"It's over: Gay marriage can't lose in courts" - Slate Magazine

[Lakumi]

The disintegration of the family has been going on for a long time; ~50% of marriages end in divorce, both parents working with kids being raised by government schools, cohabitation, children out of wedlock is common, single parent homes, etc.

As I've said before, IMO the right, moral solution is for government to get out of the marriage business. Let religions determine what is or isn't marriage not government.

I for one am looking forward to the 2nd Coming to shine a light on all the corruption and tyranny in the world.

both parents kind of have to work these days, what with the economy, that and not every woman wants to be a housewife, nor does every husband want to be a breadwinner

I enjoy cooking and the like for example, sort of a reverse if I could- but I know if I got married and had a family both of us would need to work, jobs pay less...Or I'd want the kid to have a collage fund or some such thing.

[Lakumi]

My frustration, is due to my knowledge and belief in exaltation. The support of Church members toward gay marriage allows brothers and sisters of ours who would have easily overcome this temptation...who now withdraw themselves from truth because the world accepts and tells them to embrace a lifestyle that is contrary to Divine Will.

I think its more then simple acceptance, if someone walked away from their faith, did they really have faith to begin with?

I didn't walk away from Catholosism because it was easier, it was because I didn't believe it.

I didn't believe what they told me, and there for felt it was a waste of my time. Just because you tell someone that something is the truth, doesn't mean they'll always believe you.

[notquiteperfect]

both parents kind of have to work these days, what with the economy, that and not every woman wants to be a housewife, nor does every husband want to be a breadwinner

I enjoy cooking and the like for example, sort of a reverse if I could- but I know if I got married and had a family both of us would need to work, jobs pay less...Or I'd want the kid to have a collage fund or some such thing.

Not necessarily. My dad worked and mom stayed home. They may have struggled but they made it work. It required sacrifices and thinking outside the box. Furthermore, it's not just about how much you make, but how you spend it. Even millionaires have gone bankrupt.

[Anddenex]

I think its more then simple acceptance, if someone walked away from their faith, did they really have faith to begin with?

I didn't walk away from Catholosism because it was easier, it was because I didn't believe it.

I didn't believe what they told me, and there for felt it was a waste of my time. Just because you tell someone that something is the truth, doesn't mean they'll always believe you.

In answer to your first question, the answer is simple, yes. Yes, people can walk away from their faith and faith can be lost if not nourished, if you disagree, reread Alma 32: beginning with verse 23.

Your personal experience, is true, to your personal experience and no way negates others who have lost faith, and now make a decision because it is widely accepted now.

Why did Nephi not teach his people of the manner of the Jews? Because he knew of their wickedness and how teaching something has the ability to influence people to make choices that they otherwise would not have made.

[Finrock]

This is what we, the disciples of Christ, ought to be working on with all of our might, mind, and strength:

6 Now, as you have asked, behold, I say unto you, keep my commandments, and seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion.

7 Behold, I speak unto you, and also to all those who have desires to bring forth and establish this work;

3 Behold, the field is white already to harvest; therefore, whoso desireth to reap let him thrust in his sickle with his might, and reap while the day lasts, that he may treasure up for his soul everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God.

4 Yea, whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap, the same is called of God.

5 Therefore, if you will ask of me you shall receive; if you will knock it shall be opened unto you.

6 Seek to bring forth and establish my Zion. Keep my commandments in all things.

7 And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.

6 And now, behold, I say unto you, that the thing which will be of the most worth unto you will be to declare repentance unto this people, that you may bring souls unto me, that you may rest with them in the kingdom of my Father. Amen.

10 Remember the aworth of souls is great in the sight of God;

11 For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him.

12 And he hath risen again from the dead, that he might bring all men unto him, on conditions of repentance.

13 And how great is his joy in the bsoul that repenteth!

14 Wherefore, you are called to cry repentance unto this people.

15 And if it so be that you should labor all your days in crying repentance unto this people, and bring, save it be one asoul unto me, how great shall be your joy with him in the kingdom of my Father!

