12 Reasons Why Gays Should Not Be Allowed To Marry

[Outshined]

Actually, we're all born non-denominational. Our environment decides our religious bent. Much as with sexual preference.................

[Rodney]

You do believe in our preexistence, don't you? You don't think some were born to be lazy while others were born more valiant and even others were actually born in the covenant?

[Outshined]

You're telling me that people are born with religious beliefs already in place? That some will be Hindu or Baptist or LDS no matter who raises them? Odd point of view, bro........

Laziness and such are not inborn at all, in my opinion.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 27 2004, 07:17 AM

Actually, we're all born non-denominational. Our environment decides our religious bent. Much as with sexual preference.................

Woa there skippy! Wasn't your brother in law raised in the same environment as your wife? Do you think she'll decide to be gay someday? It seems so obvious to me that homosexuality can be caused by choice in some circumstances, but is caused by biology in others. Obviously your brother in law made a choice. You're a smart (not to mention brave) guy, so look at science. The line between male and female is not always solid. There ARE people who are born with characteristics of both. They are called hermaphrodites. We are NOT all born hetrosexual. I'm still not advocating gay marriage, because I have my own prejudices about what is good for society, but I don't get this attitude that homosexuality is always a choice.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 27 2004, 08:28 AM

You're telling me that people are born with religious beliefs already in place? That some will be Hindu or Baptist or LDS no matter who raises them?

I would never be so presumptuous as to think I could tell you anything. Notice the question marks intermingled with my sentences?

You've perchance not heard of Mark E. Peterson (once a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) and some of his more infamous proclamations dealing with preexistence?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 27 2004, 11:14 AM

Woa there skippy! Wasn't your brother in law raised in the same environment as your wife? Do you think she'll decide to be gay someday? It seems so obvious to me that homosexuality can be caused by choice in some circumstances, but is caused by biology in others. Obviously your brother in law made a choice. You're a smart (not to mention brave) guy, so look at science. The line between male and female is not always solid. There ARE people who are born with characteristics of both. They are called hermaphrodites. We are NOT all born hetrosexual. I'm still not advocating gay marriage, because I have my own prejudices about what is good for society, but I don't get this attitude that homosexuality is always a choice.

Howdy, Curvette! Turns out my brother-in-law was molested at about the age of 12 by a family friend. Was this the trigger? Maybe. It's what he blames it on.

I personaly remain unconvinced that God just "makes" some people gay, any more than he makes some lust after children or animals. Perhaps some have no choice, but I've simply yet to see any solid evidence (hermaphrodites nothwithstanding) that this is so. I base my view on a rather large number of "gay" friends, including a lesbian couple who has babysat our children on occasion.

As a side note, I do know two people who exhibited tendencies of the other sex very young (one male, one female), and turned out to be homosexual later in life. The book is far from closed on this; science or someone simply needs to make the right discovery.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Rodney@Feb 27 2004, 11:31 AM

You've perchance not heard of Mark E. Peterson (once a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) and some of his more infamous proclamations dealing with preexistence?

I have, but don't particularly prescribe to all those views myself.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 27 2004, 11:35 AM

... science or someone simply needs to make the right discovery.

Like that's going to change some people's minds and attitudes... yeah, right. Hello. Is Paul O. out there?

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Outshined+Feb 27 2004, 11:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Feb 27 2004, 11:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rodney@Feb 27 2004, 11:31 AM

You've perchance not heard of Mark E. Peterson (once a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) and some of his more infamous proclamations dealing with preexistence?

I have, but don't particularly prscribe to all those views myself.

Good for you! That's what I like about your church. Pick and choose. Free agency taken to the hilt. Rah, rah, rah, yaaaa-hooooo!

[Outshined]

I was raised a Southern Baptist, and joined the LDS Church later in life. The Church encourages us to study and think for ourselves, and I do.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Feb 25 2004, 07:30 PM

Let's remember one thing. Homosexual activity in any sense, in any degree, is abominable before God. The purpose of marriage is for the sanctity of Celestial progression. Does anyone remember Soddom and Gamorrah(not spelled right)? That should be it right there! Now, do I think there should be a law prohibiting them from such activity as marriage. That's tough, one thing we must all do is ask, do we allow drinking, smoking, gambling, pornography...etc? The answer to the latter is yes. So one hand you would have to say "Should we take away the rights to things that don't damage us personally?" However, as Latter-Day Saints we must stand with our conviction. Marriage is SACRED, an institution presented and preserved for the building of Family. Can a homosexual "couple" produce(without adoption) a family? That would be no. Can a homosexual "couple" be married in the Temple for all eternity...no. Can a homosexual(male) couple hold the priesthood while practicing said sexual lifestyle? The answer again is no. If we are to break through the barrier of Satan's influence we must prevent the opportunity of promoting and further recognizing homosexuality as a union of sorts before ever festering beyond control of the means by which it was brought forth. In short all man has the agency to live WITHIN the law, part of that agency is to MORALLY influence through process of Democracy, that which the LAW entails.

