This is great news! And yet another state is dragged (albeit kicking and
screaming) from 19th century bigotry into 21st century freedom and
enlightenment. Gay people exist. Get over it and let them be happy.
From the looks of things, there are two options:1) America is filled
with "activist" judges.2) Banning same-sex marriage is just
inherently unconstitutional.Sadly, I already know what a lot of
people here are going to believe...
The decision by U.S. District Judge Terence Kern is stayed pending appeal,
meaning marriages will not take place immediately in Oklahoma. Why couldn't
judge Shelby be that smart when he overthrew Utah's constitution?
@ElmsI respectfully disagree with your comment. Why is it that when
someone has a different opinion on the issue, they're labeled a
'bigot'? Nobody is contending that gay people don't exist, or
that they shouldn't be happy. But telling me that your happiness depends
on me labeling your relationship something it is not seems a little weird to me.
How come your happiness is so dependent on the social acceptance of your
actions? Are you somehow precluded from having a relationship with someone of
the same gender? Or living with them? Is it solely the monetary aspect of tax
breaks that precludes you from being truly happy?
Bad things like this are now happening across the country.
Constitutionally speaking, same sex marriage doesn't have to be legal. If
there were civil unions that offered the exact same benefits as marriage, but
under a different name, then religions could be satisfied, while also satisfying
the Constitution. I.E. the 14th amendment
LDS do you now see which way the wind is blowing?
Nothing is stopping homosexuals from being gay.
truth in all forms wonders "Why couldn't judge Shelby be that smart
when he overthrew Utah's constitution?"Utah didn't ask
Shelby for a stay, so he didn't give one. Kern wasn't "that
smart" in issuing a stay in the Oklahoma case. According to the story,
"Kern decided to issue the stay after the Supreme Court granted a stay in
the recent case on Utah’s same-sex marriage ban."
truth in all its forms, we already know the answer to that question. The judge
in Oklahoma had the precedent of Utah's action being stayed by the US
Supreme Court. They will eventually decide the issue anyway. Get ready for the
funeral for State's Rights and following the US Constitution which states
that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for
the States because of the judges interpretations of being treated equally.
Everyone was allowed to marry a person of opposite gender...no gays or lesbians
were denied this right. State are now denied the right to define marriage as
they see fit. The mess in Utah was made worse because the Utah judge
couldn't see the forest for the trees with regards to a stay of the order
until it could legally be sorted out; that's why he is an "activist
judge" and the LGBT community will probably give him an honorary something
If American is full of activist judges... why of these landmark cases would you
go without?Brown v. Board of EducationLoving v. Virginia
--- ended ban on interracial marriageGriswold v. Connecticut --- the
right of adults to use birth controlMiranda v. Arizona --- the case
that entitled suspects to now called Miranda rightsand also...District of Columbia v. Heller --- which guarantees the right to bear
arms, independent of a militia.yep - those activist judges alright.
There are many others. Simply put, we don't get to pick and
choose which judgments we like and declare that sovereignty rests with the
people. When the Supreme Court rules it become the law of the land.
@Willem,are you mad at our church because of Proposition 8 in California a few
years ago? There were other factors that influenced that vote. It is not only
the LDS's Fault like you make it sound like it is. By the way, I am LDS,
and I think that gay people deserve the same benefits as other people. I just
think that there are ways other than marriage to give them these benefits.
willem, so people of faith are now supposed to believe based on what a number of
federal judges say?
Willem, much of why Christ established His Church both anciently and today is so
we might not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in
wait to deceive." (Eph 4)The winds of the gullible public will
blow according to the cunning craftiness of the self-deceived, but those who are
founded on a rock will not be moved to abandon truth.A Run, those
who advocate homosexual behavior are not satisfied with civil unions, because
what they are after is to establish a false moral equivalency in the minds of
the public. A distinction in name, even with no distinction in legal benefits,
hints too much at a possible moral distinction. Theirs is an Orwellian attempt
to control opinion by controlling language.Further, there is no good
reason, if one grants benefits to civil unions or homosexual
"marriages," that one can justify not simply granting the same benefits
to any arbitrary relation between people, in which case it is better to abolish
all such benefits and legal recognitions and reform the law to only recognize
these as private contracts.
Vince here, Heller conformed to what a maority of people thought the 2nd
Amendment said. As to homouality is concerned at the time the 14th Amendment
was raified its practice carried serious prison time in all states. At the time
the original constitution was ratified its practice was a hanging offense.
@ digitalcamotim wrote: "At the time the original constitution was ratified
its practice was a hanging offense." ----And slavery was
real and blacks only counted as 3/5ths of a person.And your point
@Blue AZ Cougar“Nobody is contending that gay people
don't exist, or that they shouldn't be happy.”By
constantly telling LGBT individuals that who they are as a person is a sin,
people are not contending that they don’t exist, but in a way you are
telling them they shouldn’t exist. This makes it very hard to be happy.
@truth in all its forms - Judge Shelby cannot issue a stay unless one is
requested. The Utah AG office is the one who should have requested a stay
properly, but did not.
"...freedom of conscience by religions and business owners. He referred to a
baker in Colorado threatened with the ability to continue his line if work if
declining to make cakes for same-sex couples in contravention of his Christian
beliefs."Do you serve adulterers getting re-married? Do you
serve fornicators? Do you server Sabbath Breakers? If you serve these groups
in your business, then claiming "religious conscience" as a reason to
refuse service to LGBT couples is simply an excuse to not serve LGBT couples.
If you aren't going to screen all your customers to ensure they're not
violating your beliefs, then it really isn't about your religious beliefs.
States grant marriage licenses to receive the fee and then make money when more
than half of all marriages end in divorce.Suppose... states got out
of the marriage business altogether and simply rename it a civil union. Everyone
intent on living together (whether straight or gay) would be required to pay a
registration fee prior to living together. Cohabitating without a license would
be subject to a fine. A couple could turn in their license at any time and go
their separate ways.Marriage would then be strictly a religious
ceremony. Derived from scripture, the concept of marriage traditionally required
union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and raising offspring in
a God-fearing home. Those not accepting God's plan could still live as
husband and wife through civil union and could later marry.Therefore... any couple, straight or gay, could be married if the church they
attend chooses to do so. Churches decide whom they marry, not the government.
