a TEST is coming

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, skippy740 said:

Protect children from what?  Compared to what?  How are they protected?  How does gay marriage hurt children?  You are insinuating that gay marriage only wants to exist so that these same-sex unions can exploit children for their own ends.  That's called Pedophilia.  And pedophilia exists in BOTH same-sex couples AND straight couples.

Children are RAISED in families.  They are TAUGHT their parent's values in word and in deed.  They are TAUGHT about the consequences of their decisions.  They are LOVED.

Marriage is a legal contract - strictly speaking in the eyes of the law.  With a legal contract, there are privileges.  Tax benefits, estate planning benefits, medical visitation benefits, social security spousal continuation benefits... many things in a marriage contract have NOTHING to do with children, but in how two people can care for each other and how government SUPPORTS that union.

That was what Prop 8 was about - not having same-sex marriages receive government support via contract with the current rules and laws.

Okay skippy.  Answer this question:  Do you believe that Man and Woman are interchangeable?  Do you believe that there is a DISTINCT and PURPOSEFUL difference between the two?  Do you believe that a MOTHER can either be male or female with no disadvantageous difference whatsoever and that a FATHER can either be male or female with no disadvantageous difference whatsoever?  If you believe this, then I can understand why you don't believe children raised without deference to the presence or absence of one gender hurt children.

I do not believe this.  The majority of the human race regardless of religious background or lack thereof do not believe this.  A child raised without a Mother or a child raised without a Father is disadvantaged.  Single parents, divorced parents, widowed parents hurt the children.  But nobody ever goes into marriage saying, Yeay, I'm gonna become a widow!  These things are simply a failure or a breakdown of good intentions.  Gay marriage, on the other hand, is not the result of a failure or a breakdown of good intentions.  Homosexual union IS the intention - the aim and objective of both parties entering into gay marriage.  Gay marriage put children at a disadvantage BY INTENT.

Tax benefits, estate planning benefits, medical visitation benefits.... these is not MARRIAGE.  Those are govt issued benefits that was hung on the marriage contract for practical or efficiency purposes - to make it easier for govt to legislate as the marriage contract has been existent in societies before the existence of governments and is very well defined and established by societies.  They do not require the Marriage Contract for them to exist.  Tax benefits, of course, is given to marital unions as an incentive for people to organize their families under a Marriage Contract as it provides a societal benefit of stronger families.  Gay marriage getting tax benefits is a mockery of that benefit.  Estate planning is, of course, there for the progeny... property rights going to the rightful heirs is its main purpose.

Edited September 20, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You gotta wonder what theoretically faithful LDS people are thinking relative to an eternal perspective when they argue that children being raised in a gay marriage household has no potential harm.

This is an instinctive knowledge in the human condition so much so that I believe the Light of Christ strongly burns this knowledge into our souls through the pre-mortal veil.  This knowledge is present even in uncivilized or aboriginal societies who has never even heard of Jesus Christ nor the one true God.  But yeah, sadly, only the human race has the capacity to willingly and purposefully work towards its own weakening and even put themselves at risk of extinction.  I mean, can you think of any other species that can muster such disgust for their own species that they would rather have the innocent child die to save a gorilla.

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, nobody has to believe me, thats true. Go and find out yourself and see that what I speak of is true.

Where do you think men get the principles of what is right and wrong? Is it not the moral fiber of their conscious or spirit within them? Where do men come from? God. And each of us are born with the light of Christ. That light teaches, or shows, to us what is right and wrong. We then make laws based off of that within us. If you dont think that laws are not made off of what men think and believe are the principles of right and wrong then youve never listened to debate by lawmakers debate back and forth how to pass laws that are based on the right and wrong behaviirs of society. The definition of moral is-

"concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character"

 

Many plantation owners believed that they were given the God-given moral right to enslave blacks because of the mark of Cain.  The Mafia believe that the moral thing to do to prosper is to kill your competition.  Americans believe that the moral thing to do when you are unhappy in a marriage is to divorce your spouse.

If you codify such moralities, it becomes harder for the Saints to make the fields white already for harvest.

The US Constitution is considered a God-inspired document of governance mainly because it limits government to the basic moralities of the protection of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and not the imposition of a moral code.  A Godly people is not ruled by Cesar.  A Godly people is ruled by God.

