanding is it's job, and now that law has been struck down. Not sure I'm seeing the part where the whole system failed.

[PrinceofLight2000]

History has shown however that there are times the moral majority is wrong and needs to be put in it's place. The morals of the majority are not always what's best for the country. The problem by legeslating only popular morals is again, they have been wrong in the past and as a country the US only grew by leaving those morals behind and growing. the fact you use extreme examples rather than looking at possible solutions that are plausible and could make both sides happy goes to show why we worry about religious morality being the guiding force of the country, where does it stop? If people think the only good world is the world defined by a guy from 2000 years ago that even they can't agree on then the country is in trouble. You keep quoting the frame work of the country, but the founders made the judicial branch to help solve these questions. They knew times would come when it would be needed for people not to rule solely by morals, but by what the laws said. " the judiciary generally does not make law (that is, in a plenary fashion, which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law (which is the responsibility of the executive), but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case." The vote on prop 8 made the law, the gov made sure no gay marriages could take place, and a judge looked at application of the law and found it to go against the state constitution. Seems like everything worked just fine.

As for being relativist, depends exactly how you apply the term. The basic use is like saying " this is true for me but not for you." Not sure i have said that though if you want to point out exactly where i did you can. What i have said is this being a "moral truth" is subjective as really no one can prove which side is morally right. Each side has a opinion that will not be backed down from. so not sure exactly where i am being a relativist, but i know you'll point it out

First, you have consistently completely forgotten the fact that LEGISLATION CAN BE REPEALED AND CHANGED BY INITIATIVES, THAT IS WHY IT'S ALLOWED. When morality in the people's mind changes, the legislation can change as well.

You're incorrect also about your interpretation of how judicial review applies. The judicial branch clarifies the Constitution, it doesn't fabricate rights not present in it by "interpreting law". Furthermore, this judge DID NOT rule based on his state's constitution, he ruled based on premises in the federal Constitution. Additionally, I argued in a previous reply that his analysis was incorrect.

http://www.lds.net/forums/524684-post82.html

The bold statement proves you're a relativist. Perceptions of what morality is are subjective, but moral truth is not.

[Soulsearcher]

First, you have consistently completely forgotten the fact that LEGISLATION CAN BE REPEALED AND CHANGED BY INITIATIVES, THAT IS WHY IT'S ALLOWED. When morality in the people's mind changes, the legislation can change as well.

You're incorrect also about your interpretation of how judicial review applies. The judicial branch clarifies the Constitution, it doesn't fabricate rights not present in it by "interpreting law". Furthermore, this judge DID NOT rule based on his state's constitution, he ruled based on premises in the federal Constitution. Additionally, I argued in a previous reply that his analysis was incorrect.

http://www.lds.net/forums/524684-post82.html

The bold statement proves you're a relativist. Perceptions of what morality is are subjective, but moral truth is not.

K I'll accept that last bit though it's splitting hairs. I should have stated it as " the fact you consider your stance the moral truth, is subjective" which is what i did mean.

So to you we must wait for the majority to morally consider the change for change to happen? I haven't forgotten, i just don't think we need to always wait for the majority to realize it's wrong to make a change. If we waited for the majority to accept the civil right movement i think it might have taken a bit longer. Though again that is speculation.

As for how the judicial branch works i very well could be wrong, I just went by the definitions from varied sources. The question i have is that if this law suit shouldn't have been legally possible, how did it happen? They knew this out come was a possibility so if cases like this can't happen, why did it? And if your argument about how the verdict was reached is right then you have nothing to worry about because the next two courts can't support something that has no basis in legality right?

[PrinceofLight2000]

K I'll accept that last bit though it's splitting hairs. I should have stated it as " the fact you consider your stance the moral truth, is subjective" which is what i did mean.

So to you we must wait for the majority to morally consider the change for change to happen? I haven't forgotten, i just don't think we need to always wait for the majority to realize it's wrong to make a change. If we waited for the majority to accept the civil right movement i think it might have taken a bit longer. Though again that is speculation.

As for how the judicial branch works i very well could be wrong, I just went by the definitions from varied sources. The question i have is that if this law suit shouldn't have been legally possible, how did it happen? They knew this out come was a possibility so if cases like this can't happen, why did it? And if your argument about how the verdict was reached is right then you have nothing to worry about because the next two courts can't support something that has no basis in legality right?

No, not necessarily the majority, although that would give it a lot more power. The Founders gave us a representative democracy to prevent against complete populism. In many ways, when we vote for a candidate, we choose what morals we want to support as well. that does not mean such legislators should ignore the will of the people, since the people are supposed to have the majority of the power. That's why we also have initiatives, and why elected officials need to respect those initiatives. If they don't, there's a process for that as well. We vote out the legislators and put in people who would reinstate the morality present in the initiative.

It happened because, as I have said, the judge decided to usurp power and make something constitutional out of a moral issue to be determined by the legislature. Just because a case is brought to court doesn't mean that it should be heard. The judge should have shown restraint and not taken on the case. Remember, the Constitution is neutral on morality not determined by rights outlined inside it. There's no amendment which states that marriage is a right; changing the text of the Constitution to change that neutrality. I would not support any similar court decision. If this usurpation of power continues through the Supreme Court, which it has in other issues, I've got a lot to worry about.