16 And now, if your joy will be great with one soul that you have brought unto me into the kingdom of my Father, how great will be your joy if you should bring many souls unto me!

2 For verily, verily, I say unto you that ye are called to lift up your voices as with the sound of a trump, to declare my gospel unto a crooked and perverse generation.

3 For behold, the field is white already to harvest; and it is the eleventh hour, and the last time that I shall call laborers into my vineyard.

4 And my vineyard has become corrupted every whit; and there is none which doeth good save it be a few; and they err in many instances because of priestcrafts, all having corrupt minds.

5 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that this church have I established and called forth out of the wilderness.

6 And even so will I gather mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, even as many as will believe in me, and hearken unto my voice.

7 Yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that the field is white already to harvest; wherefore, thrust in your sickles, and reap with all your might, mind, and strength.

8 Open your mouths and they shall be filled, and you shall become even as Nephi of old, who journeyed from Jerusalem in the wilderness.

9 Yea, open your mouths and spare not, and you shall be laden with sheaves upon your backs, for lo, I am with you.

10 Yea, open your mouths and they shall be filled, saying: Repent, repent, and prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;

There is no way we can bring about God's purposes and establish Zion if we, who have been called to the work, are advocating and celebrating fornication and the destruction of marriage. These are the last days. The elect are out there. We must cry repentance and seek to let everyone know what their true purpose in life is. All of this chaos and confusion and talking heads who spout gibberish about how the world ought to be needs to be ignored. The scriptures tell us what we must do and they have never advocated that we honor and support sin, sinful behavior, and the destruction of an institution that God established to bring about His purposes.

Why are we happy to lead our brothers and sisters down a road that will not bring them eternal life? It just doesn't make sense. It is madness.

-Finrock

[Lakumi]

Not necessarily. My dad worked and mom stayed home. They may have struggled but they made it work. It required sacrifices and thinking outside the box. Furthermore, it's not just about how much you make, but how you spend it. Even millionaires have gone bankrupt.

I still would never ask that of any wife I had, nor would I place the family in financial troubles for a system I consider outdated

I think gender roles are absurd, people think differently.

Is it wrong that if given the chance to stay home and do all the home things or have a job I'd want to stay home, simply because I find a greater joy in making a meal or creating a home in my own ideas, then I do working in a thankless job?

But because I am a man that is wrong to think?

[Lakumi]

In answer to your first question, the answer is simple, yes. Yes, people can walk away from their faith and faith can be lost if not nourished, if you disagree, reread Alma 32: beginning with verse 23.

Your personal experience, is true, to your personal experience and no way negates others who have lost faith, and now make a decision because it is widely accepted now.

Why did Nephi not teach his people of the manner of the Jews? Because he knew of their wickedness and how teaching something has the ability to influence people to make choices that they otherwise would not have made.

I use myself as an example because I only truly know myself

it would be rather strange, at least to me, to try and use someone else as an example

[Guest]

Lakumi, it's not about women staying home to cook and do laundry. It's about mothers being the primary nurturers for their children, and fathers being providers.

But since you've pointed out many, many times that you have zero desire to be married, you don't need to worry about it.

[carlimac]

Hi Bini. I hope you're doing well! :)

God loves and embraces all of his children whether they have homosexual tendencies or not. It is precisely the fact that you and others identify people who have homosexual desires as "homosexuals" rather than just children of God who are struggling, like everyone else, with their particular weaknesses and trials.

I am a child of God and so are you and so are all of the other people on this earth, even those who have homosexual tendencies. That is our core identity. Before anything else, we were God's. When you realize AND accept the true purpose of this life it is utterly foolish and indeed delusional to advocate and support a cause that will further prevent our brothers and our sisters from receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ and those blessings that come from obedience to true principles.

