LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[emiliano]

Cuz you owe your freedom in part to a homosexual, it might make you appreciate a homosexual person, that's all. Or, you just might be another ungrateful person.

You are a dificult one, I’ll try once more, if anything I should be grateful that his parent were straight and reproduced themselves, if they would have been two males in a marriage he would not have been a brilliant mathematician man, but something else. Thank God that they weren’t gays or abortionist. His homosexuality had nothing to do with his mathematical genius.

 

[emiliano]

Intelligence Genes aren't always passed on. Family friends are genius's who designed some of the dreamworld rides. Their son is a drug addict. Last time i checked drug addicts weren't genius's.

Brilliant! How were you able to work this one out? Did it give you a stress head ache?
I tire easily so read my post I clearly said “that there is a chance that his trait could have been propagated” So your last effort in this discussion is sooo poor.

http://www.sweetim.com/s.asp?im=gen&ref=12

 

[darkendless]

Brilliant! How were you able to work this one out? Did it give you a stress head ache?
I tire easily so read my post I clearly said “that there is a chance that his trait could have been propagated” So your last effort in this discussion is sooo poor.

I get tired of reading your arguements also. Because people are gay they cannot transmit their intelligence on? Dream on the can lecture and pass it on that way. Your arguement is flawed. Be glad you still live in a Country to gutless to pass laws that give ALL Australians equal rights.

 

[Magic Man]

But, is not their homosexuality that made the difference, I clearly said “the homosexuality of this fellow prevented the possible propagation of his trait, his brilliancy at math, that allowed him to break the code that according to auto won the war. I don’t think that homosexual are less intelligent that heterosexual, just that if they were heterosexual there is chance that their superior trait could be propagated.
PS you’re straying for the thread topic, it's OK with me, but don’t come with another quip as you have done in this discussion.

Actually, you're straying from the original point of this tangent.

I have not had many contact with homosexuals because they are a tiny section of the community, and I am not that way incline, but I am getting a bit tired of the fact that I can’t watch tele without having to watch a guy person in it, it seem as there are an unwritten laws that every movie or show has to have one or to of them in it, but I am OK with it, I don’t watch a great deal of TV anyway.

That's what started this. Then, Auto commented that you may or may not have had personal contact with a lot of homosexuals, but you owe a lot to many of them. She provided an example that should help change your feeling that you never want to see them. That was the idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, I'm not up on that. What's that about, the "revision vs. amendment" thing?

The California State Constitution provides two different processes for itself to be changed: a revision, which requires approval by a 2/3 majority of the state legislature before being made a ballot measure, and an amendment, which doesn't need approval of the legislature at all.

The California Constitution is very brief and vague about what the criteria are to make a constitutional change either an amendment or a revision, but (AFAIK - like I mentioned, I'm no lawyer) the courts have generally considered revisions to be appropriate when the issue is a significant change - either in terms of legislative scope or magnitude of practical effect - and amendments to be appropriate when the issue is less significant.

Proposition 8 went through the process for an amendment, but there are legal challenges underway that argue that Proposition 8's effects are so significant that it should have gone through the revision process. AFAIK, if the court agrees, then Proposition 8 is nullified and wouldn't be able to be re-introduced as a ballot measure until two thirds of the legislature approves it.

This random blog I just found in a Google search seems to explain it better than I probably could:

However, the issue presented by Prop 8 is different in important respects from any that the state courts have previously confronted. In a brief filed yesterday several legal groups representing gay couples argue that Prop 8 is a revision. You should read their brief if you want to get into the weeds of the argument further, but I can summarize the heart of it fairly succinctly: Prop 8 stripped (1) a fundamental right (marriage) from (2) a suspect class (gays). Because of the importance of these changes, they argue, it is thus a revision and not an amendment.

