Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Serenity7855]

Apparently you completely missed that the authors of the web articles are not the authors of the articles they were referencing.

Not at all. As I said, they wrote the article based on knowledge they had gleaned from other sources.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your call is valid in the eyes of mankind, but not God.

You left His flock and are now under threat from the ravanous wolves

So much for "judge not."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not at all. As I said, they wrote the article based on knowledge they had gleaned from other sources.

Sources that are drawn from multiple sources that show homosexuality is not a choice, and that homosexuals are born that way. Very much unlike your source that gave a number of eight studies.

 

[Scott C.]

You must be either very young or very naïve. I have been an advanced practice nurse for decades, 4 to be exact. And apparently you have not worked in an ER where mothers come in and scream in loud voices to "take this piece of sh*te before I kill (her or him). Or those who have already been dumped living on the street and are budding psychopaths or sociopaths. Or the ones with absolutely dead eyes. I mean, really, have you ever seen a child whose soul has died? I have and I tell you truthfully, it is one of the most frightening and heart breaking things you will ever see. Or perhaps you would prefer the leave children with their 'well meaning' mothers who use their heads as a mop. That is a real case and that child died. It must be very nice to live in a world that has only rose colored glasses.

Oh my heavens, do you think that any of my positions taken in this thread apply to that situation?? Do you seriously think that a girl who refers to her child as a piece of sh*t is going to care who adopts the child? I think not. The responses I get here are strange. Why is it so hard for people to acknowledge that good people make mistakes, still love their babies, decide to put them up for adoption out of love, have preferences on where the child be placed, and should have a say? I have no idea as to what percentage of babies that are up for adoption come from birth mothers as you describe vs how I describe, or somewhere in between.

There is so much noise on this thread and reactions in opposition to my fundamental idea, but I have not heard any good arguments. Nobody has given me a single persuasive reason on why a mom who loves her child, who has preferences on placement, including religion, should not be entitled to go to a private religious based adoption agency, not tax payer funded, who will meet those preferences.

Am I young and naive? Well I'm 57 years old, raised six kids, and have seen an awful lot of crap and a lot of good too. I've known a lot of young women who got pregnant too early and it caused them and their families distress. I know them all as good people. I don't work in the ER so I don't see that dark side as often as you. It tears my heart that some mothers are so bereft of love. It must make you sick to your stomach to see this up close.

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

As a Libertarian, I feel the government should let the churches decide whether they want to allow gay marriage or not. Marriage is a religious institution not a political government institution. (Some Liberal churches would allow gays to marry, while conservative churches would not, this allows the free market of religion to decide whether liberal or conservative churches grow).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I am aware of that.

Okay good. I know we’ve talked about it quite a bit.

I am not a scientist. I have to rely on scientists for accurate information. What I do know is that Indentical twins share the same genome. The are exact clones of each other so if one is gay then the other will be gay, without exception. That is a given, however only 6.5% of them were, that should tell anyone that there cannot be a gene responsible for sexual orientation. It is just not possible. If your bigotryis so intense resulting in you not being able to see the wood for the trees, then you will find someone of discrediting it

Then maybe you just need to read a bit more.

Identical twins are not completely identical though, which is reflected in the fact that their personalities are not usually identical. Or sometimes one will develop Alzheimer’s disease or cancer, but the other won’t. And identical twins do not share the same fingerprints. So there are differences and they are not exact clones of each other.

How could that happen if they share the same genome? Gene expression works by interacting with multiple external factors which is why a person can have a predisposition to alcoholism, for example, but if they are not subjected to certain environmental stressors at significant points in their life, they may not develop alcoholism at all. Identical twins don’t share identical fingerprints (even though fingerprints are partially controlled by our genes) because each one was exposed to a very slightly different environment and very slightly different random stresses even though the share the same uterus. Remember when we talked about epigenetics being a factor? The genome is not set and fixed until you die. Nobody is really expecting to find one single gene that is responsible for sexual orientation and why we can’t even find one that expresses heterosexuality – because genes don’t necessarily work that way, there are a lot of chemical interactions going on all the time. And this is why I say your studies don’t say what you think they do about homosexuality.

http://www.livescience.com/24694-identical-twins-not-identical.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask142

http://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/


What bigotry have I expressed in this thread?

No I have not. I have only just come across them whilst searching the internet..

I apologize if you have not, but I seem to remember talking about all this twin stuff a while back.

