Utah gay marriage ban overturned, court rules

[Meerkatarmy]

If you can not see a difference between an illgal act such as child abuse, fruad etc and two consensual adults in love getting married then I will pray for you sir.

[bytor2112]

I knew it was a mistake posting on this thread as a gay Mormon. The difference between things that are against the law and same sex relationships is the fact things that are illegal generally hurt people or property. I know your response will be that same sex relationships hurt people but I can assure you they do not. I am loved by Christ, Heavenly Father, my partner and on the whole members of my ward and actively gay so my sexuality does not hurt me.

 

I hope you won't see your posts as a mistake, but this is a mostly LDS audience that reads and posts. As such, I most often post from a doctrinal standpoint and an Eternal perspective.

 

While ss marriage may offer happiness in this life to some as they suppose happiness to be, it cannot in the ultimate and Eternal sense offer anything but Eternal damnation.I am certain the Heavenly Father loves you and all of HIS children and equally certain that HE wants each of us to "overcome" our weaknesses and not give in to them and trade Eternal joy for temporary contentment.

[The Folk Prophet]

If you can not see a difference between an illgal act such as child abuse, fruad etc and two consensual adults in love getting married then I will pray for you sir.

 

Once again, I didn't say that. You seem to want to pick a fight. I'm not engaging.

[MrShorty]

Following this logic one would have to contend, legally, for complete anarchy.

 

There are many things that "free" agency allows for that are curtailed by the laws of the land, and quite reasonably so.

 

Correct. On the other hand, there are many "sinful" activities that are legal according to the law of the land. It seems to me that the heart of the debate over SSM is whether or not this particular sinful activity warrants legislative prohibition or not.

[Meerkatarmy]

I hope you won't see your posts as a mistake, but this is a mostly LDS audience that reads and posts. As such, I most often post from a doctrinal standpoint and an Eternal perspective.

 

While ss marriage may offer happiness in this life to some as they suppose happiness to be, it cannot in the ultimate and Eternal sense offer anything but Eternal damnation.I am certain the Heavenly Father loves you and all of HIS children and equally certain that HE wants each of us to "overcome" our weaknesses and not give in to them and trade Eternal joy for temporary contentment.

I think it is complicated and with out going into the personal details of my relationship, I would not marry and keep the laws that all Mormons are expected to regardless of who they are attracted to. I do this as a member of a church I chose to join. I gained my own tesomony and whilst it has been shaken it grows in strength and I know pride is a sin but I am proud to be a Mormon; I was well aware of the doctrinenal stand point on ss relationships and I came to the decision my tesomny is too strong and my love for the Saviour to strong to not become a member and serve him. But may be I was a bit confrontatual or what ever in my first post or not clear. I feel that people who have not made that commitment should be allowed to marry members of the same sex. And the leaders of the church should for want of a better and more respectful phase keep their noses out and concentrate on what their members are doing.

I do not believe in eternal damnation and I do not believe that to be doctrine I believe it is in doctrine and convents 33 ( I do not have my scriptures with me to check) That Joseph Smith asks about his brother that died before he had a chance to hear the gospel and the Lord told him all will have the opportunity once passed to here the gospel and be offered a place in his kingdom and they are free to listen or reject. My understanding is if you reject it isn't really damnation you just will not be truly happy because you will not be reunited with your Heavenly Father. Please do not see this as confrontation it isn't meant to be and it is just  my understanding. Our differing inturpritations and view points on the gospal is what makes the church rich with interesting people rather than just drone repeating what a preacher says.

[bytor2112]

I do not believe in eternal damnation and I do not believe that to be doctrine I believe it is in doctrine and convents 33 ( I do not have my scriptures with me to check) That Joseph Smith asks about his brother that died before he had a chance to hear the gospel and the Lord told him all will have the opportunity once passed to here the gospel and be offered a place in his kingdom and they are free to listen or reject. My understanding is if you reject it isn't really damnation you just will not be truly happy because you will not be reunited with your Heavenly Father. Please do not see this as confrontation it isn't meant to be and it is just  my understanding. Our differing inturpritations and view points on the gospal is what makes the church rich with interesting people rather than just drone repeating what a preacher says.