-Finrock

I was on a random, non-religious forum the other day and tried to introduce the idea that homosexual attractions were merely attractions and not a whole identity ( as the church instructs) and that the attractions can be minimized. It was as if I were speaking a foreign language. Mostly, people out there in the world just don't understand that idea. Either you ARE homosexual or you're not. There is none of this having same gender attraction and controlling the urges business. The flaming responses I got to this idea that I presented with civility left me feeling so discouraged. Most of the worldly ideas are so far off from the LDS view of the situation that I truly wonder if it's even worth discussing it.

I am completely against gay marriage for anyone. I believe that the benefits of marriage should only be available to those who play by the rules of nature and creation. But I'm starting to cave a little in that if people out there have no belief in God and completely believe that they ARE in every sense of the word- a homosexual, is it really fair to deny them benefits. I do have just a smidge of empathy for them and understand their plight- at least the honest ones. Most, I think, are in this fight only to have their lifestyle validated as acceptable, even if they don't realize that's what they're after. They are hiding behind a mask of equal rights. I bet most don't give a poop about long term marriage. Just my guess.

For members of the church with same sex attraction and especially those who know the plan of salvation and believe that sex outside of marriage is sin, it's a horrible thing for them that govt. condones and even encourages marriage for them. I believe it makes it that much harder to resist temptation. And for youth questioning their orientation, making gay marriage legal muddies the water even more for them. I believe that this whole legalizing mess will only increase the number of youth who fall into the trap, thinking they are gay, get caught up in the destructive lifestyle and not be able to free themselves. It really is a tragic loss to many.

The whole thing is just depressing. I may be moving out of the Book of Mormon belt soon and may get a chance to introduce ideas to new friends in person. I'm shaking in my boots about it. It's just such a highly emotionally charged topic. I find that there is absolutely no openness of mind among gays and lesbians about the possibility that these attractions are controllable. They are VERY angry right now that anyone would even suggest such a thing. Scary angry.

Edited February 16, 2014 by carlimac

[Lakumi]

Lakumi, it's not about women staying home to cook and do laundry. It's about mothers being the primary nurturers for their children, and fathers being providers.

But since you've pointed out many, many times that you have zero desire to be married, you don't need to worry about it.

I see what you mean, regardless of my own personal choices and wishes in life.

[Finrock]

Good Morning carlimac. I hope you're feeling better! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :)

I quoted a scripture that I thought was relevant to what you said. I hope it is helpful.

The whole thing is just depressing. I may be moving out of the Book of Mormon belt soon and may get a chance to introduce ideas to new friends in person. I'm shaking in my boots about it. It's just such a highly emotionally charged topic. I find that there is absolutely no openness of mind among gays and lesbians about the possibility that these attractions are controllable. They are VERY angry right now that anyone would even suggest such a thing. Scary angry.

29 If thou art sorrowful, call on the Lord thy God with supplication, that your souls may be joyful.

30 Fear not thine enemies, for they are in mine hands and I will do my pleasure with them.

31 My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom.

32 Let him that is ignorant learn wisdom by humbling himself and calling upon the Lord his God, that his eyes may be opened that he may see, and his ears opened that he may hear;

33 For my Spirit is sent forth into the world to enlighten the humble and contrite, and to the condemnation of the ungodly.

34 Thy brethren have rejected you and your testimony, even the nation that has driven you out;

35 And now cometh the day of their calamity, even the days of sorrow, like a woman that is taken in travail; and their sorrow shall be great unless they speedily repent, yea, very speedily.

-Finrock

[Quin]

The disintegration of the family has been going on for a long time; ~50% of marriages end in divorce, both parents working with kids being raised by government schools, cohabitation, children out of wedlock is common, single parent homes, etc.

As I've said before, IMO the right, moral solution is for government to get out of the marriage business. Let religions determine what is or isn't marriage not government.

I for one am looking forward to the 2nd Coming to shine a light on all the corruption and tyranny in the world.

That's what IS happening, hopefully.

When the government has no say in who gets married, as long as they are legal adults able to make the decision to enter into a binding legal contract (which is what marriage is on a government basis, rights and protections granted to people entering into an agreement with each other).