If you had of read my post you would no that I to believe the same, however, I was responding to someone who said tthat there is no ifs or buts about it gays are deffinately born that way. I know different and responded accordingly. I have stated, on this thread, that I believe that their are many contributing factor that create sexual orientation.

Yes, there appear to be many factors involved in sexual orientation, but you haven’t given any which would indicate that people are not born that way or that homosexuality is any kind of conscious choice.

 

[sojourner]

Oh Dear.

Invoking the Power of Cervidae will not help you here. Antlers notwithstanding.

 

[sojourner]

As a Libertarian, I feel the government should let the churches decide whether they want to allow gay marriage or not. Marriage is a religious institution not a political government institution. (Some Liberal churches would allow gays to marry, while conservative churches would not, this allows the free market of religion to decide whether liberal or conservative churches grow).

Actually, marriage is a legal action. All couples must have a valid marriage license n place before a church will solemnize the ceremony. I require all people for whom this will be a subsequent marriage to produce their divorce decree.

 

[sojourner]

You started the insults, as can be seen below.

Serenity7855 said: ↑
I am a Christian, so I love you.

Sojourner responded:
no you don't. Not so long as you insist that there is something inherently wrong with someone based upon who they are. Jim Crow proponents didn't love blacks, either.

Post 699:
Serenity7855 said:
A 50 year strategy of the New Age Movement to fulfil its ultimate goal to establish a One World Government, a One World Economic system and a One World Religion

Sojourner Responded
Conspiracy theory bull spit! I've been around the New Age "movement" (it's seriously not organized enough to be called a "movement") for nearly 50 years and there Is. No. "Agenda."

Words of a cyberbully. Argumentative .and provocative.

Calling you on the carpet for saying what is not true isn't "argumentative" or "provocative." Or "Bullying." But telling someone you "love" them while not treating them as whole individuals is violence and not "love."

Wrong, it was you who insinuated that I dreamt up my experience with the Holy Ghost, as can be clearly seen below.

Post 1131 Sojourner said:
How do you know that it's not all "just story," that we can either dismiss or take at face value, as makes us comfortable?

Post 1132 Serenity said:
The Holy Ghost told me

Post 1141 Sojourner said:
Oh, please. The Holy Spirit told me the exact opposite. Now what? Claims like this are useless as teats on a bull. The H. S. Is efficacious in terms of personal conviction, not generalized textual criticism.

I didn't say you "dreamt up" your experience. I never said you didn't have an experience with the H.S. What I said is that the H.S. is not efficacious in terms of generalized textual criticism. You may be personally convicted by the H.S., but not made more cognizant of what the texts are saying.

Your call is valid in the eyes of mankind, but not God.

Well... Idn't that special?! God disagrees with you on that point.

And in the process seek the praises of mankind. I don't belive in an exclusionary mutation of Christianity. Christ does not require building up, He is perfect.

Of course you do. Whenever you assert that God's call isn't valid for someone, that's an exclusionary mutation of Christianity. Building up the church (which is the body of Christ) is commanded of us by Jesus in the bible.

But most importantly you are not recognized by God, just man.

Read my signature, Mrs. Grundy.

That just makes you puffed up in Pride and haughty. There is no humility in your words, It is all about you and your manmade credituals.

All credentials are "manmade." So what? As I've said before, the bible makes clear that God works through human agency.

Most of you are all of the same ilk, of course you will all agree with each other, however, lots of people smoke but that doesn't make smoking acceptable. Just becaause a few people on a religious forum say that you are extremely non-denominational does not make it true.

I'm glad most of us are "of the same ilk." You couldn't be kinder in your compliment! Because that "ilk" is the "ilk of human kindness," which Jesus taught us to foster and spread. No, people here saying so doesn't make it so. But my denominational affiliation does make it so.

know that you have no authority from God, your authority comes from carnal man.

Again, your assertion is purely delusion. Or hate. Or spite. Or entitlement. None of which has any part of Godly discernment.

That is a lie and an ad hominem.

You seem to be batting .000 so far...

You cannot blame me for your choices.

I'm not. I'm taking full responsibility for my choices. Read the post again.

You should try Shakespeare. Your dramatic acting is superb.

You should try Macrame'. Your skill at twisting is superb.

 

[sojourner]

Really?

Really, really!

 

[sojourner]

You did when you said you that WERE a Christian.

God is much bigger than the Christian faith.