Marriage would not be deemed a civil right or needing equal protection. Get
government out of the marriage business, once and for all!
truth in all its forms says:"Why couldn't judge Shelby be
that smart when he overthrew Utah's constitution?"---Because Utah's AG didn't follow the correct procedures to
requiest one. Blue AZ Cougar says:"But telling me
that your happiness depends on me labeling your relationship something it is not
seems a little weird to me."---Who are you to say what someone
else's relationship is or is not? Butting into other people's lives
like that seems a little weird to me.@A Run;Separate is
not equal. Your comment is like telling Rosa Park that the back of the bus
arrives at the same time as the front of the bus.@toosmartforyou;The 10th Amendment prohibits states from violating the rights of US
citizens. This isn't a state's rights issue, it is a federal issue.
@Elms:"Gay people exist. Get over it and let them be happy."What's your opinion on polygamists , incests, brother/sister,
children, geezer/child marriages? @truth in all its forms:"Why couldn't judge Shelby be that smart when he overthrew
Utah's constitution?"Looks like Shelby had an agenda.@A Run:"Constitutionally speaking, same sex marriage
doesn't have to be legal."Here's all they need do...
go down the stationary store, get a nice piece of paper with serifs on the
edges, write on it in a careful hand 'marriage license,' then each
partner sign it. You're married.@Willem:"LDS do you
now see which way the wind is blowing?"Wind for sure... called
an 'ill wind.'@digitalcamotim:"Nothing is
stopping homosexuals from being gay."What they want is to be not
only gay but happy as well.@Vince here:"There are many
others."True... like Edmonds-Tucker Act - Outlawed polygamy;
disincorporated the LDS Church; required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective
voters, jurors and public officials.
@RanchHandThat is fantastic point.
@ Vince Here, How many of the cases you listed were from the same judges that
are in now? Anyways, that was not my purpose of wanting to comment.
To all of you who think that us Mormons are Bigots, as well as all of you
Mormons who are getting angry that this is happening...I might direct you to
another article which the quotes partially the LEADERS of our church.
http://www.deseretnews.com /article/865593905/ LDS-Church-issues-instructions-
to-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage.html. That article is great. One
more point that I would like to make is that the First Amendment guaruntees
separation of church and state, so no matter what the legal standards are, it
doesn't change the churches standards or right to only marry couples of
Produces, There is no Orwellian conspiracy here. Granting Civil Unions to
gay people and Marriages to straight people is a pretty clear case of separate
but equal...a clear violation of previous Supreme Court rulings. The problem is
that the word marriage is the default language in everything from loan contracts
to insurance benefits. Either everyone gets civil unions or everyone gets
marriages, that's how equality works.
Willem - this may come as a shock to you but the LDS people are not the only
religion or group of people in the country who oppose gay marriage.Some of us have our beliefs built on a solid foundation and it doesn't
matter which way the wind is blowing, our beliefs cannot and will not be swayed.
It's interesting to note that the State of Virginia, in seeking to uphold
their ban on interracial marriage, used many of the same arguments the State of
Utah (and others) apparently intend to use to justify bans on gay marriage.-Interracial marriages were considered inherently less stable.-Interracial marriages were much more difficult for the children involved.-It was argued that genetic defects from interracial parenting were a
distinct possibility. (OK, that argument is not going to be used today.)Fortunately, the Supreme Court looked beyond those flimsy excuses, and
it's really curious that the same objections are being recycled today.
Utefan34, no one claims that "who someone is as a person" is a sin, but
rather that a certain set of actions is sinful.Some people have
tendencies towards alcoholism, kleptomania, or pyromania; the research that
claims these tendencies are genetically caused is just as solid as the research
that claims the same for the tendency towards same sex attraction. The
requirement of equal protection under the law does not mean that society has to
condone drunk driving, theft, or arson. Nor does hoping that people with genetic
predispositions towards these disorders can nonetheless lead happy lives entail
condoning such behaviors.No matter what you think about the causes
of attractions, tendencies, or disorders, the actions described as sinful are
always the result of a choice, and are just as subject to moral scrutiny as any
other choices. Papering over the distinction between the attraction and the
action has been a longstanding tactic of the homosexual movement.
@funny_guy... I Agree Completely
@RanchHandWell let me ask you, are they the same? Is same-sex marriage
the same as heterosexual marriage? It's a rhetorical question, I know what
your response will be. My point is that the LGBT community is so bent on
labeling their relationship so as to identify with heterosexual couples, when in
reality they are not the same thing. I'm not as much hung up on the
labeling of it as I am about how we are required to teach our children that it
is the same. That defies logic and spiritual understanding in terms of what a
marriage can and should be.Look, if two people of the same gender
want to shack up together, I have no problem with that -- they have the right to
live their life how they want. But you must understand that there are a whole
host of issues that come along with this territory, not the least of which is
how children are impacted when we start teaching them the false idea that two
women or two men is the same as a man and a woman. It is not - that is a lie.
Here's an interesting factoid from the Oklahoma decision: this case has
been going on for 9 years. It was originally filed in 2006. The case
has previously been appealed to the 10th Circuit, and at one point the district
judge declared the couple did not have standing, so they re-filed specifying
different defendants.It's hard to argue this case was a
spur-of-the-moment, "pile on" type of decision based on other recent
decisions. This litigation has been going on a long, long time.
I think that it is odd that someone would refer to something that was considered
dark, demeaning, and gross for centuries by all of humanity would now refer to
it as "enlightened"and that every human that lived before the last
thirty years as the anomaly of history! I welcome the discussion about the
Unconstitutional stripping of the rights of the people, however, something that
only came about because enough people were humbled enough to start thinking
about the constitution. Cruise control puts people to sleep!
IIf you have a gay friend (or sister or coworker or…) but still think that
queer people should not be able to get married, then you are anti-gay.If
you’re fine with queer people as long as you don’t have to see them
kissing or holding hands, then you are anti-gay.If you don’t have
anything against queer people but wouldn’t want a gay man leading your
son’s scout troop, then you are anti-gay.If you think that inside
queer people there is anything lurking — however small — that causes
us to have any less integrity or humanity than straight people have, then you
"when we start teaching them the false idea that two women or two men is the
same as a man and a woman." What? Same sex marriage is simply
allowing two people, regardless of genders the opportunity to make that special
commitment of marriage and at the same time enjoy any and all legal
ramifications. Marriage at it's core is a personal, social, and legal
commitment, that's it. It has nothing to do with physical
differences. Having or raising families or sexual activities. Those activities
or choices may come with marriage but are not marriage. So not allowing two
people regardless of gender to make that commitment is discrimination and brings
with it a by definition a certain bigotry.You may justify your
discrimination in anyway you chose. God said, I believe etc. the result is the
@ProdicusIts sad and unfortunate how you believe that so many GLBT
people are just acting out on a "choice." By the same hand, you must be
clearly acting out as a result of your choice to be heterosexual? I would like
the information of the studies you have cited that conclusively decide that
homosexuality is a tendency, if that is possible?I can understand
that there are people out there who are not educated about homosexuality, but to
reduce the life-altering attraction and love that two of the same sex feel
towards each other as less than the attraction that you feel toward the opposite
sex is just ignorant. The way that homosexuality is so carelessly equated
arson, theft, and other CRIMES clearly says a lot about your feelings towards
the GLBT community.Is it not possible that those homosexuals feel as
strongly about marriage as you do? Is it not reasonable that two people of the
same sex, would feel just as normal being attracted to each other as you feel
towards your spouse?GLBT want EQUAL treatment. Its always been
about "equality" not "superiority".
