Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[JoStories]

Everyone sins and are therefore considered “sinners”. E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E-!

I have tried to be respectful of you. I would ask that you extend me the same courtesy by refraining from trying to say that I fit into your ideals. I do not believe in sin and I never have so please keep your "everyone sins' to yourself. Not everyone does.

 

[JoStories]

*facepalm*

I may not be able to get married in Australia, but I am glad I am not American right now.

Unfortunately, I am and I cannot tell you how disgusted I am being one right now. The debacle that is going on between Trump and Cruz so disgusts me I would love to emigrate somewhere else.

 

[Ingledsva]

I agree that they should obey the law. It's such a law that I have a problem with. It's ridiculous to prevent a religious organization from having an adoption license, simply because they want to place children within their value system.

The law allows gay marriage and gay adoption. I'm perfectly fine with gays going to government adoption agencies (who must allow this) or to private agencies who accept it. I wish them well.

This is about more then just their value system. They discriminate against all kinds of people.

Same-sex couples, non-religious couples, couples in religions they don't approve of, etc.

They have an adoption agency license. That license comes with rules and laws.

If they don't want to follow them - then give up the license.

What next? Are you going to deny churches the legal right to perform marriages if they won't perform gay marriages for religious reasons? Is that what's next down this line of reasoning? Some say, oh no, that won't happen, but that's how absurd this line of thinking can become.

Ridiculous slippery-slope argument. Churches have been told they don't have to perform same-sex marriages.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that parents should not be able to select any characteristics they want for the adoptive parents. The natural parents ARE the parents until parenthood is legally transferred. The absurdity level is off the charts to deny a parent such a basic right.

As already stated - the children come from all over and are not all from Catholic parents. Having a religion clause - is illegal.

What's next down this path of reasoning? Deny a parent the right to raise their children in the religion of their choosing? Is the government going to decide that it's immoral to teach your children anything religious which can't be proven by the quorum of scientists assigned to monitor parents and religion? Sounds absurd? It won't surprise me.

Ridiculous slippery-slope argument. Religions can hold any view they want, - but they cannot force their archaic laws on others outside that religion.

Are children going to be removed from the homes of families where the parents teach that premarital sex is a sin? I mean I'm sure there are scientific publications (yes with peer review) that show that abstinence is unhealthy. After all, it's only by the good grace of the government that you're allowed to keep your children at all.

Ridiculous slippery-slope argument. You have the right to put your children in religious schools, or homeschool, and teach them outdated crap if you want to. No one is stopping you.

Let's see, and then we could pass a law that churches can't teach that adultery is a sin. Think of all the unhappy spouses who cheat out of desperation. Then they get all depressed with guilt. That darn church induced guilt. And that increases the mental health problems in our country, which costs us all money. So you see, when a church teaches that adultery is a sin, it negatively impacts all of us and we have a social duty to put a stop to it for the good of all. No organization should be allowed to preach such hate!

Sounds impossible? I'm paranoid? We're well on our way.

Ridiculous slippery-slope argument. How many times does it have to be said? These new laws give human rights to all. They do not stop you from hate, bigotry, homophobia, teaching whatever in your church, or stop you from refusing to officiate same-sex marriage, etc.

Nothing has been done to harm YOU, or your church.

Giving other people the same human rights you enjoy, does not harm you.

*

 

[Serenity7855]

But you just said that someone hasn't received a valid witness because god probably didn't think he was worthy.

No I didn't. My goodness, you are a scoundrel at putting words into my mouth, aren't you? I didn't mention God. However, don't take my word for it, take a look at what I actually did say below. I haven't mentioned Him. But what if I had a bad memory and couldn't remember what I said. Your false assertion would have damaged my integrity. The outcome of your misrepresentation could have been calamitous and all because of a need to prove me wrong and claim the rewards of the victor.

1. In order to receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost one must be living as righteously as possible.

2. I am voicing an opinion that you have never been privi to the prompting of the Holy Ghost and I base my opinion on the poor attitude that is more then prevalent in all of your posts here.

3. I have stated that you cannot be a practicing Christian because of your obvious hostile mannerism

4. You have to attain a certain level of righteousness in order for the Holy Ghost to communicate with you. It would seem obviously that you have never reached that level.

5. You have obviously never received the testimony of the Spirit of God, which makes you unqualified to past judgement.

And Finally

1. A witness of the Holy Ghost is predicated on the individuals immoral deportment.
2. Once you receive a witness then there is no going back, you can never deny it.
3. You are effectively denying it, therefore, it is fair to assume that you have never received it
3. By contradicting someone else's claim that they received a witness indicates that you do not recognize the phenomenon to be true, therefore, you could not have witnessed it.
4. Conclusion - You are not showing any of the noble attributes of someone who has had an epiphany, or anything like unto it, therefore, it is most unlikely that you have received a witness with the Spirit of God. The most likely reason being a lack of worthiness, therefore, you cannot assert that others have not when you do not know what it is like yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that they should obey the law. It's such a law that I have a problem with. It's ridiculous to prevent a religious organization from having an adoption license, simply because they want to place children within their value system.