If you have lawmakers in a democratic society debating back and forth how to pass laws based on controlling the right and wrong behaviors of society rather than the protection of human life and liberty, then your government is failing you.  The only way that would have a chance of resulting in a Godly society is if Jesus Christ or those holding the keys of His priesthood are the lawmakers.

Edited September 20, 2017 by anatess2

[skippy740]

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You gotta wonder what theoretically faithful LDS people are thinking relative to an eternal perspective when they argue that children being raised in a gay marriage household has no potential harm.

And ANOTHER assumption.  

You do realize that I'm simply arguing the LEGAL perspective OUTSIDE of a gospel one?  That's the world we're in now.  It IS possible to think in both ways, right?

 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, skippy740 said:

And ANOTHER assumption.  

You do realize that I'm simply arguing the LEGAL perspective OUTSIDE of a gospel one?  That's the world we're in now.  It IS possible to think in both ways, right?

 

Yes, it is. But the same applies for a LEGAL one.  US Law is built upon protections.  Gay marriage strips the protection for the children''s pursuit of happiness.  And like I said, unless you believe that a Mother or a Father is unnecessary to the happiness of children, gay marriage remains an institution that hurts children.

[skippy740]

"Pursuit of happiness" - to quote a phrase in the Declaration of Independence - which was substituted for the word 'property'.

The Declaration of Independence may be a legal document in protest to King George, but does it have the force of law today?

Per Wikipedia (Yeah I know):  "The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law domestically, but nevertheless it may help to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws."

Thank goodness that "Pursuit of happiness"... is not a legal defense.  I can see it now: "This person has a fancy car and I don't.  And it's my right in my pursuit of happiness that I should have that car, so I stole it."

 

The problem today, is that the law has become corrupted with notions that everyone is "equal" under the law.  You cannot argue reason and morality against a corrupted law.  That's what you're all trying to do and it's not WORKING.  It's because the defense of morality has become a moot point in the law today.  You're arguing from the gospel perspective.  If it wasn't a gospel perspective, then it would be illegal for same-sex couples to have children.  That is not the case, therefore, the law is incomplete from a moral perspective for the protection of children.

"Pursuit of happiness" has to only work within laws found in nature.  If you want a particular car, you can get it by working and labor.  If you want children, you can have them when you are aligned with natural law, marry someone of the opposite sex, and procreate.  Same sex couples cannot procreate - at least not without some kind of assistance.

The law today is corrupted against nature - against God.  And unless you can find a LEGAL defense OUTSIDE of the gospel or other moral standard - such as PROOF of how the children of same-sex unions are damaged... you will have no defense against our corrupted legal system.

Just because I agree MORALLY and within the GOSPEL does not mean that our legal system will also take that view.

[laronius]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- John Adams

Once you take God and his set definition of morality out of the equation our entire legal foundation becomes the house built on sand. Relative morality means you have relative laws.

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 9:32 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

 

I disagree. Love is not about finding common ground. It is about salvation of souls. And there is no common ground with evil in this matter. There is only one way, one path, one means. Contention is irrelevant to separation of good and evil. They are, eternally, separate and divided. Whether we contend over the matter or not will not change this.

 

I am not sure where you are getting your information.  I believe G-d still loves his children that have rejected salvation.  I think you have misjudged G-d to think his kind of love requires that those he loves accept his plan of salvation.  I also believe that if there is any common ground - love is the only means that common ground is ever found between individuals.  Thus finding common ground is an act of love.  I also believe that if there is common ground and someone refuses to recognize it or does not recognize it - that the reason is because of a lack of Christ-like love.  In the scientific world we call such things - "tightly coupled".   I would think that the notion of being one with G-d (which is the ultimate gole of salvation) requires a great deal of common ground recognization.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, skippy740 said:

And ANOTHER assumption.  

You do realize that I'm simply arguing the LEGAL perspective OUTSIDE of a gospel one?  That's the world we're in now.  It IS possible to think in both ways, right?

With full consideration of the world we live in - what is the purpose of gender and for what reason has gender evolved?  I am with @The Folk Propheton this one but I will go a little farther with this one.  I am not sure how anyone can rationally argue gayness is necessary for the survival or stability of any species with gender – let alone; or should I say, for what we call an intelligent species.