Prodicus, Relatively few people today consider homosexuality a
disorder. This is the first problem with your argument. You are free to believe
what you want, but it's a hopeless proposition to expect much credence be
given to your way of thinking. Blue AZ Cougar, You worry
about what to teach the children. Me too! They are not growing up in the same
world you and I did. Few kids born today will ever understand old prejudices.
Let's stop trying to fill their minds with religious dogma that is out of
sync with new realities. Oh, I know. "The word of The Lord is
pure and true forever, and it cannot be compromised!" - Well, like it or
not, not even the LDS Church calls homosexuality (by itself, as a natural
orientation) a sin. Moreover, love can't be sliced into good and bad types.
Our kids are coming into a better world, and old prejudices are just old - and
more and more difficult.
@ Pragmatist...So what's to stop any combination of people
whether they are romantically involved or not from getting a marriage license
and getting those same benefits? A couple of roommates who hate each other but
want the tax benefits for a couple years before they "divorce"? Two
brothers?An uncle and his nephew? A 95 yr. old lady and her 18 yr. old
female renter? There is no requirement that they love each other. No one even
asks that at the license office. See how this is diluting and
destroying the very definition of marriage? Your description of marriage makes
no sense at all. It could simply be called a joint contract for all intents and
purposes. The very word "marriage" implies an intimate
relationship. You just can't get around that. And due to the obvious fact
that two of the same gender have to make some serious accommodations in that
area, it really doesn't deserve the term marriage. Pretend all you want,
shack up, throw a party, wear matching tuxes or dresses, but be honest about the
fact that it's different than a hetero marriage.
@funny_guy:"States grant marriage licenses to receive the fee and then
make money when more than half of all marriages end in divorce."Sounds like a 'win/win'... for thew state."Suppose... states got out of the marriage business altogether and simply
rename it a civil union."Why not just draw up your own marriage
license, sign it, and send a copy to the state government to record? This way
anyone can marry whomever they please... and as many as they please? And if
they get a divorce just send another notice to the state government of the
dissolution.@RanchHand:"The 10th Amendment prohibits
states from violating the rights of US citizens."Oops Did you
mean the 14th?"This isn't a state's rights issue, it
is a federal issue."Oops again. SCOTUS ruling on DOMA clearly
turned marriage determinations over the states. And it will also eventually
rule that Utah's marriage laws are Constitutional.
@Blue AZ Cougar"Look, if two people of the same gender want to
shack up together, I have no problem with that -- they have the right to live
their life how they want. But you must understand that there are a whole host of
issues that come along with this territory, not the least of which is how
children are impacted when we start teaching them"When we start
teaching them that gay people should ditch this marriage thing and just shack up
together as the better alternative. Yeah, I can't see how that teaching
could lead to problems...
Blue Az says: "But telling me that your happiness depends on me labeling
your relationship something it is not seems a little weird to me. Is it solely
the monetary aspect of tax breaks that precludes you from being truly
happy?"Actually, it is not "soley" the monetary aspect...but
it sure matters! In fact, it is the more than 1100 federal and statutory
benefits that make a huge difference in people's lives that matter. We
actually don't care what other people, at this point think...we actually
don't care whether others think we are moral or not...we actually are not
concerned if others are put off, or perplexed, or confused or even grossed out
by the lives we live. We are so way past that. We don't concern ourselves
with the privacy of heterosexual bedrooms...visa versa is the least that can be
offered. What we do care about is that we are equal under the law and that in
our country we honor the Constitution by helping it live up to its full
potential. And that includes our right to all the protections under the law that
are obviously take for granted by others.
So interesting that as soon as I throw the religion card in there, I get
hammered by pragmatist and EDM. You may not understand where my religious
convictions come from, or why I have them, but don't start pointing the
finger and telling me how bigoted I am for not seeing things the way you do.
That's hypocrisy at its finest.We really do live in a day when
people call good evil, and evil good, just as Isaiah prophesied. A day when
people condone sin with the expectation that "God will beat us with a few
stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." A day that
Timothy described as "perilous times [...] For men shall be lovers of their
own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,
unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady,
highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof."
So many "activist judges" so little time. I suppose virtually ever
every judge in the US is now a so-called "activist" because they... oh
decide to defend the Constitution? I seem to recall a famous Supreme Court
Justice describing an activist judge as a judge who wakes up in the morning.
And isn't that the truth? If we like the ruling of a judge, well they made
the right decision. If we don't like it we revert to the o'l ad
hominem about the judge being an "activist" - yea, typical.
@EDM: "Relatively few people today consider homosexuality a
disorder."Would you be saying the same thing about polygamy,
incestuous feelings, love between sibs, old geezer/young girl desires?And if 'yes,' would you be in favor of these marriage
combinations?@Blue AZ Cougar: "Few kids born today will ever
understand old prejudices."And you can count on more seeing
homosexuality as normal (which it isn't) and move in that direction.
Wow! These "activist" Judges seem to be everywhere. So what's the
excuse now? Time to wake up people. It's 2014. Discrimination is
unconstitutional. Period! All the whining and complaining will not change this.
@ pragmatistferlife"Marriage at it's core is a personal,
social, and legal commitment, that's it"Not quite, marriage
is more than just a personal, social, and legal commitment. Marriage for
thousands of years has always been about the joining together of man and woman
for the purpose of creating children and establishing a family unit. Only a man
and a woman can create their own biological children together and taking on
roles as fathers and mothers in raising them. Two men and two women cannot.