The law allows gay marriage and gay adoption. I'm perfectly fine with gays going to government adoption agencies (who must allow this) or to private agencies who accept it. I wish them well.

In many cases, the religious organizations are acting as government contractors. In others, the government is providing adoption agencies with wards of the state. I have absolutely no problem with the government imposing conditions on the organization in either of these cases: "if you want us to provide you with money or children, there are going to be rules attached to them."

What next? Are you going to deny churches the legal right to perform marriages if they won't perform gay marriages for religious reasons? Is that what's next down this line of reasoning? Some say, oh no, that won't happen, but that's how absurd this line of thinking can become.

Speaking for myself, what I see as an ideal situation is where religions (and the couples getting married) can do whatever religious ceremony they want, but this is completely separate from the legal marriage, which would be done by signing forms at City Hall with a clerk. I don't think that religious clergy or organizations should be in the legal marriage business.

 

[Scott C.]

In many cases, the religious organizations are acting as government contractors. In others, the government is providing adoption agencies with wards of the state. I have absolutely no problem with the government imposing conditions on the organization in either of these cases: "if you want us to provide you with money or children, there are going to be rules attached to them."

A private adoption agency that discriminates based on religion or personal lifestyle should not accept children unless it's understood that they can place them as they see fit. Or they should make exceptions for the children that come from the state. That may be hard to manage however.

 

[sojourner]

And how do you judge who is a true Christian? Did you use inductive reasoning, as I did?

I don't judge who is a true Christian (unlike you). I judge what is a true Christian act. I don't know you; how can I judge you? Even if I did know you, I would never assume that it's up to me to decide whether you are a "true Christian." A member of the clergy is trained to not overstep that boundary and is trained to help people judge for themselves where their hearts are. That's the difference between a professional and a jackleg. The professional helps people and meets people where they are. The jackleg makes judgments and foists opinion.

Yes, I do. I have read your post.

See above. You don't know me. You think you do, but I can assure you that you do not. I doubt you ever would -- even were we to meet face to face.

It matters not whether you are a clergy or a member of the congregation. In order to receive the testimony of the Holy Ghost one must be living as righteously as possible.

It does, actually. Clergy are not self-made; they are called, and that call is affirmed by the church-at-large. The candidate for Orders must manifest the presence of the Spirit, or else Orders are not conferred. When Orders are conferred, the Holy Spirit is invoked upon that person by the church, who has authority to do so. The presence of Holy Spirit defines whether or not that call is confirmed, so, by definition, clergy do manifest the Spirit. It's a rather humbling experience.

You are using your position to exalt yourself.

No, I'm defining who I am, since you seem to have missed the mark so badly.

as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

When clergy vest (that is, put on the clothing of ordained ministry), part of that clothing is the stole -- a long piece of material which goes around the neck and hangs down the front. It represents the towel that Jesus wrapped around him when he washed the disciples' feet. It is a mark of servitude and humility. Whatever authority the clergy person receives, it is received and exercised with all due humility. There is also the strength, however, to protect the flock from ravening wolves who would devour their souls for whatever ill-conceived reason moves them to do so. Even Jesus beat the dog slap out of the vendors in the temple. So don't mistake righteous anger with "unrighteous dominion."

You misrepresent me. It is your post that is full of anger and unnecessary insults against me, like "if anyone with a brain stem"

I used that term when you called my spiritual status into question, which it is not your place to do; it's poor form, and it was wholly uninvited. (Clergy never spout spiritual counsel unless it's asked for.) Plus, it was unnecessary to the debate.

I have not condemned any minority group

You have patently said that homosexuals are "not normal." That's a condemnation of homosexuals, who are a minority group.

I have not condemned the sinner in anyway, I have condemned the sin. You are bearing false witness, why, I do not know.

A person's sexual identity is not a sin -- it's an identity -- it's who someone is. So, when you condemn homosexuality as "not normal," you do condemn the person as "not normal." IOW, you have effectively ostracized homosexuals from "polite society." You have turned homosexuals into a "them," which Jesus specifically commanded us not to do.

You call it Ad hominem because you do not comprehend what I am saying and why. I am voicing an opinion that you have never been privi to the prompting of the Holy Ghost and I base my opinion on the poor attitude that is more then prevalent in all of your posts here.

You don't have a right to an opinion of something you know nothing about -- in this case, my spiritual condition. You view my attitude as "poor," because I'm resisting the bullying that's being perpetrated against the homosexual community.

