LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Orontes]

Your in favor of the Medicinal Marajuana bills then?

wa:do

Yes..

 

[gnomon]

Yes..

Did you happen to catch the language of the Michigan initiative for medical marijuana?

It seems as though they inserted language in direct response to actions in California related to federal raids and junk clinics that were set up.

Yes, completely off topic but fatigue on the marriage issue is setting in.

 

[Autodidact]

So, for example, Orontes, you would disagree with Brown v Board of Education as contrasted to say, Plessy v. Ferguson? And Loving v. Virginia? What about Dred Scott? Ex Parte Virginia? Yick Wo v. Hopkins? Miranda?

 

[Orontes]

It doesn't matter whether you talk about Prop 8 or Prop 22 or anything else. They say that the vast majority of voters agree with them, and that is wrong. Even if you look at it in reference to Prop 22, that was only passed by about 61%, which is still far from the vast majority of voters. You might want to go take a history class, or read some books or something, because there have been many, many societies that had no problem whatsoever with same-sex marriage.

[/font]

61% is a wide margin in politics. It is a clear and decisive answer to a question. This why in the U.S. Senate 60 votes constitutes a filibuster proof position. In voting, typically margins on issues are much closer. The recent Presidential Election is an example. The actual divide in votes between the two was fairly narrow. One can see the same with Bush v. Kerry or Bush v. Gore.

I'm not sure how many "many, many societies" is, why don't you give me a list of ten that had standardized same sex marriages.

Yeah, I didn't actually expect you to admit you're wrong, either. So, in reality, your statement should not read "The campaign for Yes on Prop 8 has hasn't used any false information". Instead it should read "I refuse to acknowledge that the information used by the Yes on Prop 8 campaign is false". I've done a perfectly good job of pointing it out. Your refusal to see and admit the facts doesn't change that.

No. the examples you put forward to justify your stamping around screaming lie! lie!, is quite silly. Your penchant to attack the integrity of what you disagree with is sad.

You're obviously not interested in honest discussion.

More invective.

Sure, everyone has a right to everything. I have a right to beat up my boss (not that I'd want to, he's actually a good boss). However, when those rights conflict with the rights of others, some rights lose out. For instance, the right of a husband to beat his wife loses out to the right of the wife not to be beaten.

No. people don't have a right to everything. There is no right to beat one's wife. Rights can't lose to other rights and be rights. Your comment is incoherent.

You didn't answer my question on your inalienable rights claim. Here it is again:

"That is certainly one option to take. Shall we test your conviction a little? Inalienable rights are extra national. They stand above any given polity and are fixed (thus the "recognized" and "not created" verbiage). The 26th Amendment fixes voting rights at 18 years old. It was adopted in 1971. In Japan their voting rights age is 20 established in 1947. Now, which is the real inalienable right voting age? "

Actually rights to gaydom is the very focus of the thread. Gaydom, per the suffix, relates to government and the political arena. This is what is being discussed.

Actually, it's not. The focus of the thread is the right to marriage.

The focus of the thread is gay marriage rights claims. Gaydom refers to this and the larger notion found in the Court's overturn making gay status a protected class on par with race.

You don't really believe that, do you? In essence, you're claiming that the president comes and asks your opinion on every matter before making it law.

The is country is run by what I personally consider a right in many instances. You are not reading carefully.

Nope. Marriage is a union of two people. Gay marriage doesn't change or expand that definition.

No. marriage is cross gender. That is the standard and basic meaning.

No, it's a commentary on the state of affairs of our legal system.

No. it's your penchant to insult.

You sure love that word.

It seems to describe many of your posts/points unfortunately.

This comments suggests you do not understand the basic issue. The issue turns on rights claims. One side is claiming a right to gay marriage. Because of this deemed right, the state is then required to sanction and endorse that right. The other side rejects that view.

And?

The point is this comment of yours "It did not need to include any reference to homosexual marriage. It did not include any prohibition of it, which is what would have been necessary, otherwise the Constitution wouldn't even need to be changed to disallow it." is disconnected from the issue. The issue turns on a rights claim: a sanction and endorsement by the state.