@wrz, you wrote: "Oops again. SCOTUS ruling on DOMA clearly turned marriage
determinations over the states. And it will also eventually rule that
Utah's marriage laws are Constitutional."-------The state
can stil make marriage determinations, BUT, and this is a vitally important
point, those determinations must follow the US Constitution. In
Utah, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, the courts have determined that the state SSM
banns violate the 14th amendment. (Which trumps the 10th amendment, BTW).
On one hand you want government out of peoples lives, "the marriage
business" on the other hand you want the government to be very involved with
people lives. Fees to live together and fines if they don't pay the fees.
With all due respect this sounds like more nonsense from people trying to force
their religious values on people who don't believe what they do and is
possibly the absolute worst idea I've seen on this issue. That position
relegates all who do not believe in the definition of marriage as you do as
somehow second class citizens. The solution is clear both to reasonable people
and the constitution. Same sex marriages, yes MARRIAGES, with all of the
protections and benefits afforded to heterosexual marriages should be legal
across the entirety of the United States. Like it or not, religions do not have
the monopoly on the definition of what marriage is. Period.
I am LDS. I have been criticized for supporting equal rights for the LGBT
community by my fellow Church members. I also believe in the (among other
things) in the 12th Article of Faith (and by definition the Constitution of the
United States of America).
I applaud the Oklahoma Judge's decision. Even though it was fettered with
a stay, pending the Utah decision. This seems to be a similar situation with
the federal courts in the 60's to finally approve mixed marriages between
blacks and whites. No harm has come from that decision. It has only validated
the children raised in those mixed marriages. This ruling along with the Utah
ruling will only do the same. It does not threaten any traditional marriage and
those who have religious beliefs that are otherwise should not feel threatened.
They are welcome to think the way that they do. This is more about bringing our
constitution of equal treatment to all in fruition. I don't see how a gay
couples decision to want to be married or raise children should in any way
affect those who want a traditional marriage. All these decisions do is give
every US citizen the same rights. Whether that be raising children, hospital
visitations or death benefits. This has only become the latest threat to our
constitution that states that ALL citizens should have equal rights!
Apparently gay people want IRS backing to extract money from my wallet. And I
am supposed to be happy about this?
@ImaUteFan"Some of us have our beliefs built on a solid
foundation and it doesn't matter which way the wind is blowing, our beliefs
cannot and will not be swayed."If religious leaders were to
announce tomorrow that they'd been mistaken; that God had revealed to them
that homosexuality is not in fact sinful, I believe that many WOULD be swayed.
This I find deeply disturbing. And deeply telling.
@ Blue AZ:"Look, if two people of the same gender want to shack
up together, I have no problem with that -- they have the right to live their
life how they want."I don't suppose you see how this
sentence contradicts everything you are saying about gay marriage. The point
is, Gay people want to label their relationship as a marriage. They want to
enjoy the same rights and obligations under the law, as heterosexual couples who
ask for legal recognition of their relationships. When you say they have the
right to live how they want but say marriage is not part of that right (as it is
the right of any heterosexual couple) you are contradicting the very essence of
how rights are defined.By labeling their relationship a marriage,
Gay people are not saying your marriage, or the marriage of any heterosexual
couple, is somehow now less, but rather that their relationship, between two
consenting adult citizens, is entitled to the same legal considerations and
subject to the same obligations under the law.
Blue AZ Cougar said: "How come your happiness is so dependent on the social
acceptance of your actions? Are you somehow precluded from having a relationship
with someone of the same gender? Or living with them? Is it solely the monetary
aspect of tax breaks that precludes you from being truly happy?"Brilliant!
Hopefully the American electorate realize thatelections have consequences.
Obama's winhas set in motion his radical agenda to fundamentallytransform our country ,SSM is just one areawhere activist judges rule
against the will ofthe people.
Willem said: "LDS do you now see which way the wind is blowing?"Yes, the LDS do. And no matter how the wind continues to
blow, no matter what happens, no matter how many states are forced to upend
their majority vote and SSM is declared the law, even if the Supreme Court
decides to cave and declares it law in all 50 states... No matter
what---there will ALWAYS be an LDS position that will NOT cave and and that will
not be able to be 'worn down, won over and convinced' --- that will
remain unconquerable by those who insist same-sex become socially and morally
acceptable.The 'irresistible force' will find they run
right into the 'immovable object'.
Everybody knows that behind the scenes the Church is cringing at
these"activist federal judges" (16 now total nationwide). If we are only
arguing about the word "marriage " why not rewrite Amendment 3 which
simply states: that all citizens have the right(s) to form legal state
sanctioned partnerships and that all religious institutions have the right to
perform quasi-legal marriages. All people who want to be legally
"married" MUST be "partnered/married" by the State as
"partnerships".They can then elect to get "married" in the
Church of their faith. Quite simple. Make Church marriage SPECIAL, retain they
name but not the official "blessing" of the state. The church
doesn't need the official blessing of the State to bestow the blessing of
marriage. Eliminate Church personnel from the statutes as authorized to perform
state sanctioned partnerships.The Church would retain their right to perform
their "blessings" on their own members as they saw fit. So very simple.
@ Bob A Bohey:When did religion give up its "monopoly" on
marriage definition? It was a religious institution long before government
stepped in. Was it when states started charging for marriage licenses? When
states started performing blood tests? Marriage existed long before
government. It is a religious institution. Revising history to fit personal
beliefs and opinions is tricky business....
Prodicus said: "The winds of the gullible public will blow according to the
cunning craftiness of the self-deceived....those who advocate homosexual
behavior are not satisfied with civil unions, because what they are after is to
establish a false moral equivalency in the minds of the public. Really love your turns of phrase. Well said.
BTRP, what I'm saying is that when someone has sex, either they made a free
choice to do so, a choice which is subject to moral scrutiny, or they were
raped. That is equally true regardless of what direction their attractions tend
and regardless of how those attractions developed.Neither genes nor
upbringing nor anything about attractions and inclinations force our actions on
any particular occasion. This is equally true of all our feelings and desires,
sexual or not.That people have inclinations, attractions, etc
towards particular immoral behaviors does not eo ipso make them bad people.
Everyone has some such inclinations; this is part of being human.Treating people with justice and compassion never requires approving of
whatever immoral actions they have tendencies towards.Treating
people as though they were ruled by their attractions and had no choice in their
actions isn't compassionate, it's treating them as inferior animals
rather than equals. Even if people would feel intense gratification doing some
immoral deed, they will be better off in the long run if they avoid it.EDM, whether homosexuality is classified as a disorder or not is utterly
irrelevant to anything I said.
I resent the writer of the article stating that Utah now accepts gay marriage.