Homosexuality & the # of legal adults are the last 2 places where the government defines who can enter into such a binding contract (technically, even children can be wed if they're past the age of consent, if their parents sign a waiver... And children younger than that can be betrothed as long as there is no abuse.).

It leaves us all to follow our religions.

My religion doesn't recognize gay marriage (nor 2+ person marriage) as holy matrimony. And that's fine. I can adhere to my own beliefs.

Meanwhile the branches of Anglican, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, and reform Judaism -amongst others- which DO recognize gay marriage as holy matrimony are free to practice and worship as they see fit.

Q

[yjacket]

both parents kind of have to work these days, what with the economy, that and not every woman wants to be a housewife, nor does every husband want to be a breadwinner

I enjoy cooking and the like for example, sort of a reverse if I could- but I know if I got married and had a family both of us would need to work, jobs pay less...Or I'd want the kid to have a collage fund or some such thing.

True and not true. Families today "perceive" that both parents need to be working. I used to work in a very high cost of living city. I started having kids and realized that in order to provide the lifestyle I wanted to provide in that area my wife would have to work. I could either have both of us work to get to that lifestyle, one work and not reach that lifestyle, give up on the lifestyle I wanted, or move. I choose to move.

Where is the priority, if the priority is that one parent will be at home with the children, then it can happen. There are some circumstances where it can't, but that probably has more to do with extraneous effects rather than one income.

Personally, I don't care who stays home with the kids as long as one parent is doing so. I think in general that ends up being the mom, but each family should make that conclusion themselves.

[yjacket]

That's what IS happening, hopefully.

I wish so, but I don't think so. Government support of marriage is so wedded into our laws it is very difficult to take out.

It all starts with income taxes; filing "married head of household". If we could do away with it being tied into income taxes then yes there is some hope, but that isn't going to happen.

It ends with Social Security, Medicare, and VA benefits. If none of these benefits existed or only applied to one individual rather than to spouses then yes, but ripping out expected benefits to get government out of marriage isn't going to happen.

The problem isn't homosexuals getting "married", the problem is too much government.

[Lakumi]

True and not true. Families today "perceive" that both parents need to be working. I used to work in a very high cost of living city. I started having kids and realized that in order to provide the lifestyle I wanted to provide in that area my wife would have to work. I could either have both of us work to get to that lifestyle, one work and not reach that lifestyle, give up on the lifestyle I wanted, or move. I choose to move.

Where is the priority, if the priority is that one parent will be at home with the children, then it can happen. There are some circumstances where it can't, but that probably has more to do with extraneous effects rather than one income.

Personally, I don't care who stays home with the kids as long as one parent is doing so. I think in general that ends up being the mom, but each family should make that conclusion themselves.

I donno about anymore, but when I was small kindergarden was half day, so my mom was home for that, but as soon as we both were in full time school she got a full time job, there was no need for her to be home, since neither of us were. We'd go to a friends house for like an hour until dad got home then went up home.

All we cared about was not missing pokemon or power rangers which we didn't so... it never bothered us

I mean I am only older by 2 years, and there's only the 2 of us kids, maybe it would have been different if there was more or we had a greater age difference.

[Just_A_Guy]

You mean, like the Church's lobbyists and lawyers kept Prop 8/ Amendment 3 on the books? /QUOTE]

Not at all. I'm not saying the church is going to be successful in every political gambit it launches. I'm saying I have faith that the Church is strong enough to defend itself. Pushing agendas is entirely different than maintaining structural integrity. . . .

We DO now.

We DO have the money, power, and influence today that we didn't have back then.

This discussion is taking on a bit of a "trust in the arm of flesh" flavor, but I'll indulge it for a moment.

An awful lot of segregationists viewed racial discrimination as a matter of maintaining "structural integrity". Didn't help the Bob Jones folks. Let us assume that, as of 1983, one in five Virginians was still a racist. That's 20%.

