LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[painted wolf]

You know, I'm amused at how many people think it takes sex to have children.
Welcome to the 21st century and the joys of modern science.

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

To Darkenless. OK, let get on with it:

Your prehistoric thinking is part of the reason why this country is another first world tyranny.

Hello, are you there all there? I think that you are referring to the fact that in this country the majority rules/governs, we are a democracy and every four year we elect a government. We like the Americans freely elect the government that we want.

Why is it unacceptable to preach against a Parish for preaching against homosexuality?

I believe that the case was thrown out of court because the preacher/pastor was preaching to his congregation and did not incite violence against homosexual just stated what their tenets said, his sermon was based of 1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
1Co 15:33 Do not be deceived; evil companionships corrupt good habits.
This says to the congregation that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God and that the Church cannot have practicing homosexual in it.
He addressed His congregation, the souls that he has been charged to guide.

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.

I got news for you he is your prime minister and head of the government, you lost, and he is doing a good job at it, I did not vote for him either, but he won, so find someone that may be interested in what you think (they are a minority)

People who dont want their children exposed need to as chopper reid would say, "Harden the F*** up."

Chopper would say the same to the poofter that are campaigning for seme sex marriage, he is not very bright, he got caught and served a long time in jail.He got his ears chopped.

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.

But they did exactly that, they won and there are no such thing as seme sex marriages in California. They stopped them in their tracks.

The pastor needs to be removed from his power.

The state doesn’t interfere in the running of churches and the pastor won the suit.

There is NO excuse for preaching hatred.

That the thing he proved that he did not preach hatred, what he did is to preach Christian’s morals and Ethics, they only applied to Christians.

Why do you think we're such a backward nation with no conscience?

I love and admire this society, they give evebody a fair go and they are also very inventive, if you don’t like this Nation and is so bad, bugger off to another! They wont try to stop you I guarantee you that.

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.

I don’t care about your opinions, if you don’t like it, you know what you should do.

 

[emiliano]

Please don't tell my three kids.

I was referring specifically to the example that you brought into the discussion a gay man.

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

Proposition 8 is a religious position, it should be clear to you that this unnatural behavioural choice do not make homosexuals better or worst, what it does is that it makes reprobate, lost to the kingdom of God. Having said this, we do not want our children exposed to their influences.

Their right to bigotry and prejudice? I don't value this right.

Your opinion and you are entitle to it as I to mine.

My suggestion would be to move to Iran, where this right is respected. 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?[/

Well a move to another country has already been suggested, but there are other suggestion, give it a break and challenge again, challenge right now, organise protests, there are plenty option, whatever they pick, it will be opposed with the same vigour and resources and it will go on and on, you live on a democracy.
But it is your side that it is on the loosing side, so who should move?
quote]

I meant to asked you but I had to go to work and didn‘t have the time, why you presented this sad fellow suicide in your post, there are many thing that push people to suicide, do you know why he did it? A great number of suicide have at it root cause a mental illness or chronic depressing states, some are related to our choices in life, non reciprocated love, failures, non recognitions, and many others. It is more relate to our copping mechanism than anything else.

 

[painted wolf]

And yet our democracy has special laws built into it from the start to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

In America the majority doesn't always rule... hence we have equal rights for minorities and women, the races can intermarry and so on. None of these thing were granted by majority rule.

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

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

Are you calling Autodidact's 3 children turds? You might want to watch yourself there. They most certainly do reproduce, and it's never a good idea to call someone's kids "turds".

How many times do I have to tell you

I think the better question is "How many times do we have to tell you you're wrong?".

People talks about their right, what about the rights of those that don’t want their young children exposed to this behaviours?

What about the rights of all of us who don't want our kids exposed to your kind of bigotted BS?

Remembering that they soon start campaigning for the right to teach about this in primary schools and change their educational resources.

Remember that that is completely false. Remember that that is a hypothetical argument. Remember that denying rights is wrong, period.

There was a case in Australia were a gay organization took a pastor to court because he preached against homosexuality to his congregation.

One, show me some facts to back that up before I believe it. Two, it's highly unlikely it actually went to court. Three, I guarantee nothing came of it in the miniscule chance it did go to court.

To my mind these campaigns are not really to have a right to anything but the right to impose one’s right on other.

You're exactly right. People like you are trying to impose your beliefs on others. I'm glad you can see it (unfortunately, I get the bad feeling you mean that we are the ones trying to force something on you, which is ridiculous and false).

In a democratic society the will of the majority rules, they have the right to a fair hearing, minorities must be respected, not obeyed.