 

Eternal Life is Exaltation, it is the kind of life our Heavenly Father lives as one of HIS names is Eternal and it is only obtained by entering into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage. So, Eternal damnation...is indeed being "damned", prevented, stopped, if you will from progressing towards your Exaltation.

[Backroads]

We Mormons don't make our nuances in vocabulary easy, do we?

[Just_A_Guy]

I feel that people who have not made that commitment should be allowed to marry members of the same sex. And the leaders of the church should for want of a better and more respectful phase keep their noses out and concentrate on what their members are doing.

 

I understand that position to some degree.  My concerns are

--a) as you point out, it becomes foundational to later efforts to deny religious conservatives the right to disagree and to pattern their behavior on the basis of that disagreement;

--b ) marriages--as you point out--are essentially subsidized by state benefits, most of which were instituted because marriage meant something more than a mere legal announcement of who was in an ostensibly monogamous sexual relationship with whom.  Those benefits were often calculated based on the fact that the relationship was likely to produce children; and/or that one party to the marriage would not be in the workforce full-time.  If we're going to re-define marriage to remove those elements, then naturally there needs to be a conversation about whether modern "marriage"--however we define it--is worth subsidizing and whether the benefits traditionally granted to "married" individuals need to remain in place.

--c) if there do wind up being social effects to gay marriage (more volatility/divorce among such relationships, for example; or more domestic violence, or a tendency amongst children raised in these homes to act out criminally or have mental health defects or be able to establish stable marriages of their own over the long term)--in a society that embraces "rugged individualism" we can just say "well, that's there problem, not mine", or widespread abuse of same-gender marriage as a sham to get student benefits, or Social Security benefits, or whatever)--I'm going to be paying for those; and so yes--it is my business.  Most of the studies I've seen claiming that there are no ill effects on children raised in same-gender households seem to get there by taking the traditional problems of children raised without a father or a mother, and saying they aren't really "problems" at all--for example "yeah, the kids become sexually active earlier--but what's wrong with that, really?  Yeah, the kids need counseling more--but don't we all have undiagnosed issues?  Yeah, the kids might have divorces down the road--but these days, divorce just a rite of passage en route to middle age.  Yeah, the kid might not learn proper respect for women without a female role model in the house--but males are naturally misogynists anyways."

 

 

 

I do not believe in eternal damnation and I do not believe that to be doctrine I believe it is in doctrine and convents 33 ( I do not have my scriptures with me to check) That Joseph Smith asks about his brother that died before he had a chance to hear the gospel and the Lord told him all will have the opportunity once passed to here the gospel and be offered a place in his kingdom and they are free to listen or reject. My understanding is if you reject it isn't really damnation you just will not be truly happy because you will not be reunited with your Heavenly Father. Please do not see this as confrontation it isn't meant to be and it is just  my understanding. Our differing inturpritations and view points on the gospal is what makes the church rich with interesting people rather than just drone repeating what a preacher says.

 

I don't think you'll be "eternally damned" either, at least not in the sense of never-ending hellfire/lake of fire and brimstone/etc.  But as has been implied here: I think you'll find at some point that by not bridling your procreative powers as the Church suggests and by not seeking out an eternal relationship with someone of the opposite gender, at some point you will come to understand that you have significantly limited your options in the world to come.  And--forgive me--but I think that realization will be very painful to you.  Alvin Smith missed no eternal blessing, because he had patterned his life according to the (limited) divine knowledge that he had been given.  We in the Church will have no such excuse.

 

But I think it's awesome that you're keeping ties with the Church--you're definitely walking a very difficult road-- and I hope that your continued association with it will continue to bring you contentment and peace.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't think you'll be "eternally damned" either,

 

...will come to understand that you have significantly limited your options in the world to come.

 

Uh... same diff.

