Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Prestor John]

Also, the differences you mention can be internal, as well as external. Therefore, a man can (and does!) exhibit some "female" tendencies, and vice versa.

Actually, ALL of the differences I mentioned were internal. Men and women are "wired" differently.

If a man did not exhibit at least one feminine quality, I would think there was something wrong with him. Same goes for the ladies.

However, no matter how masculine a female is, she will never be a male, and vice versa.

God created both Adam and Eve in His image. Meaning, both men and women have attributes of Godhood. Both masculinity and femininity derive from God.

Our main goal in this life is for each of us to become more like God. Therefore, for this purpose (and many others) God gave to Man the institution of marriage so that a man can eventually become perfected by way of his relationship with his wife. The woman also will become perfected by way of her relationship with her husband.

This is my main personal/theological reason for opposing homosexuality.

According to my beliefs, it is impossible for a same-sex couple to fulfill the main purpose of their existence in this world. The time of their probation will eventually end and when they pass to the other side they will regret their decisions because they will then be separate and they will know that they could have progressed more if they had heeded God's Word.

They're not forcing you to change anything. All they want is for you to recognize others.

That is asking me to change what I define marriage to be.

Hypothetical scenario. What if the Supreme Court decided that, "Anyone who wears a skirt while selling cookies should be recognized as an official Girl Scout"?

However, when a fifty-five year old man in a dress comes knocking on my door selling cookies, there is absolutely no way I would ever be able to "recognize" him as a Girl Scout. That would be changing what I believe a Girl Scout is.

However, I would eventually buy some of his cookies after laughing uproariously. I just could not refer to him as a Girl Scout.

Marriage isn't primarily a religious definition, though. It's primarily a legal definition.

Even if that were true, it would be completely irrelevant.

The fact remains that certain religions define "marriage" only one way.

By changing the definition and then forcing members of the religion to "recognize" what they do not believe is true marriage, you are destroying their religious freedom.

It would be like someone splashing people with water and those people coming into an LDS chapel claiming they have been baptized as a member of the Church.

No, that is not "baptism" as we understand it. We cannot recognize that as a "baptism" and remain loyal to our beliefs. It is either one or the other.

Both are discriminatory.

You are just being ridiculous now.

If you cannot see the difference between devotion to a certain religion and the KKK then you are woefully ignorant of those religions.

Incorrect. You can believe what you want. You just can't force everyone else to agree with you.

What you just said makes no sense. So, I can believe what I want, but I can't act on that belief at all? I can't allow my belief to motivate my actions in any way?

Alright. Then let's put that to the test. I don't believe that "same-sex marriage" is viable.

Now, according to you, I am free to believe that. Therefore, how could you ask me to "recognize" "same-sex marriage"?

You are contradicting yourself.

Also explain how it is inappropriate for me to "force" (not an appropriate word because that never happened) anyone to agree with my beliefs, yet you feel it is right for the Supreme Court to force me to agree with them?

Note that I am not asking if you feel that Supreme Court has the right to redefine marriage or to allow same-sex couples to marry. I am not asking that.

I am asking why you think it is fine for them to force me to agree with them?

What you consider is immaterial. Again: this isn't about you.

Yes it is. Don't you remember me saying that I am a part of "all of us"? Also that no man is an island? That these types of decisions affect everyone?

This new decision is trying to tell me what I am to believe. What I would have to agree with and recognize.

Of course it does, because you consider that some people are sin, and that you are not sin.

What? Where are you getting this? I certainly did not say it.

We all sin. We all come short of the glory of God. However, just because we all sin that is no reason to excuse our own sins or the sins of others.

I do not believe in what you just said. You are operating under a false assumption about me and my beliefs.

In what way are they different from each other?

There are many differences. I believe that one is sanctioned by God while the other is not. One has a female and a male while the other has two of the same sex. One can produce offspring while the other cannot.

These may not appear to be big differences to you, but these are astronomically big when considering my beliefs concerning the purposes of our existence and marriage.

No, that's what you think.

I think that the Catholic Church was threatened to either change their doctrine or lose their tax exemptions status?

No. That is fact. That is what happened.

Some people did not like the beliefs of the Catholic Church in regards to this issue, so they called discrimination and tried to force the Catholic Church to change their doctrine, lose their tax-exempt status or stop helping children and families.

That's not going to be the last time that tactic will be used. The Catholic, and other churches, will be threatened again and again with losing their tax exempt status or change something about what they believe.

Of course you would.

"Hey, I calls em' likes I see's em'. I'm a whale biologist."
- A whale biologist

 

[Serenity7855]

Your argument doesn't get any more cogent. Gays are very slightly under-represented in parliament (5% there as opposed to 6% nationally): are you seriously proposing there should be no gay MPs?