You left His flock and are now under threat from the ravanous wolves

Looks like she's under no threat from anything but your ineffectual wet-noodle whipping.

That is because they have.

Only according to you. And you're definitely not an authority, if you won't even attempt to work and play well with others, as your religion says next to your avatar.

Yes, they have

Oh, great! Now we're treated to the very well thought out, "Nuh-uh!" argument.

If they left Christianity to become a Buddhist, Yes.

Pagans, Muslims, Hindi, etc. aren't "Buddhists." Buddhists are Buddhists. Muslims are Muslims, Hindi are Hindi, and Pagans are Pagans. No one's sure what you are, because you're playing all by yourself, apparently by your own rules. That's what medical science calls a "free radical." Think about it...

So you believe in predestination then. Free agency is a nonsense then, which means the whole of christianity is a farce then.

More macrame'.

It's not.

Apparently, it is. Because you still don't Get It.

That is because you are a bigot.

I think she sees more clearly with her heart than many do with their eyes. That doesn't make her a bigot. But you're saying so may be an indication of Something Amiss in your own cognition of the situation.

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

Actually, marriage is a legal action. All couples must have a valid marriage license n place before a church will solemnize the ceremony. I require all people for whom this will be a subsequent marriage to produce their divorce decree.

I just said I was a Libertarian, (meaning less government), also the government really shouldn't be involved in whatever people do in their bedrooms as long as they are consenting adults. (We actually have laws against sodomy)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I just said I was a Libertarian, (meaning less government), also the government really shouldn't be involved in whatever people do in their bedrooms as long as they are consenting adults. (We actually have laws against sodomy)

The sodomy laws have been struck and exist no more. And, yes, the government should be involved for cases involving next-of-kin, insurance, inheritance, and other things that can get really nasty, really ugly, really quickly if there is no disinterested arbitrator of such things.

 

[sojourner]

I just said I was a Libertarian, (meaning less government), also the government really shouldn't be involved in whatever people do in their bedrooms as long as they are consenting adults. (We actually have laws against sodomy)

Marriage is still a legal contract. Even in ancient Israel. No matter what you think about "small government," marriage is still a legal contract. It may be given a spiritual framework, but it's still a legal contract.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As a Libertarian, I feel the government should let the churches decide whether they want to allow gay marriage or not. Marriage is a religious institution not a political government institution. (Some Liberal churches would allow gays to marry, while conservative churches would not, this allows the free market of religion to decide whether liberal or conservative churches grow).

Marriage is not a religious institution. It's a legal contract between two people that is recognized by the government.
Non-religious people get married all the time.

 

[Serenity7855]

Okay good. I know we’ve talked about it quite a bit.

Then maybe you just need to read a bit more.

I have read extensively on the subject, as far back as the 1950s research of identical twins. However, i have to conclude that the prognosis is a simplistic one. You do not have to be a biologist to comprehend what happens and why it happens. In my opinion, it is just like 2+2=4. It is always going to be 4 and you can readily see that it is 4 without doubt or need for scrutiny.

Let me try and tell you how I see it. Identical twins are identical, right? After all, they derive from just one fertilized egg, which contains one set of genetic instructions, or genome, formed from combining the chromosomes of mother and father. A woman produces an egg called an "Ova" and the man produces a sperm that penetrates the ova and fertilizes it. Under normal conditions that embryo then duplicates over and over again to form a child, a miracle in my opinion. Occasionally the embryo splits in half again thus making two embryos. Because these embryos came from the same sperm and ova they will have identical genomes. Every single gene in both embryos will be identical. They are effectively clones of each other. A fascinating concept to envision. Both embryos will have the same gender, the same color eyes, hair, feet, nose, mouth, and so on. If a gay gene exists, and is present in the genome, both will either be homosexuals or heterosexuals. It would be scientifically impossible for it to be any other way. In reality that only happens in 6.5% of twins studied. That is almost a insignificant amount. There can be no possibility that a gay gene exists. It is a logical fallacy. I am no scientist but I can easily understand why a gay gene is not just unlikely bu impossible.

One would also have to ask why some genomes contain a homosexual gene and others a heterosexual gene. What would determine that. Could it be hereditary, for example.

This is backed up by Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead who worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics. He says:

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors. Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/...n-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/

Identical twins are not completely identical though, which is reflected in the fact that their personalities are not usually identical. Or sometimes one will develop Alzheimer’s disease or cancer, but the other won’t. And identical twins do not share the same fingerprints. So there are differences and they are not exact clones of each other.