Yes, the banning of gay marriage is an attempt to force social acceptability through the power of the state. I'm glad you finally understand.

Marriage already has social acceptability.

My argument is and has been that law and rights should reflect the popular will. Therefore, gay marriage supporters should convince their fellow citizens in the public square the merits of their view and have laws passed to reflect that view.

That's why your argument fails. Laws should reflect the popular will as long as they don't unnecessarily infringe on others' rights. That's why we have the Constitution, and that's why this country was founded in the first place. Maybe you forgot that the reason people started coming here int he first place was to escape persecution for things like their religion. When they set up this country, the whole point was that the majority doesn't rule at all costs. The point was to protect the rights of everyone including minorities because that's what the founders were in their former countries.

Tyranny of the majority is a constant threat for any democratic society. Constitutional democracy seeks to curb that fear by placing checks on the majoritarian impulse. Even so, the Constitution and any and all constraints on the majority are self-imposed. This means it is a majoritarian process that establishes the width and breadth of the law and rights. Slavery in the early Republic is a simple example. Slavery was both recognized and protected. Slaves were valued as 3/5 a man. This was then changed with the 14th Amendment. Both instances were through a majoritarian process. Rights are a product of a majoritarian process. There is no gay marriage right. To claim otherwise is to confuse personal desire with the law.

 

[Orontes]

Did you happen to catch the language of the Michigan initiative for medical marijuana?

It seems as though they inserted language in direct response to actions in California related to federal raids and junk clinics that were set up.

Yes, completely off topic but fatigue on the marriage issue is setting in.

No. I haven't seen this. The FDA actions in California are fairly repelling.

 

[Orontes]

So, for example, Orontes, you would disagree with Brown v Board of Education as contrasted to say, Plessy v. Ferguson? And Loving v. Virginia? What about Dred Scott? Ex Parte Virginia? Yick Wo v. Hopkins? Miranda?

Why are you asking? Do you want to discuss the merits of Constitutional Constructuionism vis-a-vis other positions?

 

[Luminous]

Dear evangelical christian/Mormon: 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.)

 

[Autodidact]

Why are you asking? Do you want to discuss the merits of Constitutional Constructuionism vis-a-vis other positions?

I'm trying to understand better what your position is, and in particular, what kinds of results it yields.

 

[Watchmen]

Dear evangelical christian/Mormon: 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.)

"Dear...Mormon" ????

OK - I'm a Mormon. What do you want to say?

"your hatefullness is ludicrous..."

My hatefulness? What hatefullness? I recognize we are all God's children - each equally deserving of his love. Where is my hatefullness?

 

[darkendless]

To Darkenless. OK, let get on with it:

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.

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.


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)



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.


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


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.

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

We are not free to choose what we vote about though. When was the last time we voted on Homosexual rights? Exactly, Kevin Rudd wont even hold a referendum.

The pastor adressed his congregation but i do not believe he should be allowed to do things like that. That is enforced exclusion. Those people are now going to cast gays out of their life and bible bash any gay people they know. thats just unfair.

Yep a great job keeping us out of a recession and funding clean fuel technology :sarcastic

BTW the government is trying to stop Engineers leaving this country. They increased university positions by 15% this year and if you would like i could show your the 6 letters ive been sent this year from the state Government asking me to get a job for them. What this country doesn't need is a church following against homosexuals. All that does is bring down the population because instead of hearing about the war in Afganistan, we hear from some stupid f***ing Christian whinging about how Gays are not people.

You see emiliano, if i could vote on the rights of Homosexual Australians i would. But i can't, because there is no referendum because of too many people like you who have a whinge to Kevin every time the Homosexuals ]protest. How about we take away your rights and see how you like it? You would hate it. So stop being a hypocrite and give every Australian the rights you enjoy? That would be very Australian of you

 

[Autodidact]

What you dub odd and idiosyncratic is the stance of four of the Supreme Court Justices including the current and past Chief Justice. Constructionism holds that what is unconstitutional is what actually violates the text (the Constitution itself) not one's personal fancy or circumlocutions of thought.