Yes, perhaps THE STATE ought not to regulate a "sacred" religious institution.

Hmmm...... Maybe THE STATE should only issue licenses for CIVIL UNIONS, which would be any 2 people who wish to set up a household together, with the attendent rights and obligations that THE STATE currently bestows upon and exacts from married couples. People could then have the right to MARRY in the "eyes of god" as well, however they wished, and consider themselves joined "sacredly" as well as legally.

In fact, I'll take this one step further and suggest that those who wish to MARRY could do so in any form they desire, be it polygamy or whatever their particular religious tenants allow. However, THE STATE would only allow 2 of the partners to legally join in order to obtain the privelages granted in return for the legal obligations that CIVIL UNIONS entail.

Thus,

1) 2 people can legally form a CIVIL UNION only, with the attendant rights and responsibilities as a "household". Thus, they are joined in the eyes of THE STATE ONLY.

2) Anyone with a CIVIL UNION could also then MARRY under the auspices of their particular religious beliefs in any ceremony they so choose; in which case they would be joined in BOTH the eye of THE STATE and of their god.

3) Anyone would be free to MARRY whomsoever and howsoever they wish without a license from THE STATE to do so. Since these "sacred" only unions would not be licensed by THE STATE, they would not be given any of the "perks" such a license would bestow, but they would also not be legally tied or obligated to these other persons either. They would be joined in the eyes of god ONLY.

Children produced in any of these unions would be protected the same way they are today, by establishing paternity and requiring biological parents to provide for their offspring. Many many people today who have never been married to the other parent do provide for the child, there are laws already inplace to enforce this.

Religiously MARRIED people could still buy homes together, etc, using the legal methods that gay couples currently use. THE STATE might need to re write the current domestic partnership laws, but I think that it's doable. Instead of gay couples having to jump through legal hoops to cover their legal "bases" as regards property and/or children, MARRIED ONLY people would have to.

This scheme gets THE STATE out of licensing a "sacred", religious institution, and allows religious groups the freedom to follow their beliefs and MARRY how they will. Their consciences and religous beliefs would have to guide them through any problems that might arrise if their marriages subsequently ended. Any obligations would be morally enforced only.

Mormons could then reinstate polygamy! If god revealed it, that is.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Feb 26 2004, 01:05 PM

Wow, unfortunately some of you are misssing the point. One, God didn't make anyone gay...that is a very sad suggestion. Whether or not that is a temptation a person must deal with is another story; but no more a temtptation than I have to keep my pants on when I meet a chick who wants to get at it between the sheets. Homosexuality is wrong, not because we are discriminatory or biggots of any sort, but because the Lord has brought forth as much concerning this grievous sin. Being that the Lord has asked OBEDIENCE of us that kind of ends the argument on whether it is right or not. As far as rights go, why would you want an act that is not recognized by God to be legalized. Wouldn't that make you a social token? I thought the "homosexual movement" was trying to move out of the shadows of novelty and obscurity and into "normalcy"(for lack of a better phrase). Anyway, if you asking me whether or not I think it should be allowed. That is based purely on my conviction as a Latter-Day Saint. I would never IMPOSE anything on someone because I believe freedom to choose is key, however, democracy is the voice of the VOTE. Therefore I would much rather see such practices of homosexuality nullified. Remember, when you stand before the Judgement Bar of God, do you really want to be known to have supported acts of abomination. Affiliation or association with any such movements is getting too close to the line, and that is what the adversary wants. Also, merely opposing in standard is not biggotry, persacution and hate is biggotry. I don't hate those who "think" they are homosexual, however, I ABHOR that sin...just as the Lord does. I would hope to see all those caught in that web break free and find their true calling within the Lord's church...His Kingdom on Earth.