Yes, you are right, however the differences appears during growth into adulthood and from adulthood to death. Social conditioning changes personalities, characters and even sexual identity. Whilst they grow in the womb they are identical in every way. Only after birth do changes occur because of environmental influences. Like homosexuality occurs after birth by the same method, social conditioning, giving us a logical and plausible explanation why gays are what they are, until something else comes along that prove the theory wrong. That is how science usually works..

Now comes the bit that you will not be happy to hear, which I can only apologize for but for the sake of honesty I must say it. But it will not end there, will it, because that is not what the gay community want to hear. It is imperative that they find something, or interpret or create something, anything, that casts doubt on nurture being responsible for who they are, even at the cost of humanity living a total lie, as long as what they are and do is considered completely normal thus removing any stigma that surround it. Things like manipulating the actions of animals to justify their own actions. The animals do it so it must be natural. If that were not true then we would not be here falling out about and the world, we would just be getting on with it. Your response to this post will be heavily biased to your personal beliefs. I understand that and respect that, however, I really am a realist. I want the truth, even if it kills me. I do not want to live a lie. But each to their own ah?

How could that happen if they share the same genome? Gene expression works by interacting with multiple external factors which is why a person can have a predisposition to alcoholism, for example, but if they are not subjected to certain environmental stressors at significant points in their life, they may not develop alcoholism at all. Identical twins don’t share identical fingerprints (even though fingerprints are partially controlled by our genes) because each one was exposed to a very slightly different environment and very slightly different random stresses even though the share the same uterus. Remember when we talked about epigenetics being a factor? The genome is not set and fixed until you die. Nobody is really expecting to find one single gene that is responsible for sexual orientation and why we can’t even find one that expresses heterosexuality – because genes don’t necessarily work that way, there are a lot of chemical interactions going on all the time. And this is why I say your studies don’t say what you think they do about homosexuality.

I have no rebuttal to this because I completely agree with this.

What bigotry have I expressed in this thread?

Oh dear, my fault, you have read yourself into this. It was not intended for you. I personally feel that your mind is very much open to new ideas and concepts. I really like that because you are ready to listen, but you have the strength in your own conviction to say "No, I disagree". That cause me to think about it and even investigate it further because I might be wrong. It also causes you to reconsider your stance to insure that your point is a valid one. It is a win win situation. It is what debating on these forums should be all about, completely void of insults and provocation.

I apologize if you have not, but I seem to remember talking about all this twin stuff a while back.

Oh, I am sure that we have, however, this particular article is new to me.

Yes, there appear to be many factors involved in sexual orientation, but you haven’t given any which would indicate that people are not born that way or that homosexuality is any kind of conscious choice.

Again, I would agree. Nobody knew that the Higgs Boson was there until they looked. There maybe something there, that cannot be seen using our current technology, that could be the answer to the question, "are gays born or made" I have given information on environmental conditioning and have posted articles on the part played by social conditioning. I have stipulated that I, personally, believe that there is a plethora of reason why gays are what they are. I think it highly possible that each case has its own reason and cause just because our social conditioning is unique to the individual. However, until we can get rid of the stigma that surround the possibility that gays are made that way through environmental factors we will never come to the full and honest truth.

 

[Scott C.]

I'm not certain of the origins of homosexual attraction, be it biological, environmental, psychological, etc. I don't research it. However I accept that in many cases, perhaps not all, the individual can remember their same sex attraction, since childhood or puberty. I assume most, if not all, remember correctly and are telling the truth.

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

To those who think that the government must get involved in religion, I recommend you guys read this: http://indy100.independent.co.uk/ar...a-have-banned-weddings-altogether--Wkn5DdPbzx

 

[McBell]

To those who think that the government must get involved in religion, I recommend you guys read this: http://indy100.independent.co.uk/ar...a-have-banned-weddings-altogether--Wkn5DdPbzx

Won't last long.
What people seem to not want to understand is that marriage in the USA is a LEGAL CONTRACT.
That puts it right smack dab in the realm of government.

In fact, all the religious hype, fluff, window dressing, that surrounds marriage is just that, hype fluff, window dressing.
Marriage, in the USA is a legal contract.
Now why religious people want to meddle with the government like that is beyond me.
I suspect it is a control issue.

 

[Serenity7855]

So much for "judge not."

No judgement, He actual said he left Christianity. That is a fact requiring no judgement.