[estradling75]

I do not believe in eternal damnation and I do not believe that to be doctrine I believe it is in doctrine and convents 33 ( I do not have my scriptures with me to check) That Joseph Smith asks about his brother that died before he had a chance to hear the gospel and the Lord told him all will have the opportunity once passed to here the gospel and be offered a place in his kingdom and they are free to listen or reject. My understanding is if you reject it isn't really damnation you just will not be truly happy because you will not be reunited with your Heavenly Father. Please do not see this as confrontation it isn't meant to be and it is just  my understanding. Our differing inturpritations and view points on the gospal is what makes the church rich with interesting people rather than just drone repeating what a preacher says.

 

 

The thing is... once you try to use our some of our Scriptures you open the argument to all of our scriptures.  Our scripture make if very clear that those who have the truth of God and the knowledge of sin are responsible to teach others the consequence of sin, or the sin is on us for not teaching them better. (See Jacob, King Benjamin, and many other)

 

Thus while many want us to shut-up and sit down because they think it none of our business and will not hurt us in any way.  Our scriptures clearly teach that our silence on the matter will bring condemnation upon us.  This is not an excuse to hate or be mean, but to simply act out of love.

 

If we love our brothers and sisters like we should we can't let them perish in ignorance.  Once they are taught we have no real power if they choose to openly rebel and refuse.

[Meerkatarmy]

I can see where you are coming from but how do we extend the knowledge we have about sin and Gods will? To me banning SS marriage or anything we consider sinful is like a parent banning candy for their children but not explaining why. If we explain why we are against SS marriage or what ever and then people use their agency to ignore us and d it any way we have met our obligation. I truly feel that this is how Heavenly Father wants us to treat our brothers and sisters as this is how he treats them, he shows both sides then lets us decide what to do.

 

As for my decisions and the after life I know full well I will not ake it to the celestial kingdom but I am happy to make it to the terrestrial kingdom.

[Guest]

The thing is... once you try to use our some of our Scriptures you open the argument to all of our scriptures.  Our scripture make if very clear that those who have the truth of God and the knowledge of sin are responsible to teach others the consequence of sin, or the sin is on us for not teaching them better. (See Jacob, King Benjamin, and many other)

 

Thus while many want us to shut-up and sit down because they think it none of our business and will not hurt us in any way.  Our scriptures clearly teach that our silence on the matter will bring condemnation upon us.  This is not an excuse to hate or be mean, but to simply act out of love.

 

If we love our brothers and sisters like we should we can't let them perish in ignorance.  Once they are taught we have no real power if they choose to openly rebel and refuse.

 

The bolded above is the crux of the matter, in my opinion.

 

"Will not hurt us in any way" is not true.  Breaking the WOW is one that is "none of our business and will not hurt us in any way"... there are already laws against Drunk Driving and illegal use of controlled substances and they're even banning smoking and doing everything they can to make it difficult for people to smoke even in the privacy of their own homes (steep taxation on cigarettes).  But anything that changes the fundamental structure of the Eternal Family hurts us in every way... because, we are putting God's children under a fundamentally broken family structure.  It is different when we have tried our best to make things work in a marriage and we fail so we divorce and put our children at a disadvantage.  It is quite different to put children at a disadvantage on purpose.  So, we get to use our political influence to try to maintain the Eternal order of families... as this is much more important than drunk driving and smoking.

[estradling75]

I can see where you are coming from but how do we extend the knowledge we have about sin and Gods will? To me banning SS marriage or anything we consider sinful is like a parent banning candy for their children but not explaining why. If we explain why we are against SS marriage or what ever and then people use their agency to ignore us and d it any way we have met our obligation. I truly feel that this is how Heavenly Father wants us to treat our brothers and sisters as this is how he treats them, he shows both sides then lets us decide what to do.

 

As for my decisions and the after life I know full well I will not ake it to the celestial kingdom but I am happy to make it to the terrestrial kingdom.

 

 

Many people confuse Legal and Moral as being pretty much the same thing.  Then other people get all bent out of joint the Religious people are imposing their Morality into the Law.  Every time you vote you are vote to impose your Morality (what you think is right and proper) into the the Law.  Just because what I think is right and proper is defined in a religious context doesn't mean I shouldn't vote. 