That you find it offensive is because the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

I find it offensive because it's untrue.

I am sure that you do have a high degree of confidence in your spiritual formation. I believe it is called egocentric narcissism, it certainly bears no resemblance to humility.

What you "believe" is immaterial. It's called "assuredness through experience." It bears no resemblance to humility in your eyes, because it challenges you to be honest.

I just speak that which I believe is true. I use no tactics.

You have drawn the discussion off-topic. That's a tactic.

You must know that to say to me that I used "obvious and vulgar tactics." is the words of someone with a hostile attitude and is an attack on me rather then the topic of debate.

So, cheap provocation, by calling into question publicly that which your opponent holds very dear -- is, in fact, who your opponent is -- isn't both "obvious" and "vulgar?" Yeah! At this point, I'm a little hostile. I don't appreciate my character being questioned by someone who has no right to do so. And if you cross a boundary you ought not cross, I'm gonna push you back. I think you did it on purpose to misdirect the topic, because you're losing ground in the debate. I'll thank you to leave the personal barbs out of the equation from here on in. I should think that a bishop of "the only true church" would know about -- and maintain -- decent boundaries.

Every point that you have made in contradiction of my opinion has been vindicated by me.

I disagree.

What are you trying to say here "trump critical textual study". Are you trying to be clever or are you trying to belittle me.

No, I'm saying that you're using "the Holy Spirit" as a trump card. Critical textual reading has nothing to do with "holy inspiration." It has to do with parsing out historic, textual, cultural, contextual, and linguistic clues. That's a cognitive exercise -- not an intuitive exercise. You don't get to just say, "The Holy Spirit revealed to me what the writer meant." It simply doesn't work that way. At all. It's disingenuous, and it's disrespectful to the holy texts, to the Holy Spirit, and to your own intellect.

Which inner struggle do you refer to.

Everyone struggles with spiritual discernment. Or have you never done that? Even Jesus did that.

That you call me arrogant shows your bad judgement of character and adds another insult (ad hominem) to your already lengthy list. But I will not defend it for fear of being supercilious

If you're not arrogant, then you need to apologize for calling my spiritual disposition into question. Doing that is an arrogant act.

I recognize a thesaurus when I see it being used as well. You could have just said exaggeration

So, now, not only are you trying to police who may and may not be married, and which hole someone uses for sexual pleasure in the privacy of their own bedroom, now you're trying to police what words I may or may not use? Did you have to look up "hyperbolic?" I've been using that word since high school geometry, and since Composition 101 in college. It's called "precise language usage." It describes the way in which something is exaggerated. In the case of its description of your post, you exaggerated the point by dancing around the real nugget of truth.

Perhaps you'd care to bring the debate back on track, now that you've had your diversion of bombastic spiritual entitlement?

I can help you get started. If love is good, and, as you have said, two people loving each other is good, how can homosexuality be "not normal?" Isn't love normal??

 

[sojourner]

They do. They have exactly the same rights as you and I. It is a lie peddled by the gay activists.

Except that they don't. They're discriminated against for adoption, housing, jobs, church membership, club membership, and a whole host of things that heterosexuals are welcome to participate in.

 

[Scott C.]

This is about more then just their value system. They discriminate against all kinds of people.

Same-sex couples, non-religious couples, couples in religions they don't approve of, etc.

They have an adoption agency license. That license comes with rules and laws.

If they don't want to follow them - then give up the license.

Again, I know there are laws that govern this. They should either follow the law or give up the license. That's clear. My point is that these laws should be changed. A church, with no tax payer support and who receives children from parents who specifically want the services of that church, should be allowed to discriminate and only select adoptive parents who meet their religious standards. Furthermore, the natural parent should be able to interview prospects and choose whoever they want for whatever reason they want. It doesn't matter if you or I agree with their standards. There's no reason to make this illegal. There are plenty of adoption agencies who do not place children based on religious values.

Calling an argument "slippery slope" does not make the argument ridiculous. Society is heading in the direction of the scenarios I cited previously. That which seemed ridiculous years ago to most people, is now widely accepted as perfectly appropriate applications of government intrusion into family life.

 

[sojourner]

God does not pick us, we pick Him.

Hold on there, Cochise! "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit..." John 15.
In fact, biblically, God usually calls the ones who do not "pick him." In fact, most every time God calls someone, they put up a fuss about being chosen.

 

[Scott C.]

Speaking for myself, what I see as an ideal situation is where religions (and the couples getting married) can do whatever religious ceremony they want, but this is completely separate from the legal marriage, which would be done by signing forms at City Hall with a clerk. I don't think that religious clergy or organizations should be in the legal marriage business.