Utah does not accept gay marriage; one tyrannicaljudge unconstitutionally
imposed it against the will of the people of Utah. The Constitution gives
states the right to define marriage not the federal government.
@RedWings:"When did religion give up its "monopoly" on marriage
definition? It was a religious institution long before government stepped
in." Your statement is absolutely false. Presenting statements
such as you did as a fact is just one reason those that wish to deny equal
rights to all undermine their argument. Marriage defined as a civil arrangement
pre-dates the religious definition of marriage by almost 100,000 years. It never
ceases to amaze me how little proponents of "traditional marriage"
actually know about "traditional marriage". SMH
Blue AZ Cougar, The only problem I have with your position is the
assumption that your religious beliefs can be (or should be) imposed on others.
Those beliefs have no place in how other lives are determined. They're
yours to own, but I don't accept them as mine. The courts don't accept
them as an argument either. I completely understand that might be upsetting.
Listen to the gay supporters: All we want is to love and be loved! It
can't possibly hurt anyone else! You are a bigot for not giving in and
giving us everything we want! Religion is wrong! Homosexual behavior is not a
sin!Blah, blah. Tell me, who here thinks that the gay lobby will be
satisfied with state recognition of SSM? They swore up and down that civil
unions would make them happy. They lied. They swear that governmental
recognition of marriage is all they want and they will never force churches to
marry them. They are lying now. Look at groups like GLAAD. Do you honestly
think they will be satisfied until you either praise them or are in jail? Look
at how bent out of shape the got over Phil Robertson--they did their best to get
him fired. And THAT is why we should fight the gay lobby at every
turn, because it is their open goal to criminalize any kind of opposition--moral
or otherwise--to the gay lobby and its desires.
"So what's to stop any combination of people whether they are
romantically involved or not from getting a marriage license and getting those
same benefits". Absolutely nothing and it happens everyday. BTW
that is a core characteristic of arranged "marriages" that historically
have been the normal mode of marriage for centuries. The general acceptance of
marriage for romantic love is actually a very new concept. It really is less
than a couple of hundred years old. Lots of books and scholarly work on this.
Blue Cougar, No it's not hypocrisy. You are allowed your
opinion regardless of it's origin. It's simply my opinion that when
marriage at it's core is a personal, social, and legal commitment,
it's bigoted and discriminatory to not allow anyone to marry regardless of
sexual orientation who meets that standard. You apply a different standard.
You're entitled to your opinion, but by my definition of marriage your
standard is..well you know. Hypocrisy would be if I didn't
allow you your opinion but expressed one myself.
Utah will lose.I am disappointed at the little shot at Judge Shelby.
The OK judge had a clear precedent and instruction from the U.S. Supreme Court
on the stay issue. Judge Shelby did not. In addition, the State of Utah did
not ask for a stay. It's time for this paper to stop its attacks on the
judge and his well reasoned decision. Stay on the message and stop attacking
the messenger. You are violating the very same principles stated in the letter
on the issue read in LDS congregations.
Next question, that gay rights supports refuse to answer:The 14th
Amendment provided absolutely no protections to Mormons when they were being
jailed, their property confiscated, and their rights to vote stripped back in
the 1800s. Both the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, and the 14th amendments gave zero
protection to the Mormons against the Federal Government. Yet NOW,
the 14th amendment insists that government must marry gays. So Mormons can be
jailed legally and lose all their constitutional rights for their views on
marriage, yet the government must marry gays by order of the same
Constitution.How does that work? Why are gays so much better than
Mormons? What makes their rights so special, and privileged? Because the gay
rights lobby holds that polygamy should still be illegal, so obviously they
agree with Reynolds and its progeny. I.E. Gays are more equal than the rest of
Prodicus, I agree that humans have certain tendencies and inclinations, that are
both positive and negative. I agree that when someone engages in sexual
activity, it is a conscious choice to do so, just like every other decision that
people make in the course of a day. I hope that you also see that
your decisions to engage in sexual activity with someone of the opposite sex is
also a conscious decision, that I'm sure you don't view as immoral.
You must recognize that gays probably don't view their sexual activity as
immoral. Everyone has a different upbringing and while you can certainly
advocate your religious/moral views, people who don't share those views
cannot be held accountable to them.
This movement is a huge hit to a moral society.
Prodicus, I agree you can treat people with compassion without approving of how
they live their lives. However, I firmly believe that gays lead their lives to
the best of their abilities, like you, but according to their own background and
morals. Being gay myself, I can unequivocally say that its not a
choice to be immoral, but to be physically connected to the one I love is why I
engage in sex. I bet you feel similarly.
@Mayfair:"No matter what---there will ALWAYS be an LDS position
that will NOT cave and and that will not be able to be 'worn down, won over
and convinced' --- that will remain unconquerable by those who insist
same-sex become socially and morally acceptable."Nobody I know
is asking you to cave on your personal beliefs, and that includes my gay and
lesbian friends. What is being asked for is an acknowledgement that your
personal beliefs have no weight when deciding the rights of the citizenry
according to the standard set by the U.S. Constitution, which sets the legal
standard for state constitutions.You are not a bigot if you disagree
with homosexuality, but you cannot cry foul if you are asking that your
religious beliefs interfere with my rights as a citizen and I call you out on
@EDMIf it's a matter of tax breaks, equal housing or employment
opportunities, I get it -- your sexual orientation should not matter when it
comes to those things. Our country is in need of tax reform anyway, so why not
change how the tax rules work rather than changing the institution of marriage?
In addition to legal acceptance, a lot (not all) of same-sex couples want there
to be social acceptance, which is something that cannot be legislated. I
completely understand that might be upsetting for you. Rather than trying to
turn traditional marriage on its head to gain access to federal benefits, why
not change the way federal benefits are proscribed?Obviously this is
one of those issues where there is no middle ground -- either you're for it
or against it (and both sides have a myriad of reasons to support their
Here is the point that most people are missing with this issue and any other
issue pertaining to moral and/or religious beliefs: People in a society set
moral standards.The Constitution was designed so that each
individual community, or state, could define their moral rights and wrongs. New
York decided that you cannot drink too much soda, Colorado decided you can smoke
pot, San Francisco decided that putting anything other than a car in your garage
is illegal, and Oklahoma decided that putting the 10 Commandments on state
property is okay. I could go on and on, but you get the point.If
the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) was truly designed as Judge Shelby said it
was, then the Federal Government could take any one of these local laws and
force it upon every other state. That's not happening though, and never
should, otherwise the entire point of Federalism and our Constitution would be
pointless....continued in another post.