Please use paragraphs, it makes reading so MUCH easier! Thanks in advance! :)

[Ray]

bizabra,

Do you realize that you’re trying to redefine marriage? Do you realize that you’re trying or at least hoping that you can get a STATE to agree with your ideas, and change the laws to what you think they should be?

If you’re successful at convincing a STATE that they should do things differently, will you then try to get other states, and maybe even the rest of the WORLD to change the way they feel about marriage. And if you’re successful there, will you then try to change the laws of GOD?

The reason that marriage is defined as it is for a STATE is because that is the way that STATE has defined it. True, there may be room for improvement with some laws in a STATE, but when a STATE is in agreement with the laws of GOD, that’s as perfect a law as you’re ever going to get.

And as always, if you don’t like the laws of any particular government, you can live somewhere else.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bizabra@Feb 27 2004, 11:47 AM

Yes, perhaps THE STATE ought not to regulate a "sacred" religious institution.

Hmmm...... Maybe THE STATE should only issue licenses for CIVIL UNIONS, which would be any 2 people who wish to set up a household together, with the attendent rights and obligations that THE STATE currently bestows upon and exacts from married couples. People could then have the right to MARRY in the "eyes of god" as well, however they wished, and consider themselves joined "sacredly" as well as legally.

In fact, I'll take this one step further and suggest that those who wish to MARRY could do so in any form they desire, be it polygamy or whatever their particular religious tenants allow. However, THE STATE would only allow 2 of the partners to legally join in order to obtain the privelages granted in return for the legal obligations that CIVIL UNIONS entail.

Thus,

1) 2 people can legally form a CIVIL UNION only, with the attendant rights and responsibilities as a "household". Thus, they are joined in the eyes of THE STATE ONLY.

2) Anyone with a CIVIL UNION could also then MARRY under the auspices of their particular religious beliefs in any ceremony they so choose; in which case they would be joined in BOTH the eye of THE STATE and of their god.

3) Anyone would be free to MARRY whomsoever and howsoever they wish without a license from THE STATE to do so. Since these "sacred" only unions would not be licensed by THE STATE, they would not be given any of the "perks" such a license would bestow, but they would also not be legally tied or obligated to these other persons either. They would be joined in the eyes of god ONLY.

Children produced in any of these unions would be protected the same way they are today, by establishing paternity and requiring biological parents to provide for their offspring. Many many people today who have never been married to the other parent do provide for the child, there are laws already inplace to enforce this.

Religiously MARRIED people could still buy homes together, etc, using the legal methods that gay couples currently use. THE STATE might need to re write the current domestic partnership laws, but I think that it's doable. Instead of gay couples having to jump through legal hoops to cover their legal "bases" as regards property and/or children, MARRIED ONLY people would have to.

This scheme gets THE STATE out of licensing a "sacred", religious institution, and allows religious groups the freedom to follow their beliefs and MARRY how they will. Their consciences and religous beliefs would have to guide them through any problems that might arrise if their marriages subsequently ended. Any obligations would be morally enforced only.

Mormons could then reinstate polygamy! If god revealed it, that is.

I think it comes down to what kind of society we are building for children and future generations.

When you destroy the 'boundaries' of acceptable and not acceptable behavior....even at the homosexual/polygamy level, you start a mud slide effect on the boundaries which becomes destructive.

Where do you draw the line? Will it be age next? Will children be able to shuck their parents and marry at 12 or 13? Will it be with animals? If you want to marry your favorite dog? ....What next?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Rodney@Feb 27 2004, 10:31 AM

You've perchance not heard of Mark E. Peterson (once a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) and some of his more infamous proclamations dealing with preexistence?

I don't remember his views on homosexuals (although I could guess), but I do remember his very racist views on Blacks and even Asians and all people of non white ancestry. It's quite amazing to think about now.

[sgallan]

And as always, if you don’t like the laws of any particular government, you can live somewhere else. *****

And vice versa of course if you don't like the laws.

The nice thing about living in a Democratic Republic is my views have as much right to be aired as yours. It becomes a political battle. And even a bit of a cultural values battle. Given the attitudes, and laws, with regards to homosexuals just 20 years ago, versus today, I'd suggest my "side" is winning. And much like racial issues of another generation, and even the battle to given a woman the right to vote, this genie is out of the bottle. It is only a matter of time.

[Outshined]

In any democratic society, laws can be adopted to reflect the "progressive" ideologies of the people.