And what evidence are you presenting that these 62 evil plutocrats are all or mostly atheists? (Or gay, or both, or whatever fantasy you wish to entertain.) And what on earth do Darwin or Hitler have to do with any part of your case?

If you think that I am fantasizing then I am wasting my time responding to your post. I am not presenting any evidence. I am demonstrating that your play on numbers has no meaning. I did not say that these 62 people were gay or atheists or both, I was demonstrating that minorities can have dramatic effects on majorities. You are spoiling for a fight and I prefer not to fight.

Quite obviously, I am fantasizing about Darwin and Hitler being one person who influenced the world.

 

[Serenity7855]

What sort of natural disaster was the killing of the first born in Egypt? What natural disaster turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt?

I do believe that you are guilty of Gish Gallop. I might be wrong but I am getting that feeling.

Well, you keep setting them up and I will keep knocking them down, simply because we both look at the same stories from completely different perspectives. You are influenced by your bias to destroy Christianity and all that it stands for and I am influenced by my bias of loving God and all that He stands for. As I have been converted by the Holy Ghost I can never do a U turn because I know that there is a divinity and to deny it would render me a son of perdition. I don't know what caused your hatred for Christianity, maybe you just like to play devil advocate and contend, whatever it was has wheedled you into believing it is as correct as mine is to me. We will never agree.

 

[Ingledsva]

Ok, I may have slightly exaggerated but 32 MPs is a significant number.

Westminster becomes the world's gayest Parliament with 32 openly gay, lesbian and bisexual MPs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lesbian-bisexual-MPs-compared-10-Holland.html

Global wealth inequality: top 1% own 41%; top 10% own 86%; bottom half own just 1%

https://thenextrecession.wordpress....nequality-10-own-86-1-own-41-half-own-just-1/

Big Business Increasingly Supports Gay Rights

From Chick-fil-A to Apple, more and more major companies are taking policy positions on gay marriage. Arguably, there’s a business case for supporting it. Google, Starbucks, Nike, General Mills, and other big brands have all opened themselves up to both the potential risk and opportunity of supporting LGBT equality. Even Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, announced his support in a Human Rights Campaign public service announcement: “America’s corporations learned long ago that equality is just good business and it’s the right thing to do.”

There has been a steady increase in the number of large employers including sexual orientation in non-discrimination policies and offering same-sex partner benefits. A 2010 Mercer survey of about 3,000 companies found that same-sex benefits were offered by 72 percent of companies employing more than 20,000 people. Americans align themselves with brands that reflect their values — and according to recent opinion polls by Gallup, ABC, and CNN, marriage equality is now supported by a majority of mainstream Americans.
https://hbr.org/2012/09/big-business-increasingly-supp

And why would any of this be a problem?

Human rights eventually win, over religious dogma.

*

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would like proof of this assertion. You say that all the world's wealth is owned by and driven by atheists. Prove it.

That would be a real surprise to me.

 

[Serenity7855]

And why would any of this be a problem?

Human rights eventually win, over religious dogma.

*

Mankind are notorious at setting up pernicious and malevolent subterfuge that cause harm to the masses.

Does it? Surely they are the same thing morally.

 

[Ingledsva]

Our opinions are worlds apart. I see no evil stories whereas you think God is horrible and the bible evil.

Then you aren't reading your Bible, - or perhaps reading with spiritual blinders on.

I have absolutely no belief what-so-ever in the Triune. It is totally unreasonable and quite ridiculous. The biggest misinterpretation of any scripture. It makes a mockery of God.

Indeed it is, and does, however, most Christians believe in the trinity.

Your detestation and disbelief in these stories would prevent you from producing an unbiased interpretation of them.

I don't need to make an "interpretation," they speak evil all by themselves.

Only if you misunderstand the point I was making.

Baloney.

I am saying that it was written by men but compiled by God. I am saying that God is not a murderer but because of who He is He cannot be what you claim He is. If he could then He would cease to be God. If you knew his true character and nature you would not berate Him as you so frequently do.

It is obviously written by man - period. It is not compiled by any God. Oh I agree God would not be a murderer, - however - that proves the Bible stories - and the murdering god they made up - to be false.

I don't berate GOD. I say bull to a human made-up murderous YHVH.

But that is all irrelevant. What difference does it make who wrote the words when God choose them to convey His words. The source is just incidental, it is the words that matter.

It is not irrelevant. Multiple God-son stories were floating around with changes dependent on the culture. These Bible stories are the same. They are not from God. They are created by man.