...continued from aboveStates should have the right, as a community
of voters, to decide what their moral standards are in their places of living.
Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized because
moral beliefs are not allowed to dictate law, then why not polygamy? Why not
marriage to animals? Why not marriage to trees, or the stars?And
before you say, "you have to have consent", explain to me why your line
in the sand is any more valid than my line in the sand? Do you get what
I'm saying? I mean, if your moral version of right and wrong is, "you
must be able to consent", then why is that stronger or more important than
mine which is found in the Bible.continued...
An atheist will claim that prayer shouldn't be allowed in school or on
state property because it offends him, that a "moment of silence" should
be used instead. Well guess what, my new religion dictates that "moments of
silence" is phony and it offends ME. Also, handshakes offend me - they
represent signs of the Cthulhlu, lord of the sea, so I want that removed as well
from state property. And before you say, "you're being
ridiculous", remember that any group of people, in the name of activism can
come up with any sort of phony organization they want to forward their cause in
the name of "equality". It's being done right now in Oklahoma on
state property with the Satan statue.You see how the removal of
morals in society leads to complete ridiculousness? The framers never thought
that people would abandon their inner conscience of right and wrong, they never
intended our laws to work properly without it. Without the key ingredient of
"goodness" in society, that inner light that each of us have that comes
from God, there is no functioning society, we will become endlessly locked in
pointless debates over Constitutional interpretation.
I'm confused about comments suggesting that the LDS Church never changes
its teachings? Has anyone ever heard about polygamy and the prohibition of
inter-racial marriage? Can anyone dispute that the LDS Church changed its
teachings with respect to marriage in two obvious ways?
The real issue at stake here is that of a false right.(the right to
recognize their relationship and stop others from discriminating against
them.)This has nothing to with the sociological issue that many are
Most of the detractors in this thread still fail to grasp that this marriage
equality issue has absolutely nothing to do with personal beliefs resulting from
dogmatic indoctrination.It is a civil rights matter.Failure to understand this concept is the origin of the angst many religious
people feel regarding marriage equality.Last year SCOTUS indicated
thru the DOMA/Prop8 decisions that states do indeed have a say in their approach
to marriage - as long as all state laws pertaining to marriage comport with
constitutional law. Utah's Amendment 3 utterly failed constitutional
scrutiny, and that's why it (and every similar law throughout the land) is
being properly dismantled before us. Similar to the way we now allow women and
minorities to vote, America has finally evolved to an enlightened state where
free citizens no longer tolerate legal bigotry and state-sponsored
"....we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with
human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge
and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a
whale goes through a net. "Our Constitution was made only for a
moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other." John Adams, 2nd
President of the United States.
With the country's two reddest states being dragged - albeit kicking and
screaming - into the civilized world, we can all breathe and sleep a little
easier. This story even managed to omit the obligatory "activist judge"
thing, though they did squeeze in a comment from the FRC, a certified hate
group. Maybe there's hope for the DN.
It's always comforting to me that no matter how the "winds blow" in
this world that God's laws do not blow with it. Good can be called
evil and evil good by the worlds standards, but it doesn't change reality.
I believe sexual behavior outside of marriage between a man and a woman is
a sin. Are these my religious beliefs? Absolutely. However, having these
beliefs does not give me the right to ever be unkind or disrespectful to anyone,
but it does not mean that I have to believe the same way they do.
BTRP, at least you'll admit the action is a choice. But someone with
pyromania may not view their inflammatory activity as immoral. They might might
say "unequivocally, it is not a choice to be immoral, but self-expression is
why I engage in arson." People who don't share the moral views of
others are nonetheless held accountable to those moral views all the time. There
is no other way to have a civil society in the face of any kind of disagreement
at all. One person's supposed "right" to do whatever they feel
self-justified in doing cannot override a hundred other people's right to
participate in determining what kind of community they want to live in.
@TheTrueVoice"Most of the detractors in this thread still fail
to grasp that this marriage equality issue has absolutely nothing to do with
personal beliefs resulting from dogmatic indoctrination.It is a
civil rights matter."And I say marrying a donkey is a civil
rights matter. Go find a state that agrees with you and feel free to make gay
marriage a right all you want, but don't force me and my state to agree
with your version of moral right and wrong.
It would be good if all the contrarians would write down their verbose opinions
to read back to themselves twenty years from now to hear how foolish they sound.
And of course by then there will be a new president of the Mormon church and
things will be different as current presidents supersede past thinking.
Clearly Satan has a strong foothold in our judiciary. I fear the battle for
righteousness has been lost and evil will be the law of the land.
I am really sorry this is becoming so hard for certain people. Unfortunately,
the days of pushing religious beliefs on this topic onto others is coming to an
end. I hope you can come to terms with this and accept your fellow citizens.
Please I urge you to do this before the courts force you to do so.
@ illuminated:"An atheist will claim that prayer shouldn't
be allowed in school or on state property because it offends him . . ."An atheist (which I am not) will 'insist' prayer should not be
'mandated' in school.* * *"Otherwise,
where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized because moral beliefs
are not allowed to dictate law, then why not polygamy? Why not marriage to
animals? Why not marriage to trees, or the stars?"Are you
honestly trying to use the slippery-slope fallacy of equating the relationship
between two consenting adults to bestiality? * * *
@ Red Wings:"When did religion give up its "monopoly" on
marriage definition?"When the First Amendment to the
Constitution was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Why does everyone keep repeating the talking point that the AG didn't
request a stay? You can go online and read the transcript of Judge Shelby
denying the stay. A stay wasn't requested prior to his decision. But a
stay was certainly requested.I'm shocked the judge didn't
stay his own order sua sponte. Arrogant and irresponsible IMO.
"Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized because
moral beliefs are not allowed to dictate law, then why not polygamy? Why not
marriage to animals? Why not marriage to trees, or the stars?"-------------Maybe it has been a while since you received a
marriage license. You must both go in person before the county and show
identification that you are who you say you are and then both sign the
license.Why not animals? Trees? Stars? Children? Can
they physically or legally sign a contract?
I has to be killing conservatives to see Americans have freedom.