 

The Traveler

 

[skippy740]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

With full consideration of the world we live in - what is the purpose of gender and for what reason has gender evolved?  I am with @The Folk Propheton this one but I will go a little farther with this one.  I am not sure how anyone can rationally argue gayness is necessary for the survival or stability of any species with gender – let alone; or should I say, for what we call an intelligent species.

 

The Traveler

 

It's not.  For that perspective, it's entirely selfish in terms of contributing to the perpetuation of humanity.

Of course, it's not possible for an entire species to be monogamously gay.  Gay people can still procreate (their parts still work the same), they just can't do it with someone of the same gender.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Many plantation owners believed that they were given the God-given moral right to enslave blacks because of the mark of Cain.  The Mafia believe that the moral thing to do to prosper is to kill your competition.  Americans believe that the moral thing to do when you are unhappy in a marriage is to divorce your spouse.

If you codify such moralities, it becomes harder for the Saints to make the fields white already for harvest.

The US Constitution is considered a God-inspired document of governance mainly because it limits government to the basic moralities of the protection of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness and not the imposition of a moral code.  A Godly people is not ruled by Cesar.  A Godly people is ruled by God.

If you have lawmakers in a democratic society debating back and forth how to pass laws based on controlling the right and wrong behaviors of society rather than the protection of human life and liberty, then your government is failing you.  The only way that would have a chance of resulting in a Godly society is if Jesus Christ or those holding the keys of His priesthood are the lawmakers.

You dont know much about America and its founding.

[Traveler]

11 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

It's not.  For that perspective, it's entirely selfish in terms of contributing to the perpetuation of humanity.

Of course, it's not possible for an entire species to be monogamously gay.  Gay people can still procreate (their parts still work the same), they just can't do it with someone of the same gender.

Let me see if I understand you correctly - you say gay people can procreate by not being gay?   This to me is like saying a liar can be honest by telling the truth.  Hmmmmmm if they tell the truth are they doing so as a lie?  I am not sure I can agree with your logic - I am not sure I can even follow it.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, skippy740 said:

It IS possible to think in both ways, right?

People can think any thing they want. It's possible to do so. That doesn't mean it's wise.

[skippy740]

Being wise involves wisdom.

Does our legal system use wisdom?  Sure does.

Whose wisdom is our legal system using?  Man's wisdom... over God's wisdom.

[skippy740]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Let me see if I understand you correctly - you say gay people can procreate by not being gay?   This to me is like saying a liar can be honest by telling the truth.  Hmmmmmm if they tell the truth are they doing so as a lie?  I am not sure I can agree with your logic - I am not sure I can even follow it.

 

The Traveler

Oh, well let me talk about a home teacher I had MANY years ago.

He was, at the time, a new member.  He was married and had two children with his wife.

Once proposition 8 passed, he later LEFT HIS WIFE and married a man.

Was he always gay?  Maybe he was.  But he still procreated with a wife.

 

How can that happen?  Biology.

Want another example?  Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.  Caitlyn wasn't always a woman (actually Caitlyn identifies as trans).  But before all this, perhaps by societal/family pressure (and the desire to 'stay in the closet'), Bruce was married and had children.

Edited September 20, 2017 by skippy740

[anatess2]

49 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You dont know much about America and its founding.

Really?  Well, I'm Filipino so...

Do you know anything about other countries outside of the USA?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, skippy740 said:

Just because I agree MORALLY and within the GOSPEL does not mean that our legal system will also take that view.

None of my arguments are based on moral or gospel principles even as they are supported by it.  They are based on societal organization of historical and scientific human benefit.  And you haven't responded to any of them with any sense.

So one more time - pretend you're an atheist.  Answer this question - is Male and Female interchangeable?  Does a male Mother or a female Father of equal societal benefit for progeny, or at the very least provide no societal harm to progeny, as a female Mother or a male Father?

And as a bonus - do you believe that the ban on sibling marriage should be removed?

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I am not sure where you are getting your information.

Well... Here's some sources. There are myriads and myriads more but I don't have the time to hunt them all down.

"The Church is founded on eternal truth. We do not compromise principle." - Ezra Taft Benson

“A milk-and-water allegiance kills; while a passionate devotion gives life and soul to any cause and its adherents. The troubles of the world may largely be laid at the doors of those who are neither hot nor cold; who always follow the line of least resistance; whose timid hearts flutter at taking sides for truth. As in the great Council in the heavens, so in the Church of Christ on earth, there can be no neutrality. We are, or we are not, on the side of the Lord. An unrelenting faith, contemptuous of all compromise, will lead the Church and every member of it, to triumph and the achievement of our high destiny.