Much as in some of the more "progressive" countries in Europe, beastiality is now legal. Is it right? That's whole different issue......

[sgallan]

Beastiality is animal abuse. Homosexuality is people who are wired in such a way that they are attracted to members of the same sex. The actual "doing it" aspect is only a side issue in the reality of their day to day lives. But of course is what many of those who are against it focus on.

[Ray]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 27 2004, 01:02 PM

And as always, if you don’t like the laws of any particular government, you can live somewhere else. *****

And vice versa of course if you don't like the laws.

The nice thing about living in a Democratic Republic is my views have as much right to be aired as yours. It becomes a political battle. And even a bit of a cultural values battle. Given the attitudes, and laws, with regards to homosexuals just 20 years ago, versus today, I'd suggest my "side" is winning. And much like racial issues of another generation, and even the battle to given a woman the right to vote, this genie is out of the bottle. It is only a matter of time.

As the laws of this Earth agree with the laws of Heaven, and as people obey those laws, the more people on Earth will be in agreement with the people in Heaven.

You’ll always be able to find people who are not obedient to law, and some will even go so far as to make laws in total opposition to the laws in Heaven, but what happens to those people in the end? I hope everyone will figure that out before they actually see it happen to them.

[sgallan]

Ray -

The threats of your religions apparently scary god definition hold no more sway on me than do those of the radical forms of Islam, who consider me as being part of an entity called the great Satan. It is why I am glad I live in a Democratic Republic as a secularist. If I didn't live in such a place there would be many who may want to incarcerate, or even kill me, in the various theocracies.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 27 2004, 02:20 PM

Homosexuality is people who are wired in such a way that they are attracted to members of the same sex.

I guess that's where the roads diverge. If I really believed that such folks were "wired" that way by nature, it would be a different story.

[sgallan]

Outshined -

Because of the religious paradigm I doubt many would believe it even if they found the so-called "gay gene". Why do I say this? Well look at all the people who believe in things like the flood, and even a young earth, despite the enormous evidence against it. Besides, I don't really care what causes it. They are gay, they are no longer attracted to members of the opposite sex in that way. If they ever were. Most Gay folks (including family) say they were not. Many of whom had heterosexual attempts in their youth. Now, the thought to them is as "out there" and even "revolting", as me liking a male in "that way". As such, I just except them as they are and move on. But because various (usually religious) groups want to impose their various religious beliefs on others, Gays are still treated as second class citizens, deviants, or in the worse case senario..... something to be exterminated. Fortunately the more enlightened socities - including ours - are (slowly) ridding themselves of those ancient superstitious beliefs, and practices, and a concept once thought bizarre, is now being debated as acceptable in all levels of societal function. I consider it progress.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 27 2004, 05:06 PM

I consider it progress.

I hear you; I have gay family members as well.

I'm just not so sure that I consider it progress myself.

[Guest Starsky]

Fortunately the more enlightened socities - including ours - are (slowly) ridding themselves of those ancient superstitious beliefs, and practices, and a concept once thought bizarre, is now being debated as acceptable in all levels of societal function. I consider it progress.

I don't see it as progress....rather I see it as digression of the worst kind. I see no good end...and I'm not speaking religiously here.

My minor in college was child developement....and what I see in our society today as these kinds of things take over....is not a good thing.

[Ray]

Scott,

What if someone thought that it didn’t feel right to have to pay for things, when you can just take what you want and deal with the people that get in your way?

What if someone thought it didn’t feel right to have to put up with someone’s idiosyncrasies, because they felt it was so much easier to just shoot em?

What if some scientists determined that some people just felt naturally inclined to steal, or to kill, or to do something else that most people thought were wrong?

Should we allow thieves and murders to live in peace, just because they are doing what comes naturally?

Some things are wrong whether some people feel naturally inclined to do it or not.

How do you think we should determine whether or not something is right or wrong?

By whether or not someone’s behavior affects someone else, maybe?

How do you think it would be for a child to grow up in a home without a father, or a mother, not because of divorce, but because both parents were of the same sex?

Who would be that child’s role model, if both parents happened to be an opposite sex?

How would a child determine what was “natural”, if everyone around him or her, from the time they were born and throughout their young lives, acted “unnaturally”?

And btw, in case you’ve forgotten, it is “natural” for a male to be attracted to a female, and vice versa. Some people would have you believe that "gay" people are a whole other gender, not male or female, but “gay”. Where is the sense in that?