VanceoneProvo, UTNext question, that gay rights supports
refuse to answer:The 14th Amendment provided absolutely no
protections to Mormons when they were being jailed, their property confiscated,
and their rights to vote stripped back in the 1800s. Both the 1st, the 4th, the
5th, and the 14th amendments gave zero protection to the Mormons against the
Federal Government.--------------Let's see...the
saints came in Utah in 1847. The civil war started in 1860. The 14th amendment
was passed after the civil war.Oh, there WAS no 14th amendment when
the saints were being pursecuted, was there. States rights were still allowed
to rule, but then we fought a war and killed 600 thousand of our citizens to
prove that the federal government must be supreme.Now we know
@illuminated: "And I say marrying a donkey is a civil rights matter."This type of False Equivalency argument does not lend credence to your
position on the issue. Donkeys, pets, minors, inanimate objects all lack
recognized legal capacity under the law to consent to a contract.You
then say: "don't force me and my state to agree with your version of
moral right and wrong." Hopefully you will grasp the concept
that no one is "forcing" you to agree to anything, or to be gay, or have
gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. You are free to continue to harbor any
ill will and demeaning thoughts about them as you see fit. An easy cure if you
don't like something, is simply not pay attention to it. Peace
will come to you when you understand that not being able to unjustifiably force
people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringement on your
@ Pragmatist You said "BTW that is a core characteristic of arranged
"marriages" that historically have been the normal mode of marriage for
centuries." Yes and the primary reason for those arranged marriages was so
that a man and a woman would reproduce and perpetuate the species. Obviously,
not all marriages are able to reproduce. That's an exception. For many
that is a sensitive and heart breaking thing. DON'T even try to bring that
argument into your pro-gay marriage argument. Some never intend to have
children- that's a decision- a perk of being married and it's their
choice. Some are too old to conceive. Don't we owe it to them as a society
to allow them companionship and legal benefits in their elderly years? If it were up to me, I'd say yes to gay marriage as long as there
were no children involved. No adoptions, none of this make a baby because we
want one business. Will gay marriage affect my own marriage? NO!!
But in the long run it will affect the next generation by confusing them and
harming them psychologically. Mark my words.
@ImaUteFan: This may come as a shock to YOU, but not every religion opposes
same sex marriage, either as a civil institution or a religious one.In any event, I don't hear anyone telling you that you can't keep
your beliefs regarding either gay people or the institution of marriage, or that
you can't speak your beliefs. What you can't do, no matter how many
like-minded people you band together with, is to use the force of government to
restrict that minority's right to live an equivalent peaceful and civic
existence. Our Constitution places limits on that. Nor can you restrict the
rights of others to speak in criticism of you and your beliefs. Like it or
not, that's the very nature of a free society.@BlueAZCougar:
Have a look at Romans 14. It's not just about food and drink. It's
about the very nature of sin and judging your fellow man.@ClarkWGriswold: Then, by your measure, heterosexual marriage is a failure
with 41% of births out of wedlock.@Pete1215: Many gay couples have
two high-income earners. They actually pay MORE in taxes if they marry.
To "skeptic" I don't think you understand the LDS church very well.
They have been preaching against homosexuality, adultery, fornication, drug
abuse, etc. for 60 years. There have been several different leaders, but they
all have said the same thing. Don't count on things changing ever when it
comes to doctrine in the LDS church.
Prodicus, you probably can't see it, but there seems to be a plank in your
eye. Yes, very much like a railroad tie...wow.But thank you for pointing
out the mote in my eye, I am eternally grateful.
@ BandersenYou wrote:"I think that it is odd that
someone would refer to something that was considered dark, demeaning, and gross
for centuries by all of humanity would now refer to it as
"enlightened"and that every human that lived before the last thirty
years as the anomaly of history!" I think you bring up an
interesting point. Native Americans, Indians, Greeks, Romans, and
actually many more cultures accepted same sex relationships with no problem. The
oldest religion in the world Hinduism, includes stories of homosexual nature
among certain gods.What happened then? Paul happened.The
gospels never mentioned Jesus against homosexuality, on the contrary, there is
evidence that he supported same sex relationship i.e.Centurion asking healing
for his servant, (debatable linguistic manipulation in the translation). Jesus
taught that some Eunuchs were born that way (natural).Paul
introduced to Christianity some mores from his Jewish up-bringing and they were
spread with Christianity.Same sex relationships were "considered
dark, gross and demeaning" in most cultures 'only after' so called
Christian values were imposed by the invading conquerors.Jesus, BOM,
D&C, Joseph Smith, never said anything against Homosexuality.
Prodicus, I hope that you recognize the choice is just the same as the choice
you make between you and your spouse. As far as the arsonists who enjoy setting
things aflame, they certainly can be judged by society but they are also held to
a standard called the law. The risk of jail keeps most arsonists at bay,
however, homosexuals marrying doesn't carry the same negative connotation
to most society nor the law. The "morals of society" are
subjective to the individual, but as you mentioned, many are agreed upon by a
significant number of people (not all). You talk about the "right to do
whatever they feel self-justified in doing" Do you feel self-justified when
you make love with your spouse? Don't you feel that its "right" to
be physically intimate with the one you love? Why is your feeling of
"right" the standard by which others must live their lives as compared
to the feeling of what is "right" for a gay person? Do you sincerely
not believe that someone could feel the same way about a person of the same sex
as you do with your spouse?
@James Whistler:"...could we (or the moderators of this forum) put a
moratorium on comparing gay relationships to incest and bestiality?"Generally if someone is losing an argument they usually try to get the
other person's argument cut off."It's off topic and
obnoxious."I'll tell ya what's obnoxious... two guys
making out."If a person or group is barred by law from certain
benefits or responsibilities that other people freely enjoy, and the government
can offer no compelling reason for that distinction, then the law is unjust and
must be thrown out."Did you mean laws barring persons from
polygamous, incestuous, close relative, sib marriages? Is that your point?
Inquiring minds wanna know.@LiberalJimmy:"Discrimination
is unconstitutional."Are you making the point that polygamists
should be able to marry?@Chilidog:"The state can still
make marriage determinations, BUT, and this is a vitally important point, those
determinations must follow the US Constitution."The US
Constitution says nothing about marriage. You can't say authority to
define marriage resides with the state but the US Constitution says which
marriages states can and cannot authorize. This is just circuitous arguing.
@Vanceone"The 14th Amendment provided absolutely no protections to
Mormons when they were being jailed, their property confiscated, and their
rights to vote stripped back in the 1800s. "The 14th Amendment
was after the Civil War and after most of that conflict in Missouri and other
areas. (Not to say it was all rainbows and sunshine in the Utah territory of
course). Though it would've been nice to have an "activist judge"
around to strike down some of that nonsense that was going on...