“The final conquerors of the world will be the men and women, few or many matters not, who fearlessly and unflinchingly cling to truth, and who are able to say no, as well as yes, on whose lofty banner is inscribed: No compromise with error. …

“Tolerance is not conformity to the world’s view and practices. We must not surrender our beliefs to get along with people, however beloved or influential they may be. Too high a price may be paid for social standing or even for harmony. …

"The Gospel rests upon eternal truth; and truth can never be deserted safely.” (John A. Widtsoe, Conference Report, April 1941, pp. 117, 116.) - quoted by Ezra T. Benson

"There seems to be a tendency among many of us in our society today to live by compromise, rationalization, comparison, and self-justification. Love of right has been replaced by love of acceptance and convenience. Some mistakenly think the pathway of safety is somewhere between the path of righteousness and the road to destruction. Others seem to have convinced themselves that the way to perfection is reached by traveling the highway of compromise."  - Marvin J. Ashton

"Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but also as a determination to live decently. A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well." - Thomas S Monson

"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;"  D&C 1:13

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev 3:15-16

"Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen." D&C 87:8

Etc.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I believe G-d still loves his children that have rejected salvation.

Whereas you think I believe that God doesn't love them anymore?

Of course God loves those who have sinned or rejected Him. That isn't relevant to the fact that the means whereby he expresses that love is firstly, and fore-mostly to call them to repentance so that they may have eternal glory and a fullness of joy.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 I think you have misjudged G-d to think his kind of love requires that those he loves accept his plan of salvation.

That's because you're the type of person who, like others here, seems to want to make up what others believe and then beat that strawman down!

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 I also believe that if there is common ground and someone refuses to recognize it or does not recognize it - that the reason is because of a lack of Christ-like love.

I didn't say that we shouldn't recognize common ground. Read more carefully.

But if someone misses that common ground, could it not, quite reasonably, be because of a myriad of other justifiable factors, up to and including ideas like mental disorders, emotional issues, chemical imbalances, distractions from work, life-threatening illnesses, abuses, etc., etc., etc.?

Of course if you mean "mention" instead of recognize then I disagree. Stating a recognizing of common ground can be important...in many instances. It certainly isn't the only key to succor, kindness, patience, service, and other Christ-like actions.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

  I would think that the notion of being one with G-d (which is the ultimate gole of salvation) requires a great deal of common ground recognization.

The only way for two individuals to be one with each other and one with God is for them both to be one with God, which is where compromise simply doesn't work. The means whereby we become one in the gospel is limited by those who are not following gospel principles. Whereas I believe that finding common ground where another does share those principles is useful and right, it is not, in theory, the end all of the matter. There are times and places where we simply must stand and refuse to compromise despite the hatred, anger, frustration, etc., that is generated because of it.

In the end, finding common ground with someone who is wicked is only, ultimately, a tool to help and bring them to Christ, which is the only means whereby those who follow Christ can become one with them. It cannot be accomplished by compromising with evil so we can all just get along.

Edited September 20, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[skippy740]

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

None of my arguments are based on moral or gospel principles even as they are supported by it.  They are based on societal organization of historical and scientific human benefit.  And you haven't responded to any of them with any sense.

So one more time - pretend you're an atheist.  Answer this question - is Male and Female interchangeable?  Does a male Mother or a female Father of equal societal benefit for progeny, or at the very least provide no societal harm to progeny, as a female Mother or a male Father?

And as a bonus - do you believe that the ban on sibling marriage should be removed?

 

Your ENTIRE arguments are based on morality and gospel principles.  You believe that the LAW is still MORAL.

The law, judges, and people USED to be moral by Judeo-Christian standards.

That is where we disagree.

 

You're asking me for MY opinion when I'm talking about today's corrupt laws that are NO LONGER moral.  In today's "everybody is equal under the law and discrimination of every kind is against the Constitution", it NO LONGER MATTERS IN THE EYES OF THE LAW whether you're a male or female for progeny.