The following issues bearing on the revision/amendment distinction are raised: First, can a fundamental right be denied through amendment, requiring only a majority vote of the people? Second, can a bare majority target a suspect class by mere amendment? Either of these alone would present a novel issue for the state courts. (Important rights of criminal defendants were at issue in Raven v. Deukmejian, 52 Cal 3d 336 (Cal. 1990), though the court didn't call them "fundamental rights" and at any rate held that the case involved a revision.) Together, they're a double-whammy of constitutional change.

[...]

The California Supreme Court has held that the difference between an amendment and a revision turns on both "quantitative and qualitative" factors, and that "substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision." Raven, 52 Cal. 3d at 350 (emphasis added). Thus, even if we thought that Prop 8 affected relatively few constitutional provisions (say, the state's equal protection and due-process guarantees), changes to these provisions might be regarded as "substantial qualitative" reforms in the content of basic constitutional principles.

The whole issue does seem to be legally messy, but I'm hopeful that it will be resolved in favour of throwing out Proposition 8.

 

[Watchmen]

The two Con Law professors at my school say the legal challenge has almost no chance. One professor gives it 0% while the other gives it 10-15%. They are both registered dems and support equality in marriage. Even so, they aren't looking at the challenge through rose-colored glasses. Equality for marriage won't happen until the California voters pass an equality for marriage proposition.

 

[Magic Man]

The two Con Law professors at my school say the legal challenge has almost no chance. One professor gives it 0% while the other gives it 10-15%. They are both registered dems and support equality in marriage. Even so, they aren't looking at the challenge through rose-colored glasses. Equality for marriage won't happen until the California voters pass an equality for marriage proposition.

My question is then "Will this not work because of the general bias against homosexuality or will it not work because it's not legally justified?". I get the feeling that there is plenty wrong with this whole situation legally, but even the people in power "lawyer it away" (If you will) because they are biased against homosexuals.

 

[Watchmen]

My question is then "Will this not work because of the general bias against homosexuality or will it not work because it's not legally justified?". I get the feeling that there is plenty wrong with this whole situation legally, but even the people in power "lawyer it away" (If you will) because they are biased against homosexuals.

Are you saying the professors are biased against homosexuals? They're not.

They made both legal and social arguments. Legally, this looks more like an amendment than a revision. Socially, the court won't want to be seen overturning such an amendment and will tell the marriage equality folks to bring their own prop.

 

[gnomon]

I agree with DM.

There will have to be another proposition to amend the Constitution.

Barring that only a SCOTUS decision or federal legislation will change the situation. I do not see either of these happening for quite some time.

 

[Magic Man]

Are you saying the professors are biased against homosexuals? They're not.

No, I wasn't referring to your profs. I was referring to the people who are in charge of these things.

They made both legal and social arguments. Legally, this looks more like an amendment than a revision. Socially, the court won't want to be seen overturning such an amendment and will tell the marriage equality folks to bring their own prop.

Of course there are arguments for and against it, but it's pretty simple if you're not looking for justification. There were arguments against interracial marriage, too. They held up for a long time because of the will to want them to hold up. Finally, they were thrown out because they didn't actually hold up legally. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a basic right. Not allowing two men to exercise that right is discrimination. It's denying basic rights to certain people.

 

[Autodidact]

You are a dificult one, I’ll try once more, if anything I should be grateful that his parent were straight and reproduced themselves, if they would have been two males in a marriage he would not have been a brilliant mathematician man, but something else. Thank God that they weren’t gays or abortionist. His homosexuality had nothing to do with his mathematical genius.

We don't know that one way or the other. Certainly gay men have contributed a disproportionate proportion of the world's artists, so there may be some connection there.

Just because someone is gay does not mean that they do not reproduce, remarked the mother of three.

Reproducing is not the only, or even the most significant, contribution that a person can make to society.

Wouldn't it have been nice if Alan Turing had not felt the need to kill himself, and had been free to continue to make his brilliant contributions to world culture?