O.K., so if a law denies equal protection of the laws to one group, then it can rightfully be struck down?

 

[painted wolf]

So what about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? (Does the Bill of Rights count as well as the Constitution?)
What about the 14th amendment?

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

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

I can’t make a connection of this and my post, How could this woman be Christian when Christianity was not around at the time? Would I have reject her in my congregation in your hypothesis? No because she didn’t try to argue for her innocence. She stood there convicted of her sins, repented. The lord preached to her God’s plan of salvation “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him. To do that she needed to be born again of the spirit, Joh 1:13 who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God. From the story I gather that she did received what Jesus offer her.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The apostle John is so clear don’t you think?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can’t make a connection of this and my post, How could this woman be Christian when Christianity was not around at the time?

It wasn't? There were followers of Christ, weren't there?

Would I have reject her in my congregation in your hypothesis? No because she didn’t try to argue for her innocence. She stood there convicted of her sins, repented.

She repented? Chapter and verse, please.

The lord preached to her God’s plan of salvation “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him. To do that she needed to be born again of the spirit, Joh 1:13 who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God. From the story I gather that she did received what Jesus offer her.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
The apostle John is so clear don’t you think?

Depends whether you decide which takes precedence: his Gospel or his Epistles.

 

[emiliano]

We are not free to choose what we vote about though. When was the last time we voted on Homosexual rights? Exactly, Kevin Rudd wont even hold a referendum.

The pastor adressed his congregation but i do not believe he should be allowed to do things like that. That is enforced exclusion. Those people are now going to cast gays out of their life and bible bash any gay people they know. thats just unfair.

Yep a great job keeping us out of a recession and funding clean fuel technology :sarcastic

BTW the government is trying to stop Engineers leaving this country. They increased university positions by 15% this year and if you would like i could show your the 6 letters ive been sent this year from the state Government asking me to get a job for them. What this country doesn't need is a church following against homosexuals. All that does is bring down the population because instead of hearing about the war in Afganistan, we hear from some stupid f***ing Christian whinging about how Gays are not people.

You see emiliano, if i could vote on the rights of Homosexual Australians i would. But i can't, because there is no referendum because of too many people like you who have a whinge to Kevin every time the Homosexuals ]protest. How about we take away your rights and see how you like it? You would hate it. So stop being a hypocrite and give every Australian the rights you enjoy? That would be very Australian of you

The reason that there is not referendum on sight at present is that our leaders have more important things to worry about, this issue was dealt with a long time ago and there is no interest in it, it was not an issue in the last election, there was not interest, there are more interest in retaining engineers trained in new technologies, there is even attempts to bring them from overseas and there is a chance that we can get them from the US as there is a treat over there that there will a sharing of the wealth through higher taxes for those that earn more, as you know we are a higher taxing nation due to the great social work that the government is involved with, our welfare system, but under the present circumstances over the we may get new grads. To come here, there is a good economy here, it is well regulated and the problems that the US is facing were corrected long time ago, our banks are save and lending, funds are been made available to innovative fuel efficient technologies, I think you are pretty replaceable, so there will no tear at your departure, sorry mate. Still if you don’t like our country bugger off to another.

 

[emiliano]

It wasn't? There were followers of Christ, weren't there?
She repented? Chapter and verse, please.
Depends whether you decide which takes precedence: his Gospel or his Epistles.

They were Nazarenes Jews, twelve men and their teacher a Jew Rabbi. And is interesting to note that the woman half understood that she was in the presence of greatness.
Joh 4:25 The woman said to Him, I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. When He has come, He will tell us all things.
Not once she doubted. ”When He has come, He will tell us all things”
Joh 4:26 Jesus said to her, I AM, the One speaking to you.
Joh 4:28 The woman then left her water pot and went into the city and said to the men,
Joh 4:29 Come see a man who told me all things that I ever did. Is this One not the Christ?
The woman started evangelising her people straight away, awesome eh? And the result was great oh 4:40 Then as the Samaritans had come to Him, they begged Him that He would stay with them. And He stayed there two days.
Joh 4:41 And many more believed because of His own word.
John Chapter 1 And 3 are chapters of the Gospel of John. You’re not putting attention.