Redshirt, if you look at church history you will see the same can be said about
polygamy, Blacks, ERA. Jews, etc. So perhaps an outsider looking in knows more
about the Mormon church than an insider looking out. Sometimes one is too close
to the issue to see the issue; don't you think.
@ @ Vanceone You wrote: " Next question, that gay rights
supports refuse to answer:The 14th Amendment provided absolutely no
protections to Mormons when they were being jailed, their property confiscated,
and their rights to vote stripped back in the 1800s. Both the 1st, the 4th, the
5th, and the 14th amendments gave zero protection to the Mormons against the
Federal Government. "I just learned from Lane Myer and Schnee
that the 14th Amendment was made after the Civil War. Thank you guys!!But what call to my attention is that you defend "Christian
principles", yet, you seem to be saying if Mormons didn't received
support from the Federal Government, then no one should get their support. At
least LGBT shouldn't.I doubt the LDS church would agree with
that attitude. I know that Christ taught us something very different.Vanceone, the LGBT is gaining victory after victory in the United States and
around the world. No because we are persecuting anyone. But because finally
society has evolved to the point that is questioning all those practices that
"harm" other individuals.LGBT treatment is only one of many
other wrongs that need to be corrected
To "skeptic" yes, you can say that the LDS church doctrine does not
change.Polygamy was part of the church doctrine in Joseph
Smith's time, and it remains so today.ERA was opposed when it
was first proposed, and much of what the church said would happen has happened.
The LDS church still opposes all of the bad things that have resulted from the
ERA. See "The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral
Issue" on the LDS web site.As for Blacks and the Priesthood, the
doctrine has been that we don't understand why they were denied the
Priesthood and that has always been the case. The only thing that chanes have
been people's guess as to why. See "Race and the Priesthood" on
the LDS web site.Again, when you get past the rumors and guesses,
the doctrine has remained the same since the church was founded.
O'really, not quite sure what your point was up to your final
paragraph,"Will gay marriage affect my own marriage? NO!! But in the long
run it will affect the next generation by confusing them and harming them
psychologically. Mark my words."Actually I'm more than
happy to "mark your words" because I think you are absolutely wrong and
I'll be happy to remind you of that in five years.
Is there not some collusion of these District Judges to move one after the other
to actively attack the majority will of the people? Inasmuch as same-sex
marriage is but an imitation of the real thing, marriage between one man and one
woman, there are no grounds for inequality here...sad, so sad am I as I see
foundational American values being shredded by people who openly mock the
commandments of God.
@ Pragmatist...a generation is longer than 5 yrs. It's at least 20. I have
no doubt there will be a huge chunk of kids growing up with this in their faces
who will be messed up because of it. Look what divorce has done to kids. Look
what fatherless families has done to kids. Children growing up in these homes
will be confused. I guarantee it. It can't help but affect them negatively.
Will they be loved? Oh yes, but love isn't enough. They need to be taught
by example. Two women can't teach a boy how to be a father. Two men
can't teach a girl how to be a mother. "Mom and Mom, who
is my dad and how did I get here if you two can't make a baby
together?" "Well, son we don't know who your father is."
That's going to go over well."Dad and Dad, Which one of you
gave birth to me? I want a mommy. Where is she? " " Well, daughter, uh,
well, neither of us did and that's not exactly possible." I'm
sure that little girl is going to love that conversation.
DRay, History has thousands of gods. From what one are you getting your
information and to who is it applicable and how do you know it is as you say.
To "pragmatistferlife" since you are in disbelief, how about we look at
the effects of instituting the "no fault" divorces. Back then we were
warned that this was a bad idea, and that it would alter the way people look at
marriage in the future.Now, we have more divorces and fewer
marriages. Seemingly simple things will change the next generation's
attitude towards marriage. Gay marriage will further the damage that started
with previous generations.
I tend to agree with "Ranchhand." I use to be an event specialists, and
many Christian weddings and parties usually featured alcohol as part of their
menu. I never heard one vendor complain that it violated their belief system.
Just by providing a service to a same sex couple does not mean that one agrees
with their life style, it is about being in business. I think that we have beat
this "Dead horse" and there is no part of it left to be beaten. No one can take away our right to believe in a principle, and if our
faith is so fragile that it can be shadowed by the unrighteousness of some one
else, then, maybe we need to evaluate our faith because that's where the
To all those that use Christ as the basis for their opposition of marriage
equality, I have a simple request: Please provide the chapter and verse from the
New Testament where Christ specifically speaks/taught about homosexuality.The Apostles documented the direct teachings of Christ - such as the
Sermon on the Mount where he is given direct attribution for many things,
including the "Blessed are..." statements or when Christ directly
teaches how to pray in what is termed, "The Lord's Prayer."And yet, he is not recorded as saying anything on the subject of
homosexuality. There's not one direct, first-person teaching by Christ on
the subject.If it was so important - and he abhorred it as much as
so many Christians claim - wouldn't he have directly spoken about it?
Wouldn't the Apostles have documented the very words, just as they did with
his other teachings?
Baccus: the BOM, D&C, Jesus, and Joseph Smith never said anything about
incest either? Justification for any sin isn't a reason for doing it! A
conscience can only strive with man for so long! Time to check it again. But
don't trust me, ask God!
@PraxisRead Matt. 28:19-20. Read John 21:25 We also don't have what
he said specifically about pedophilia, methanphetamines, beastiality, insider
trading or a hundred other different sins but he will hold us accountable none
the less. He has spoken throughout the history of the world. It all applies.
What was the first thing he taught in person? "Repent." Pretty clear
message. He will judge the world. What was the last thing he told the
adultress? It wasn't "neither do I condemn thee". It was "go
they way and sin no more." I have to worry about me. I will have nothing
to do with judging anyone else. But he will. Rather than asking people in the
comments about Christ, I suggest you make all of his words and works a
life's study. You will find there is a lot more to consider than what you
Clark W. Griswold"Not quite, marriage is more than just a personal,
social, and legal commitment. Marriage for thousands of years has always been
about the joining together of man and woman for the purpose of creating children
and establishing a family unit. Only a man and a woman can create their own
biological children together and taking on roles as fathers and mothers in
raising them. Two men and two women cannot."You don't have
to be married to have kids. Likewise, you don't have to have kids when
you're married. Otherwise infertile and elderly couples would not be
allowed to get married either. The ability to have children is a moot and
irrelevant point in this debate.
@ SalYou don't have the right to vote on who gets rights or
not. State's make their own laws, but they can't conflict with the
U.S. Constitution, which Amendment 3 obviously does.