And in a Republic, like the one we live in, majority rules as long as it is constitutional and doesn't unnecessarily take away others' rights. I guarantee you wouldn't want to live in a truly democratic society where only majority ruled. There have to be guidelines. Also, all this particular minority wants is to be respected enough to be given equal rights. They don't want to be obeyed.

They lost this one, now they should give it a break and let the authorities get on with more important issues confronting them.

Again, there is no such thing as a more important issue than human rights. If you were the one being oppressed, I guarantee you'd have a bit of a different view.

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?

Both sexes. Males are trying to obtain the right to marry males (which currently is a right only extended to females), and females are trying to obtain the right to marry females (which is currently only a right extended to males).

 

[Magic Man]

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

I beg to differ. There are many gay Christians. I know you mean that they aren't truly Christians, but consider this: There are plenty of people who don't consider you a "true Christian" because of your intolerance of homosexuals. So, it works both ways, you see. What you mean to say is that homosexuals can't be "your version of Christian". Also, why can't they? Are you free of sin? I'd say it's impossible not to be a Christian sinner, considering every person who lives is a sinner. So, how are you a "true Christian" when you sin, just as you claim they do?

 

[Magic Man]

Proposition 8 is a religious position,

And therein lies the problem. There should be no such thing as a "legal religious position". Religion is supposed to stay out of the government and vice versa.

 

[doppelganger]

The only false Christians are those who think there are false Christians.

 

[emiliano]

I beg to differ. There are many gay Christians. I know you mean that they aren't truly Christians, but consider this: There are plenty of people who don't consider you a "true Christian" because of your intolerance of homosexuals. So, it works both ways, you see. What you mean to say is that homosexuals can't be "your version of Christian". Also, why can't they? Are you free of sin? I'd say it's impossible not to be a Christian sinner, considering every person who lives is a sinner. So, how are you a "true Christian" when you sin, just as you claim they do?

I have stated this before, so once more there cannot be unrepented sinner in a Christian congregation, excommunicated people aren’t Christian, all those that persist in their sin, unrepented and refusing to change are excommunicated. A Christian church can only contains repented sinner which is any of us, so a person cannot be an unrepented sinner and a Christian at the same time.

 

[emiliano]

And therein lies the problem. There should be no such thing as a "legal religious position". Religion is supposed to stay out of the government and vice versa.

Our believes of what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. is inseparable from our being, thus when we vote on any proposition, we do in accordance to that. I have no problems, I strive to live my life in accordance to my religious faith, this may present a problem to you, but none to me. How can you stop me? Wherever I go, whatever a do, my faith and beliefs are with me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have stated this before, so once more there cannot be unrepented sinner in a Christian congregation, excommunicated people aren’t Christian, all those that persist in their sin, unrepented and refusing to change are excommunicated. A Christian church can only contains repented sinner which is any of us, so a person cannot be an unrepented sinner and a Christian at the same time.

Was the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 a "true Christian"? Would you have rejected her?

 

[doppelganger]

Was the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 a "true Christian"? Would you have rejected her?

And for being tolerant of her, Jesus was also not a true Christian.

 

[Magic Man]

I have stated this before, so once more there cannot be unrepented sinner in a Christian congregation, excommunicated people aren’t Christian, all those that persist in their sin, unrepented and refusing to change are excommunicated. A Christian church can only contains repented sinner which is any of us, so a person cannot be an unrepented sinner and a Christian at the same time.

And yet you ignore the rest of my post. Interesting.

(This post of yours is false, by the way)

 

[Magic Man]

Our believes of what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. is inseparable from our being, thus when we vote on any proposition, we do in accordance to that. I have no problems, I strive to live my life in accordance to my religious faith, this may present a problem to you, but none to me. How can you stop me? Wherever I go, whatever a do, my faith and beliefs are with me.

That's fine. You don't seem to understand that I don't care what you believe. You can believe whatever you want, for all I care, unless you're harming someone. If you think homosexuality is wrong, then don't have homosexual relations. It's that simple. You're even welcome to tell others your opinion of it in most situations. What you should not do is to impose your belief on them.

Our laws have bases in logic and reason, not in religion. If a law doesn't have sufficient non-religious reasoning backing it up, then it shouldn't be a law.

 

[painted wolf]

don't the LDS still believe in.. "In the world but not of the world?".

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

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.

You are mistaken. You have contact with lots of gay people, you just don't know it. If you know 200 people, then you know at least 5 gay people. If you are so frightened and hostile to gay people that you avoid TV, movies, books, opera and music, then...I feel sorry for you.