In any case, my point is that in fact you have lots of contact with gay people, if you work, have neighbors, have relatives, read books, listen to music, watch TV or movies--or survived World War Two without Nazi victory.

 

[emiliano]

I get tired of reading your arguements also. Because people are gay they cannot transmit their intelligence on? Dream on the can lecture and pass it on that way. Your arguement is flawed. Be glad you still live in a Country to gutless to pass laws that give ALL Australians equal rights.

Darkenless, they don’t reproduce, the result of their efforts are turds.
How many times do I have to tell you, whatever contribution they do is due to certain traits that they have, not to their homosexuality, it does not makes them better, if one should be thankful to anybody is to the parents of those that contribute to society. The reason that we don’t know of some people homosexuality that do great things for humanity is that they don’t advertise it and activist cannot not use it in their campaigns. People talks about their right, what about the rights of those that don’t want their young children exposed to this behaviours? Remembering that they soon start campaigning for the right to teach about this in primary schools and change their educational resources. There was a case in Australia were a gay organization took a pastor to court because he preached against homosexuality to his congregation. To my mind these campaigns are not really to have a right to anything but the right to impose one’s right on other. In a democratic society the will of the majority rules, they have the right to a fair hearing, minorities must be respected, not obeyed. They lost this one, now they should give it a break and let the authorities get on with more important issues confronting them.

Equality of the sexes? There are two genders in humans, male and female and great progress has been made in the pursuit of equality, what exactly is this sex that is seeking equality?

 

[Luminous]

Darkenless, they don’t reproduce, the result of their efforts are turds.
How many times do I have to tell you, whatever contribution they do is due to certain traits that they have, not to their homosexuality, it does not makes them better, if one should be thankful to anybody is to the parents of those that contribute to society. The reason that we don’t know of some people homosexuality that do great things for humanity is that they don’t advertise it and activist cannot not use it in their campaigns. People talks about their right, what about the rights of those that don’t want their young children exposed to this behaviours? Remembering that they soon start campaigning for the right to teach about this in primary schools and change their educational resources. There was a case in Australia were a gay organization took a pastor to court because he preached against homosexuality to his congregation. To my mind these campaigns are not really to have a right to anything but the right to impose one’s right on other. In a democratic society the will of the majority rules, they have the right to a fair hearing, minorities must be respected, not obeyed. They lost this one, now they should give it a break and let the authorities get on with more important issues confronting them.

Equality of the sexes? There are two genders in humans, male and female and great progress has been made in the pursuit of equality, what exactly is this sex that is seeking equality?

Dear evangelical christian: your hatefulness is ludicrous, i think you need to read and then watch these, may the Holy Spirit enter your heart and give you peace.

Love Jesus, Hate Church :.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

take no heed of this, lest ye be tempted: ( there is an island somewhere that accepts 5 sexes.)

 

[darkendless]

Darkenless, they don’t reproduce, the result of their efforts are turds.
How many times do I have to tell you, whatever contribution they do is due to certain traits that they have, not to their homosexuality, it does not makes them better, if one should be thankful to anybody is to the parents of those that contribute to society. The reason that we don’t know of some people homosexuality that do great things for humanity is that they don’t advertise it and activist cannot not use it in their campaigns. People talks about their right, what about the rights of those that don’t want their young children exposed to this behaviours? Remembering that they soon start campaigning for the right to teach about this in primary schools and change their educational resources. There was a case in Australia were a gay organization took a pastor to court because he preached against homosexuality to his congregation. To my mind these campaigns are not really to have a right to anything but the right to impose one’s right on other. In a democratic society the will of the majority rules, they have the right to a fair hearing, minorities must be respected, not obeyed. They lost this one, now they should give it a break and let the authorities get on with more important issues confronting them.

Equality of the sexes? There are two genders in humans, male and female and great progress has been made in the pursuit of equality, what exactly is this sex that is seeking equality?