 

We also shouldn't fall for the lie that we are suddenly banning or depriving them of rights they had.  It is simply been forced to move from being an understood and a given ban to being explicitly stated.  Such bans have not taken from them something they already had.  Such Bans tell the people supporting Gay marriage that they have not presented a sufficient case to convince the voters that what they want it Right and Proper.  But instead of working on their case they work to demonetize the people that disagree.  They work to kill their careers, and get them labeled bigots and haters.

 

What are we to do about that?  We stand tall with Christ-like love for all.  We don't hate them or persecute them, but neither do we back off in voting and standing for what we think is right.  Vote for a marriages being between a man and a woman, we support leaders with the same stance, we make our voice heard.

 

Then we prepare ourselves for the persecution that follows all those whom have ever stood for the truths of God against a world that does not want to hear it.

[Blackmarch]

I'm waiting for the "law of unintended consequences" to kick in, like, plural marriage being legalized.  It's going to be a hoot when that whole community screaming marriage equality (no, not just the gay community, puleez!) rises up and screams "NO, that's not what we wanted!"

actually i doubt enough will bat an eye at polygamy marriage... or at least enough of the right people who are in the places of power.

[The Folk Prophet]

actually i doubt enough will bat an eye at polygamy marriage... or at least enough of the right people who are in the places of power.

 

Accept that it's already affected polygamous marriage in that "co-habitation" was decriminalized in Utah. Theoretically, the church could already legally bring back polygamy without going against the law-of-the-land any longer. They wouldn't be legal marriages per the state, but they wouldn't be illegal either.

[Meerkatarmy]

I agree with the vast majority of what you are saying estradling.

 

Other than the morality and voting point. I keep to the WOW and do not drink alcohol and I think it is a destructive damaging substance with no positives but if a vote came about to introduce prohibition I would vote against as my moral decisions have no place in the law of the land. If it did women walking round with more flesh uncovered by their clothes than covered would be banned, men waling round with their beer belly's hanging out would be banned and fake tan would be on a punishment level of class a drugs

[estradling75]

 

Other than the morality and voting point. I keep to the WOW and do not drink alcohol and I think it is a destructive damaging substance with no positives but if a vote came about to introduce prohibition I would vote against as my moral decisions have no place in the law of the land. If it did women walking round with more flesh uncovered by their clothes than covered would be banned, men waling round with their beer belly's hanging out would be banned and fake tan would be on a punishment level of class a drugs

 

 

I understand were you are coming from...  But note that in supporting Marriage between a Man and a Woman...  I am not adding any additional burden.  It already exists.  I am maintaining the status quo against an unproven social experiment.  I feel it will be additional disaster to an already strained system.  And the best augments I hear for it are emotionally based, and statements like "we couldn't do any worse."   Those arguments are meh at best in my mind

[Guest]

I agree with the vast majority of what you are saying estradling.

 

Other than the morality and voting point. I keep to the WOW and do not drink alcohol and I think it is a destructive damaging substance with no positives but if a vote came about to introduce prohibition I would vote against as my moral decisions have no place in the law of the land. If it did women walking round with more flesh uncovered by their clothes than covered would be banned, men waling round with their beer belly's hanging out would be banned and fake tan would be on a punishment level of class a drugs

 

See my post above Meerkatarmy... there's a BIG difference between personal issues such as WOW and eternal issues such as the eternal order of families especially as it pertains to the raising of children.

 

Your moral decisions have EVERY place in the law.  That's what LAW is about.  Codifying a set standard of morality.

[Backroads]

Heck, if I ever had the time and energy to start a bill to ban beer bellies, I would.  That doesn't mean it would ever become law, but I would be considering my moral view and taking measures to act on my morality.  Of course, I'm competing with the view points of others--mine may or may not be a majority view.  The beauty of democracy.

 

To say some people can't vote according to their morality means, if we're being fair, no one can.

 

And then we may as well be living in anarchy.

 

Someone has to step up and say "this is something I feel strongly about, do enough people agree with me to make it a law?"