2Sa 12:14 However, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall die/be killed/slain.

2Sa 12:15 And Nathan went to his house, and YHVH struck the boy whom the wife of Uriah had borne to David. And it became sick.

2Sa 12:18 And it happened on the seventh day, the boy died....

Again, man's choices caused the death of the baby. Obviously a very special baby, for he will go straight back into the presence of God without going through the judgment.

A man's choice only applies to him. It says YHVH murdered the baby for the man's sin. As I said - the ridiculous murder of the innocent for other people's sins. Your saying the baby will go to God makes no difference to the crime committed by YHVH in this story.

Yes, it was murder. David murdered a little baby by his actions.

BULL! See above. We are talking a supposed GOD here. Yet the stories say this "God" personally kills innocent babies for crimes committed by others. That is twisted and immoral. And tells me YHVH is not GOD. And you tell us God wanted these stories in the Bible.

Again, that is your opinion, which is diametrically opposite to mine

Your "opinion" makes no difference to the stories.

The stories teach evil. Kill people that are different. Kill the innocent along with the guilty. Hold slaves. Rape captives. Sell your daughters to be sex-slaves. It goes on-and-on. NOT actually from GOD.

I can only but reiterated my words, Again, a terrible atrocity and evidence of the mentality of men in those days, who needed the Mosaic Laws to keep them in check. The same kind of atrocity occur today throughout the world, yet we do not blame God for that. How blessed we are to have the Bible to teach us that these things are immoral and man will be held accountable for them.

And again - the story says YHVH did, and caused, these things.

2Sa 12:11 Thus saith YHVH, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

2Sa 12:15 And Nathan went to his house, and YHVH struck the boy whom the wife of Uriah had borne to David. And it became sick.

2Sa 12:18 And it happened on the seventh day, the boy died.

Lets be honest with each other, I am as much a fervent follower of God as you are not. We will never agree on it and I will always interpret scripture differently to you, because of my own bais and bigotry. I do understand how you feel about it because it is merely the polar opposite of how I feel. I just do not see us finding common ground whilst we are both in checkmate.

It doesn't matter what your "interpretation" is. They tell their own story, of horrendous acts put forward by YHVH, and/or YHVH actually murdering the innocent - for the sins of others. And extremely twisted immoral stories - when YHVH murders an innocent baby for the sins of Davis, - leaving David alive, - and then makes David a Bible hero!

This YHVH of the Bible is obviously not actually God.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

*

And why would any of this be a problem?

Human rights eventually win, over religious dogma.

Mankind are notorious at setting up pernicious and malevolent subterfuge that cause harm to the masses.

Does it? Surely they are the same thing morally.

LOL! And how exactly is a same-sex couple in love, - getting married, - and laws protecting them in this, and giving them the same HUMAN RIGHTS as heterosexuals, - be - "...pernicious and malevolent subterfuge that cause harm to the masses." ???

*

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, I may have slightly exaggerated but 32 MPs is a significant number.


Westminster becomes the world's gayest Parliament with 32 openly gay, lesbian and bisexual MPs


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lesbian-bisexual-MPs-compared-10-Holland.html


Global wealth inequality: top 1% own 41%; top 10% own 86%; bottom half own just 1%


https://thenextrecession.wordpress....nequality-10-own-86-1-own-41-half-own-just-1/

Okay, so from what I can gather there are 650 members in British Parliament. Is that correct? So you say that 32 members are openly gay, lesbian or bisexual.. That means that about 5% of British members of Parliament are gay. That’s hardly a majority. In fact, it’s not even close.

Big Business Increasingly Supports Gay Rights


From Chick-fil-A to Apple, more and more major companies are taking policy positions on gay marriage. Arguably, there’s a business case for supporting it. Google, Starbucks, Nike, General Mills, and other big brands have all opened themselves up to both the potential risk and opportunity of supporting LGBT equality. Even Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, announced his support in a Human Rights Campaign public service announcement: “America’s corporations learned long ago that equality is just good business and it’s the right thing to do.”


There has been a steady increase in the number of large employers including sexual orientation in non-discrimination policies and offering same-sex partner benefits. A 2010 Mercer survey of about 3,000 companies found that same-sex benefits were offered by 72 percent of companies employing more than 20,000 people. Americans align themselves with brands that reflect their values — and according to recent opinion polls by Gallup, ABC, and CNN, marriage equality is now supported by a majority of mainstream Americans.

https://hbr.org/2012/09/big-business-increasingly-supp

I don’t see anything sinister or conspiratory about this. It doesn’t make good business practice to exclude some percentage of potential customers or clients for their sexual orientation.