Now, you're telling me that even though 20% of a population couldn't muster the resources to defend what they perceived to be their "structural integrity", the LDS Church--at 2% of the American population (that's assuming full activity, so we're probably more like 1%)--will be able to muster the resources to stave off the prejudices of a people that democratically controls the mightiest government this earth has ever seen?

I don't think so.

Will Mormonism survive? Sure. But will it survive unscathed? Nope. The scriptures are replete with instances where, on a personal level, declaring one's allegiance to the Lord's church made one's life forfeit. In the last days, wickedness will be more prevalent than in those other periods; not less.

The issue isn't whether the Church will stand--the issue is what we, as its members, will have to give up in order to keep it standing.

And we're not alone.

The Catholic Church is even better funded and further entrenched in society, and probably our best shield politically, while the en masse host of religious organizations which want to maintain their own autonomy are also "with" us.

I agree with you that Catholicism provides a shield at present. I don't think it will last. There are some rather frightening numbers coming out--I saw some just last week--regarding how many Catholics disagree with their leadership on contraception, abortion, female ordination, sexual morality, and gay rights. I have a lot of respect for the current Pope; but I think even he knows which way the wind's blowing and I fear he is taking the first steps towards trimming his church's sails accordingly.

Churches that CHOOSE to allow women to hold the office, do.

Churches that do NOT choose to, are not forced to.

Churches are allowed to define the office of priest as they choose.

As church business.

For now, yes. But I think it's interesting how modern progressives take it as an article of faith that, once they have created a status quo of their choosing, it neither will nor can ever be changed--either further leftwards or back towards the right.

You believe our government is Satan???

I feel like I'm back in Iran, listening to people describe America.

I think there is much that is good about America and its government, but let's have no illusions.

--Do we live in a telestial society--yes or no?

--Is our government, ultimately, the ultimate expression of the political arm of that society--yes or no?

--Is Satan the prince of this earth--yes or no?

You can be a worthy LDS who supports equal rights for all, yet, does not support homosexual acts. There's an in between.

Very true. But bear in mind that there are forces in play who would use your ambivalence to (attempt) the ultimate destruction of the Lord's church. A Mormon who has had this explained to them, and continues to push for gay rights without also trying to safeguard freedom of conscience and free practice thereof for religions (and their adherents) who promote traditional interpretations of the law of chastity, shouldn't be surprised if those of us on the right start to publicly wonder whether that Mormon secretly wants this parade of horrors to come to pass in order to bring the Church into conformity with a more "enlightened" view of sexuality.

When the government has no say in who gets married, as long as they are legal adults able to make the decision to enter into a binding legal contract (which is what marriage is on a government basis, rights and protections granted to people entering into an agreement with each other).

A "license", legally, means "permission granted by another authority". If or when we truly agree that "the government has no say in who gets married", then logically we will also agree that state governments must stop issuing marriage licenses.

Right?

Edited February 16, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

Will Mormonism survive? Sure. But will it survive unscathed? Nope. The scriptures are replete with instances where, on a personal level, declaring one's allegiance to the Lord's church made one's life forfeit. In the last days, wickedness will be more prevalent than in those other periods; not less.

The issue isn't whether the Church will stand--the issue is what we, as its members, will have to give up in order to keep it standing.

I think that is a very salient question. Looking at quotes from Brigham Young's time, the Church gave up a lot to keep it standing.

A "license", legally, means "permission granted by another authority". If or when we truly agree that "the government has no say in who gets married", then logically we will also agree that state governments must stop issuing marriage licenses.

Right?

Yeap, governments stop issuing marriage licences and getting rid of all the government benefits to marriage.

Had government been out of marriage in the 1890s, polygamy might be a part of the Church today . . .

[raven2]

And then when we add this warning by those who hold the keys in this generation, "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." How long will the Lord stay his hand?

Thank you!

Its sad to see members of the church go against the clear teachings of Jesus Christ and the prophets.

[yjacket]

Thank you!

Its sad to see members of the church go against the clear teachings of Jesus Christ and the prophets.

I can't say that I agree with you, we need to make the distinction that just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right.