If you want to adopt a kid - as long as you are emotionally sound and financially secure, the law says that you can do it.  The LAW won't insert any more discrimination beyond that.  Why?  The law doesn't want to be labeled as SIXHIRB:  Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamaphobic, Racist, or Bigoted.  If those labels can apply, it's seen as a social problem because "the government can't discriminate".

 

What I'm telling you... is that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW (which has been corrupted)... morality is extinct... unless you can PROVE that there is danger OUTSIDE of a gospel or moral perspective.  

Unless you can use this "historical and scientific human benefit" to overturn the law, you're out of luck LEGALLY speaking.  And I'm sure those arguments have been made to the Supreme Court, and the law still stands.  Why is this?  Because of the "pursuit of happiness" and how "happy" has become perverted into "whatever I want, I want and the Government can't stop it."

[Rob Osborn]

34 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Really?  Well, I'm Filipino so...

Do you know anything about other countries outside of the USA?

I dont know very much about other countries. 

Many of the first settlers in America were Christian who were either wanting to escape tyranical rule in England and Europe or wanted a new beginning. As new settlements arose they erected small churches in every little burg. Almost everyone belonged to one Christian denomination or another. Everyone had and used bibles. Almost all settlements were structured individually by Christian denominations and religious rule. Everyone of my ancestors that came to America starting in the 1500's were deeply religious. I have journal entries of their church records, their baptisms, etc. I had two different direct lines that were on the Mayflower. The Mayflower wasnt the first ship but maybe the most famous because of its cause and impact it had. The Mayflower were in large part Seperatists who called themselves "Saints" who were seeking freedom from religious tyrany in England. When they got to America the land they thought they would re ieve didnt exist and before they got off the ship they wrote the Mayflower Compact. It was the first form of government set up in America. Here is one version of the now missing document-

 

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.^[14"

 

^{Note the cause of their movement as a Christian cause. Thats what America was founded upon.}

As England demanded more and more the new settlers got fed up with it and that started things moving towards breaking off from all othe countries. The "founders" who framed the constitution were mostly deeply religious folks who often quoted the bible in debate. One of the problems they wanted to avoid was a state sponsored church like that of England. So, they created the framework that instead was used to protect individual moral beliefs and laws that church members had. The principles themselves were based off of everyones general belief in the Almighty God and the new constitution was put in place to protect those general beliefs and worship of God.

 

[Anddenex]

18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Folks who want to call me an apostate over that, are welcome to do so--provided they go out and get their foster care licenses first.

Apostate!

...

...

...

...

...

(Cough*)

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, skippy740 said:

Your ENTIRE arguments are based on morality and gospel principles.  You believe that the LAW is still MORAL.

The law, judges, and people USED to be moral by Judeo-Christian standards.

That is where we disagree.

 

You're asking me for MY opinion when I'm talking about today's corrupt laws that are NO LONGER moral.  In today's "everybody is equal under the law and discrimination of every kind is against the Constitution", it NO LONGER MATTERS IN THE EYES OF THE LAW whether you're a male or female for progeny.

If you want to adopt a kid - as long as you are emotionally sound and financially secure, the law says that you can do it.  The LAW won't insert any more discrimination beyond that.  Why?  The law doesn't want to be labeled as SIXHIRB:  Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamaphobic, Racist, or Bigoted.  If those labels can apply, it's seen as a social problem because "the government can't discriminate".

 

What I'm telling you... is that IN THE EYES OF THE LAW (which has been corrupted)... morality is extinct... unless you can PROVE that there is danger OUTSIDE of a gospel or moral perspective.  

Unless you can use this "historical and scientific human benefit" to overturn the law, you're out of luck LEGALLY speaking.  And I'm sure those arguments have been made to the Supreme Court, and the law still stands.  Why is this?   Because of the "pursuit of happiness" and how "happy" has become perverted into "whatever I want, I want and the Government can't stop it."

WHO makes the law?  People.  Your opinion matters.  And it is YOUR opinion that I'm debating.

My understanding is that you believe that the people who fought against gay marriage are foolish to do so since, in your view, gay marriage does not harm society. 

Laws don't have to be built upon a gospel principled moral code for it to be a good law.  A law simply has to do what it is designed to do - to achieve the objective of protection of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizenry as a whole.  If it doesn't achieve that objective, it is a bad law regardless of its moral foundation - a perfect example of a good moral foundation but a bad law is the 18th amendment.  And the states were right to repeal it.