I actually tend to agree, believe it or not. In the case of Mormon Temples, in the UK, the government does not allow marriages to be performed unless it's open to public view. As a result, Mormons who plan to marry in the temple, first get married outside of the temple to satisfy the legal requirement. They then go to the temple where they participate in the religious ceremony which has spiritual meaning. That ceremony has no legal significance. I don't see a problem with this.

 

[Serenity7855]

Except that they don't. They're discriminated against for adoption, housing, jobs, church membership, club membership, and a whole host of things that heterosexuals are welcome to participate in.

That is human behaviour not human rights. Our society have determined that homosexuals should have the same rights as anybody else, and I, for one, agree with that. If people then disobey that law then they should be reported. That people do not accept homosexuality is an indicator that it is still not considered to be normal. You cannot make people accept something if they feel it is unacceptable, even if the human rights act determines that you should.

 

[Serenity7855]

Hold on there, Cochise! "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit..." John 15.
In fact, biblically, God usually calls the ones who do not "pick him." In fact, most every time God calls someone, they put up a fuss about being chosen.

Oh dear, that is a little unethical of you. You take this verse, out of context, and then give it another meaning. That is positively dishonest. He was talking about His choice of disciples. Plus, God was not doing the choosing, Chist was. Look, I can debate with your truth, however, I cannot debate against lies and deceit.

 

[sojourner]

That is human behaviour not human rights. Our society have determined that homosexuals should have the same rights as anybody else, and I, for one, agree with that. If people then disobey that law then they should be reported. That people do not accept homosexuality is an indicator that it is still not considered to be normal. You cannot make people accept something if they feel it is unacceptable, even if the human rights act determines that you should.

No gays in the Boy Scouts. No gays in some jurisdictions of Freemasons. Some landlords will not rent to gays. Some government officials will not grant marriage licenses to gays. That IS discrimination. Equal treatment is a human right.

 

[sojourner]

Oh dear, that is a little unethical of you. You take this verse, out of context, and then give it another meaning. That is positively dishonest. He was talking about His choice of disciples. Plus, God was not doing the choosing, Chist was. Look, I can debate with your truth, however, I cannot debate against lies and deceit.

1) We are all disciples.
2) Jesus commands us to go out and make disciples of all the world.
3) Jesus is God.

Therefore, God has chosen humanity, just as God has always chosen humanity. I can't help it if the church you learned from taught you something different from the core teaching of historic, apostolic Christianity. That's an unfortunate difference of doctrine, but it makes my statement no less true.

 

[Scott C.]

Hold on there, Cochise! "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit..." John 15.
In fact, biblically, God usually calls the ones who do not "pick him." In fact, most every time God calls someone, they put up a fuss about being chosen.

Christ stands at everyone's door and knocks. Whoever opens is chosen and acceptable.

 

[sojourner]

Christ stands at everyone's door and knocks. Whoever opens is chosen and acceptable.

No. Everyone is chosen and acceptable. It's when we realize that we're chosen and acceptable that we open. The love of God is not conditional.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that they should obey the law. It's such a law that I have a problem with. It's ridiculous to prevent a religious organization from having an adoption license, simply because they want to place children within their value system.

A license means two things:

- the government is endorsing the licensee.
- the government has created artificial scarcity by preventing unlicensed individuals/companies from competing with licensees.

Why shouldn't a reasonable level of obligation come with that benefit?

Are children going to be removed from the homes of families where the parents teach that premarital sex is a sin? I mean I'm sure there are scientific publications (yes with peer review) that show that abstinence is unhealthy. After all, it's only by the good grace of the government that you're allowed to keep your children at all.

I don't know whether you have an extreme case of religious paranoia or if you're just out of touch with the real situation.

Knowing some of the worrying and even frightening situations where kids have been left in their parents' custody because it doesn't meet the court's threshold of "bad enough" to separate a family, I can only assume that - if you think that this is a real worry - you're operating under some serious misunderstandings about either how eager Children's Aid and the courts are to take away kids or about the (Christian-dominated) authorities attitudes toward religion.

 

[Scott C.]

No. Everyone is chosen and acceptable. It's when we realize that we're chosen and acceptable that we open. The love of God is not conditional.

I agree with you. I could have worded my post better. Sure, Christ chooses all of us and invites us all (knocks). We in turn need to choose him (open the door).

 

[Scott C.]

A license means two things:

Why shouldn't a reasonable level of obligation come with that benefit?

Let's keep it simple and look at the bigger picture. A parent who decides to give their child up for adoption has the right and the obligation to influence where the child is placed. I see this as being as much a right as it is to decide how to raise the child in their own home. If we believe this, we will find ways to make it happen in the adoption process. If we believe the state is better equipped to decide, we'll put up roadblocks for the parents.