Your prehistoric thinking is part of the reason why this country is another first world tyranny. Why is it unacceptable to preach against a Parish for preaching against homosexuality? Here is a double standard that has plagued our country for too long. I voted against Kevin Rudd because i felt he was too forward in his religious views and in pushing any debate on homosexuality away.
People who dont want their children exposed need to as chopper reid would say, "Harden the F*** up." You cant stop it. There are homosexual kids in almost every school, even in the religious schools these days, so lets educate the kids about it rather than sending out another generation of bigots and prudes.
The pastor needs to be removed from his power. There is NO excuse for preaching hatred. Why do you think we're such a backward nation with no conscience? I don't care if the church dislikes Homosexuality, but they need to stop trying to impose their morality on a country that doesn't care.

 

[emiliano]

Reproducing is not the only, or even the most significant, contribution that a person can make to society.

Wouldn't it have been nice if Alan Turing had not felt the need to kill himself, and had been free to continue to make his brilliant contributions to world culture?

In any case, my point is that in fact you have lots of contact with gay people, if you work, have neighbors, have relatives, read books, listen to music, watch TV or movies--or survived World War Two without Nazi victory.

Well, that is where we disagree, I am a Christian and I see the wisdom of the command
"Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it"
The reason that I don't have contactct with gays is that this behavious affect less than 3% of the population. as I said I don't watch a great deal of TV, and I am very selective on the kind of books that I read due to time restrictions, music is the same.

 

[Luminous]

for goodness' sake, look at my 7:00 P.M. post. its above or in the previous page. please click and study the links.

 

[emiliano]

Dear evangelical christian: your hatefulness is ludicrous, i think you need to read and then watch these, may the Holy Spirit enter your heart and give you peace.

Love Jesus, Hate Church :.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

take no heed of this, lest ye be tempted: (also there is an island somewhere that accepts 5 sexes.)

You cannot be Christian and practing homosexual, I am not interested in gay Churches they cannot be Christian Churches.

 

[Luminous]

Well, that is where we disagree, I am a Christian and I see the wisdom of the command
"Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it"
The reason that I don't have contactct with gays is that this behavious affect less than 3% of the population. as I said I don't watch a great deal of TV, and I am very selective on the kind of books that I read due to time restrictions, music is the same.

Atheists are not free thinkers they are pitiful over-users of reason and logic.
“My children can salute the flag, which is idolatry. They can recite the Pledge of Allegiance including the part about ‘under God’. But they can't take a yoga class [in public school]?? Explain to me how that makes sense?“

From Jimmy, now called Jacob:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can… I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

 

[Autodidact]

Darkenless, they don’t reproduce, the result of their efforts are turds.

Please don't tell my three kids.

How many times do I have to tell you, whatever contribution they do is due to certain traits that they have, not to their homosexuality, it does not makes them better,

No, but--and pay careful attention here--it doesn't make them any worse.

if one should be thankful to anybody is to the parents of those that contribute to society. The reason that we don’t know of some people homosexuality that do great things for humanity is that they don’t advertise it and activist cannot not use it in their campaigns. People talks about their right, what about the rights of those that don’t want their young children exposed to this behaviours?

Their right to bigotry and prejudice? I don't value this right. My suggestion would be to move to Iran, where this right is respected.

Remembering that they soon start campaigning for the right to teach about this in primary schools and change their educational resources. There was a case in Australia were a gay organization took a pastor to court because he preached against homosexuality to his congregation. To my mind these campaigns are not really to have a right to anything but the right to impose one’s right on other. In a democratic society the will of the majority rules, they have the right to a fair hearing, minorities must be respected, not obeyed. They lost this one, now they should give it a break and let the authorities get on with more important issues confronting them.

So if, for example, the majority voted against your right to practice your religion, you would similarly accept the will of the majority and leave it go?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Equality of the sexes? There are two genders in humans, male and female and great progress has been made in the pursuit of equality, what exactly is this sex that is seeking equality?

Male and female... for the third time, IIRC.