How about that other Christian command, to love your neighbor, and do unto him as you would have done to you? How about that wisdom?

 

[painted wolf]

How do you avoid contact with a GBLT person?
Do you insist everyone you know/meet/ or encounter fill out a survey? Do they have to pass a 'no gays' test?

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

And for being tolerant of her, Jesus was also not a true Christian.

I never thought for a second that he was.

 

[Orontes]

So, if I understand you correctly, it's not that you don't agree that it is the province of the SCOTUS to strike down unconstitutional laws, but that you are an "originalist," that you believe their only job is to discern the intent of the original framers as applied to the question before them? If so, you're terrible at expressing your position, as this is the first hint I've gotten that was your position. If so, although I disagree vehemently, I agree that it is not bizarre, just extreme.

To how one expresses themselves: what is in one's head and what is written is something I would think everyone is or should be concerned with. If I am unclear, then I hope to improve on that while not bastardizing the language in the process. Even so, my purpose has never been to explain my personal sense of jurisprudence. My focus has been on judicial imperialism itself in regards to Prop. 22 and the passing of Prop. 8.


As far as Constructionism being extreme: such was the jurisprudential standard up through the mid-Twentieth Century, until The Left began to use the courts for social re-engineering experiments.

It's statements like this that caused me to believe your position was different from that: "My argument is and has been that law and rights should reflect the popular will."
This seems to say that regardless of the text or intent of the Constitution, if the people vote against a certain right, then it's not the province of the court to restore it.

I see. This statement: "My argument is and has been that law(s) and rights should reflect the popular will." perfectly fits with Constructionist Thought. Construtionism or Originalism is democratic: the people decide the law and the law has force because it is a product of the people as it was established, until the people then change it. My statement you quoted specifically means that laws and rights that are not the product of the popular will are illegitimate. Laws and rights that pass through the established protocols become legitimate by and through that process. Four judges overturning the popular will and inventing a right to gay marriage is an illegitimacy. The California Constitution says nothing on the subject of gay marriage rights. To pretend otherwise is comic farce save for the tragic consequences such does to the idea of law and popular governance. I explained this principle multiple ways in the coarse of the thread. One example I gave was women's suffrage. Women did not have the right to vote. To have pretended it existed through some circumlocution of jurisprudence or had some judge (or collection of the same) suddenly declared women had this right would equally have been untoward. The process of women's suffrage was through the amendment process. This is how real standing is established. Similarly, if gay advocates want a right to gay marriage, then the legislative/amendment road is open (as with what happend with domestic partnerships).

 

[Orontes]

I find it hard to believe that you've stated disagreement to all of them without noticing them.

I've stated disagreement to all the Yes on 8 campaign false statements? Am I misreading you here? Mball put forward a series of would be "false statements". It was a collection of periphera that was hardly false or relevant.

The time line may be clear, but the causality is not.

These changes in the law were brought about by order of the Mass. Supreme Court when it invented the right to gay marriage. It demanded the State Legislature conform the law to its edict.

It's only symmetric if A and B are equivalent. If they are, then there's no rational basis for a distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.

Your comment doesn't address the issue. The equity is the parity/symmetry of the relation(s). A can join with B and B can join with A. It is quite simple.

I agree that the Japanese internment during WWII was awful (and the US isn't unique in doing this - it's an unfortunate episode in Canada's history as well), however, bigoted judicial rulings can be caused by a judge faithfully interpreted bigoted law.

That is true. However there was no bigoted law to appeal to. The internment of Japanese Americans was based on an Executive Order from Roosevelt. The Supreme Court majority decided to back his play. Legally, it is a study in contrivance and absurdity.

No. His opinion was from a Supreme Court case based on a Wisconsin statute from 1978.

So, then, it's not strictly relevant, is it?

I was explaining my view. It's relevant if one wants some opinion other than my own on the matter.

Are any of those locales within the United States?

Despite the fact that "traditional" marriage does not necessarily require consent, consent is explicitly require for marriage under US law. It appears you've already deviated from the "traditional" model, so I don't see how it's justifiable to claim it as support against same-sex marriage.

The question was about what a person thinks should be the case, not any current reality.

Not if Proposition 8 was passed improperly. I expect that this will shown to be the case.

Unlikely. The challenges are weak. These exact same challenges were already rejected once by the court in early Summer. There is no hard and fast distinction noted between a revision and an amendment. The California Constitution was designed to be easy to change. There are over 500 amendments to it thus far.