 

[emiliano]

Dear evangelical christian/Mormon: 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.)

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[darkendless]

The reason that there is not referendum on sight at present is that our leaders have more important things to worry about, this issue was dealt with a long time ago and there is no interest in it, it was not an issue in the last election, there was not interest, there are more interest in retaining engineers trained in new technologies, there is even attempts to bring them from overseas and there is a chance that we can get them from the US as there is a treat over there that there will a sharing of the wealth through higher taxes for those that earn more, as you know we are a higher taxing nation due to the great social work that the government is involved with, our welfare system, but under the present circumstances over the we may get new grads. To come here, there is a good economy here, it is well regulated and the problems that the US is facing were corrected long time ago, our banks are save and lending, funds are been made available to innovative fuel efficient technologies, I think you are pretty replaceable, so there will no tear at your departure, sorry mate. Still if you don’t like our country bugger off to another.

Did you not see the last point? Would you consider it Australian to allow equal rights? Since you love this country why do you actively seek to prevent all Australians being equal?

There is interest in this country. Remeber the security they had to put up to stop Homosexuals protesting their rights during World Youth Day? Why did they do that? If homosexuals had equal rights there would be no need for any of that. But because of bible bashing people like you we're stuck with people being treated like lesser beings in a 1st world country. The pope certianly wouldn't talk to them because he hasn't got a reasonable answer. We're stuck with politicians who cant get their act together and a church content with denying basic civil rights because a stupid book.

I'll go to the UK where homosexuals are permitted basic civil rights

Remember one thing though, Australia is not a Christian nation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Depends whether you decide which takes precedence: his Gospel or his Epistles.

Then again, there's also the Gospel of Luke.

 

[emiliano]

Did you not see the last point? Would you consider it Australian to allow equal rights? Since you love this country why do you actively seek to prevent all Australians being equal?

There is interest in this country. Remeber the security they had to put up to stop Homosexuals protesting their rights during World Youth Day? Why did they do that? If homosexuals had equal rights there would be no need for any of that. But because of bible bashing people like you we're stuck with people being treated like lesser beings in a 1st world country. The pope certianly wouldn't talk to them because he hasn't got a reasonable answer. We're stuck with politicians who cant get their act together and a church content with denying basic civil rights because a stupid book.

I'll go to the UK where homosexuals are permitted basic civil rights

Remember one thing though, Australia is not a Christian nation.

Right to be knows as what? As I said before don’t call this union marriages and don’t defined them as equal to the marriages between a male and female, gay is not a gender, this union are not in anyway equal to marriages and have a set of problems not covered by the rules of a marriage, thus it can’t have equality to marriages because they have nothing in common. It is a unique set of behaviours. Darkenlees they have the right to protest and make all noise they want, but politician have no interest in this issue, the legislature has no interest in it, and I couldn’t care less, as I said I love this country the way it is, that is why I am here.
I have said elsewhere in the forum, as far as I know persisting in this behaviour lead to excommunication in the RCC, so why should the Pope address this issue at all? There are no practicing homosexual in his fold, his answer can only be, if proven to be truth that person is excommunicated end of story, there is though the case of repentant homosexual that are willing to submit to abstinence, to develop virtues with the help of the church. Good luck in England, I hope that you find a nice gay to share your life with, not here.
Australia is not Christian nation? But is not a permissive nation either, there are moral rules that we share with other faiths, but Christianity has 12,575,675 members 70.28% , This includes all Christians, as classified by Australian census bureau for statistical purposes using the self-identification standard: Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants, Eastern/Orthodox, Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Pentecostal, Jehovah's Witnesses, Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventists, Brethren, Apostolic, etc., as well as self-identified Christians and Protestants who didn't further define denominational affiliation.
Religion in Australia