More customers = more money.

And the fact that marriage equality is now supported by a majority of mainstream Americans is just an indication of the changing times. Similar to the positive changes we’ve seen over the last several decades in attitudes toward people of colour. I’m happy to hear such great news. We’re all just human beings, after all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You listen to much to your fellow atheists. Both of those events were the result of mans choices. They had been told to change their ways or die. They choose death.

But god did the killing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

32 is quite a few and can make a big difference.

It's hardly a majority.
I look at it as a positive thing - gays, lesbians and bisexual people are human beings too, and deserve representation, just like anyone else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it was a natural disaster induced by mans disobedience to God, "cause and effect", or, "for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction".

Wait so you think natural disasters occur as the direct result of human beings' behaviors?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You don't think that 32 out of 650 could influence government policy' A relatively small group of gays have changed many of our laws. 62 people own more than half of the worlds wealth, how did that happen, and influence our government. Just 62 people are responsible for the deaths of thousand of starving children because they hoard their wealth in banks. The small group, known as the Bilderberg Group,with its 650 MPs, influences government policies. It is always the minority that create the biggest wave. Charles Darwin completely changed our views about our origins. Hitler duped a whole nation. You are being naive.

But like that poster pointed out, even with 5% of MP's being openly gay or bisexual, the gay and bisexual population of Great Britain is still underrepresented in Parliament. Are gay and lesbian people not entitled to be properly represented in their own government, just like anyone else?

 

[Serenity7855]

But god did the killing.

I have answer this

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you think that I am fantasizing then I am wasting my time responding to your post. I am not presenting any evidence. I am demonstrating that your play on numbers has no meaning. I did not say that these 62 people were gay or atheists or both, I was demonstrating that minorities can have dramatic effects on majorities. You are spoiling for a fight and I prefer not to fight.

Quite obviously, I am fantasizing about Darwin and Hitler being one person who influenced the world.

But you called them a vast majority. So maybe you can understand why we don't see this point you are presently making?

 

[Serenity7855]

Wait so you think natural disasters occur as the direct result of human beings' behaviors?

Nor really, although the concept is not risible. What I said that it was the natural consequence of their disobedience, continue in what you are doing and a flood will distroy all of you. After God had warned them the trap was sprung and set to go either way. Death or Life, it was their choose. Have you ever heard of the expression "you choose to do the crime so prepare to do the time" If you go out and steal then there is a chance you will get caught and the consequence of that is an automatic prison sentence. All of our actions have an equal and opposite reactions. It is a fixed natural principle in science, so why would you question it in the supernatural, or give an impression that it is foolishly supercilious to give it consideration.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nor really, although the concept is not risible. What I said that it was the natural consequence of their disobedience, continue in what you are doing and a flood will distroy all of you. After God had warned them the trap was sprung and set to go either way. Death or Life, it was their choose. Have you ever heard of the expression "you choose to do the crime so prepare to do the time" If you go out and steal then there is a chance you will get caught and the consequence of that is an automatic prison sentence. All of our actions have an equal and opposite reactions. It is a fixed natural principle in science, so why would you question it in the supernatural, or give an impression that it is foolishly supercilious to give it consideration.

If you commit a crime, the legal system doesn't destroy the whole world though - rather, it punishes the individual who committed the crime.

Plus, I don't see any reason to believe that there is any divine force behind natural disasters. If it were the case, why is it that when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana a few years back, it destroyed basically everything, but the red light district was kept in tact. Wouldn't that be the first place your god would want to destroy?

 

[Serenity7855]

But you called them a vast majority. So maybe you can understand why we don't see this point you are presently making?

I also admited that I had unknowingly over exaggerated the numbers. I believed that I was right but on investigation I was wrong, so why are you still persisting with it. I was wrong, have you ever been wrong? If you have then your critique here is hypocritical Surely you are not pouncing because someone has made an unintentional mistake?

And who is we? are you speaking on behalf of other posters, and if you are, do you have their permission. The alternative is that you are using it to intimidate me by suggesting that I am being surrounded.

 

[Serenity7855]

It's hardly a majority.
I look at it as a positive thing - gays, lesbians and bisexual people are human beings too, and deserve representation, just like anyone else.

I have not said anything to the contrary

 

[Serenity7855]

But like that poster pointed out, even with 5% of MP's being openly gay or bisexual, the gay and bisexual population of Great Britain is still underrepresented in Parliament. Are gay and lesbian people not entitled to be properly represented in their own government, just like anyone else?

Again, none of this reflects on any words that I have written. Please reread my post to see what point I was making. You are stabbing in the dark