Gay marriage IS A BAD LAW.  You don't need religion to understand that.  This law needs to be repealed.   At the very least, Congress needs to correct the SCOTUS decision so that this can go back to the States where marriage laws belong.

Edited September 20, 2017 by anatess2

[skippy740]

Just now, anatess2 said:

The argument I am making is that PEOPLE VOTED against gay marriage.

And ever since it was overturned, it has been passing in multiple states since.

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

My understanding is that you believe they are foolish to do so since, in your view, gay marriage does not harm society. 

I never said that.  I said that same-sex couples adopting children is better than foster care or any other abusing situation.  That is purely my opinion though.

 

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Laws don't have to be built upon a gospel principled moral code for it to be a good law.  A law simply has to do what it is designed to do - to achieve the objective of protection of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizenry as a whole.  If it doesn't achieve that objective, it is a bad law regardless of its moral foundation - a perfect example of a good moral foundation but a bad law is the 18th amendment.

There's that "pursuit of happiness" thing again.  That was a principle in the Declaration of Independence, NOT a legal right under the law.  You do not have the "legal right" to be happy.

Plus, with liberty (freedom), that will be used and twisted to mean that evil people (a judgment of morality) can do whatever they want - unless they inflict harm to another person.  And that harm STILL would have to be proven.

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Gay marriage IS A BAD LAW.  You don't need religion to understand that.

Prove it.  As though it was on trial.

You can't outside of a moral foundation and conviction.

 

A government exists to protect its citizens.  As wickedness grows, the government will CONTINUE to write laws for its citizens - for their protection.  Wickedness is being protected.  Calling something 'wicked'... is a morality judgment.  The law without morality will see a rise in wickedness.  But try to prove that without morality.  You can't.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont know very much about other countries. 

Many of the first settlers in America were Christian who were either wanting to escape tyranical rule in England and Europe or wanted a new beginning. As new settlements arose they erected small churches in every little burg. Almost everyone belonged to one Christian denomination or another. Everyone had and used bibles. Almost all settlements were structured individually by Christian denominations and religious rule. Everyone of my ancestors that came to America starting in the 1500's were deeply religious. I have journal entries of their church records, their baptisms, etc. I had two different direct lines that were on the Mayflower. The Mayflower wasnt the first ship but maybe the most famous because of its cause and impact it had. The Mayflower were in large part Seperatists who called themselves "Saints" who were seeking freedom from religious tyrany in England. When they got to America the land they thought they would re ieve didnt exist and before they got off the ship they wrote the Mayflower Compact. It was the first form of government set up in America. Here is one version of the now missing document-

 

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.^[14"

 

^{Note the cause of their movement as a Christian cause. Thats what America was founded upon.}

As England demanded more and more the new settlers got fed up with it and that started things moving towards breaking off from all othe countries. The "founders" who framed the constitution were mostly deeply religious folks who often quoted the bible in debate. One of the problems they wanted to avoid was a state sponsored church like that of England. So, they created the framework that instead was used to protect individual moral beliefs and laws that church members had. The principles themselves were based off of everyones general belief in the Almighty God and the new constitution was put in place to protect those general beliefs and worship of God.

 

Believe it or not, they teach American History in the Philippines.  And I know all of this.  Well before my kid made me read Rush Limbaugh's Brave Pilgrims book.

America may be founded by Christians fleeing oppression and its Constitution designed by Christians.  BUT, the forefathers made sure that the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE MORALITY by codifying the 1st amendment to the Constitution.  So that, even as the world powers of the late 1700's were ruled by Churches, the USA defied the norms and GUARANTEED a SECULAR GOVERNMENT that does not dictate morality but rather PROTECTS the moral beliefs and practices of its individual citizenry.

 

[skippy740]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

WHO makes the law?  People. 

Too generalistic of an answer.

And no.  People do NOT make the law. 

This is not a democracy.  This is a representative republic.

The people vote for representatives to create and pass laws.  And some of those laws are sent to the people for a direct vote.

But SOMEONE had to propose the law in the FIRST place to get it past the legislature.  That's a state representative or senator.

Yes, the PEOPLE voted against same-sex marriage in California.

But the PEOPLE also voted for the California Supreme Court that OVERTURNED that decision.

And the PRESIDENT of the United States appoints judges to the United States Supreme Court.

The PEOPLE voted for those they put into power.