A plethora of legal behavior exists that is deplorable and will bring about destruction, out-of-wedlock births, one-night-stands, alcohol, smoking, etc.

I haven't seen hardly any members make the claim that homosexual "marriages" is morally right. I think it's none of the government's business to tell consenting individuals how they should run their lives, yet I've freely admitted if I had a homosexual son-he wouldn't be bringing it around my house (and if he had a "marriage" he'd get written out of the will!).

I can easily argue for legality of an action while at the same time condemning such actions.

Legality has to do with the power of the State, and we don't need the power of the State to condemn homosexual "marriages". We need the power of individuals to have the freedom to discriminate how they please without fear of retribution.

[Lakumi]

We need the power of individuals to have the freedom to discriminate how they please without fear of retribution.

In what insane way could that possibly work?!

Say that was a law, and you knew a homosexual man and felt like, I donno, spray painting hate messagaes on his door (or if there was no retrobution for anything, fire bombing) what's to say, he doesn't get to you first?

If no one was immune, everyone would just be out to get anyone they dislike

And it could turn into a war. Some lawless land where it is legal to murder anyone you dislike.

But maybe you didn't mean murder, just you feel no one should tell you that it was wrong to hate someone and tell them you can't hate people openly.

You don't think the church, or any church, wouldn't get any issues with that? A lot of people don't care for churches, would go both ways.

[Just_A_Guy]

Let's tone down the rhetoric. Discrimination ≠ vandalism, or assault, or murder. I am quite happy to deal with someone refusing to do business with me because I'm a Mormon, or a conservative, or a male, or straight, or wearing a green tie; if it means I can discriminate against someone who wants me to use my professional skills to aid and abet them in an activity I deem to be morally wrong.

And yes, you can hate someone openly. It's called "free speech", and the remedy to evil speech is more speech--not less. (At least, that's how it was until the advocates for evil gained control of the courts . . .)

[LittleWyvern]

Let's tone down the rhetoric.

Ok, then I think--

the advocates for evil gained control of the courts . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

It was intended to be more of a play on the original quote than an actual condemnation; sorry for the ambiguity.

I yield, sir. I yield.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

In what insane way could that possibly work?!

Say that was a law, and you knew a homosexual man and felt like, I donno, spray painting hate messagaes on his door (or if there was no retrobution for anything, fire bombing) what's to say, he doesn't get to you first?

If no one was immune, everyone would just be out to get anyone they dislike

And it could turn into a war. Some lawless land where it is legal to murder anyone you dislike.

But maybe you didn't mean murder, just you feel no one should tell you that it was wrong to hate someone and tell them you can't hate people openly.

You don't think the church, or any church, wouldn't get any issues with that? A lot of people don't care for churches, would go both ways.

??? What the . . . . going from discriminating to spraying hate messages on their door. 2 completely different issues.

This is why we are doomed as a society, people can not understand the different between protecting life,liberty, property!!

If you spray paint messages on their door you are violating their property rights and as a consequence should be held accountable. If I spray-paint my own door or business and someone then sues me and I'm held accountable then they are violating my property rights.

This isn't hard. Discriminating != violating someone else's rights, it means protecting my right to you know discriminate or to not interact with someone.

[Lakumi]

??? What the . . . . going from discriminating to spraying hate messages on their door. 2 completely different issues.

This is why we are doomed as a society, people can not understand the different between protecting life,liberty, property!!

If you spray paint messages on their door you are violating their property rights and as a consequence should be held accountable. If I spray-paint my own door or business and someone then sues me and I'm held accountable then they are violating my property rights.

This isn't hard. Discriminating != violating someone else's rights, it means protecting my right to you know discriminate or to not interact with someone.

I don't see what calling someone a gay or racial slur has to do with protecting life, liberty and property...

I could do without seeing hate signs on people's lawns, methinks that would lower property values... just saying, I would never live next to a homophobe or racist, and I think I am not the only one.

And yes people do have the tendancy to jump the gun, which is why that wouldn't work...