Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[McBell]

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

nice count the hits, ignore the misses.

 

[sojourner]

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

She. Jo is a "she." And it is a judgment, for you left the church as well, yet you're holding HER to a different standard.

And what about your inane judgment of my ordination? Not a judgment? As if!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Saying "your call is valid in the eyes of man, not god" is a very judgemental statement. You told Jo that she is among a pack of "ravenous wolves (also a judgement against wolves, who are pretty harmless to people)."

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

That won't last, and it's not a solution, but a truck-load of bigotry. And because there are many legal issues that revolve around marriage, other than just the marriage itself, there does need to be a degree of state involvement to see it these legal issues are properly addressed and handled.

 

[Serenity7855]

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."


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.


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


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.


Read my signature, Mrs. Grundy.


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


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.


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


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


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


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

 

[sojourner]

Glad you've recognized the error of your ways of falsely judging and accusing people. Admitting the problem is the first step toward recovery of equilibrium. But your disguise was not really all that convincing.

 

[Serenity7855]

Saying "your call is valid in the eyes of man, not god" is a very judgmental statement. You told Jo that she is among a pack of "ravenous wolves (also a judgement against wolves, who are pretty harmless to people)."

That won't last, and it's not a solution, but a truck-load of bigotry. And because there are many legal issues that revolve around marriage, other than just the marriage itself, there does need to be a degree of state involvement to see it these legal issues are properly addressed and handled.

Do you think that I am a God who never sins. A person who has obtained perfection? Let me tell you that I am not. But you are scouring my posts looking for the smallest infraction in order to be able to say to me "How can you judge someone for a sinning when you are a sinner. Which is true, I would be a hypocrite. A small victory rather than none, ah. But Is that all you got on me. Nothing much to be proud of is it? However, I never said I was perfect. You will catch me out judging because I am not perfect, just not this time.

This person leaves the religion of Christianity and joins a whole new completely different one, the Buddhists. She has turned her back on the Christian God to worship another. That is pretty obvious that she has turned her back on the Christian God because she has admitted it. I have not judged her in anyway. Her own words condemned her. I left the Mormon church for various reasons. A Christian Church. I remained a Christian and I have continued worshiping God. There is no comparison here.

Secondly, I know, for an absolute surety, that the Apostles all died or they are extremely old. Fact. I know that Jesus conferred the Keys of the priesthood on the disciples, as the Holy Ghost confirmed that for me whilst I was reading it. Fact. I know that none of the disciples passed the keys onto anybody else, so when they died they took the priesthood with them. Fact. I know that Sojourner has a Micky Mouse certificate confirming he has been called as an apostolic clergy, because I believed him. I know this because there is no one on the face of the earth that has them to pass onto anyone, except, maybe, the Mormons, if their story be true. Conclusion, he is not authorized to act in the name of Jesus Christ. His calling is a fraud that is compounded by his teaching of false doctrine and enacting false quasi ceremonies. No judgement, all facts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

If you’ve been reading back that far, then I’m sure you are aware of the fact that a lot of early studies (and some later) had a number of flaws in them, inappropriate sample size, lack of valid and precise measurements of individual differences, and improperly recruited research subjects being some of them. Plus they didn’t have available to them the vast array of genetic and biometric tests scientists now have access to.

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.

You probably wouldn’t, because genes don’t exactly work that way. Instead, you could have a situation where possibly a series of genes are turned on in response to some stimuli or developmental processes, there are all kinds of hormonal and chemical development going on, and all kinds of environmental cues going off, and all these things interact to develop sexual orientation. Another poster here has pointed out that structural and functional differences in the brain are correlated with an individual’s sexual orientation. Put all of this together and you get sexual orientation. None of this indicates that people are consciously choosing their sexuality.

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/

He agrees that sexual identity is not a “deliberate choice,” which is the heart of the matter here.

http://mygenes.co.nz/whitehead_twinjhs.pdf

I can’t seem to find any studies linking childhood exposure to pornography with sexual orientation. Though I found this old one from 1971 that reported that among a group of rapists, pedophiles, homosexuals, transsexuals, heavy pornography users and a control group, “Adolescent exposure to erotica was significantly less for all deviant and offender groups compared to the nondeviants.”

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01540933#page-1

Also, I don’t understand the supposed link between child abuse and homosexuality. If they the former causes the latter, shouldn’t there be a lot more gay people in the population? And since females are more likely to be sexually abused as children than males are, there should be far more lesbians than there are gay men. But the opposite is true. It’s all a bit too Freudian for me.

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..

Science has proven your theory wrong (at least as you have described it here).

You’ve ignored what I’ve said. Fingerprints develop in utero, so whilst still in the womb, the twins are already not “identical in every way.” Changes can occur from conception all the way through until death, with the most development occurring during the gestational process and shortly after birth. Please look into epigenetics. Gene expression can be altered without having to actually change the DNA sequence itself.

Social conditioning refers to the process of “training individuals in a society to respond in a manner generally approved by the society in general and peer groups within society.” So you are saying that’s how people consciously choose their sexual orientation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning

When we talk about environmental factors that affect gene expression, we are talking about things like nutrition (both nutrition of the mother and that of the child in utero and in infancy) or experiencing acute levels of stress during key developmental periods, early in life. The uterus itself is an environment. Those are the types of environmental factors we’re that can result in epigenetic changes. Studies have even shown a correlation between sexual orientation and a male’s birth order with the likelihood of that male being gay increasing by 33% with each additional older brother he has. This is believed to be tied in with the mother’s immunological response when carrying male fetuses, which grows stronger with each successive pregnancy of a male fetus.

The argument here is really whether someone is making a conscious decision to identify with a particular sexual orientation, which in effect would mean you are “born that way.” None of these things are within the control of the individual. A fetus does not control its uterine environment. An infant doesn’t control its own environment. So it still doesn’t make sense to assert that people consciously choose their sexual orientation.

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.

Hopefully you’re read what I’ve written above. I think it’s very clear that nature and nurture work together at virtually all levels of development, basically from conception to death. They aren’t two separate things that operate independently of one another.

Honestly, I don’t think the gay community gives a rat’s behind if there is one single gay gene or not (there most likely is not). Do you care if anybody ever finds a single heterosexual gene? I’m fairly certain gay people just want to be treated as any other human being is treated. It appears to be the people who are opposed to homosexuality that are so fixated on the lack of a single gene. For some reason, some people think that means homosexuality is a choice.

Make no mistake, homosexual and bisexual people are normal. They are human beings, just like all the rest of the human beings, they care about the same things as all the other human beings, they want to be treated fairly and equally, like all the other human beings, and they want to be left to go about their own business, like all the other human beings. There shouldn’t be any stigma attached to these human beings.

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?

I have no idea what it means to manipulate the actions of animals.

I do know that I’ve only really seen people pointing out homosexuality in the animal world (humans are animals anyway) in response to the claim that homosexuality is unnatural. Otherwise, I don’t really hear much about it.

I am only interested in the truth. And the truth, as I see it is that homosexuals, bisexuals and heterosexuals don’t’ consciously choose their sexual orientation.

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

Awesome. So you are saying you agree that homosexuality is not a conscious choice?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Thank you for saying that. That’s exactly what I’m going for. I try to at least understand another viewpoint, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. Like you say, it’s a great way to learn and grow and expand your own viewpoint.

And if I am saying something that someone thinks is bigoted, I would prefer to have that pointed out to me than to carry on in such a fashion.

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

Okay then I apologize and please disregard what I said about it.

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.

I’m glad we agree on something, at least. I think I’ve already pointed out above the parts of this paragraph that I disagree with.

This does bring a question to my mind though … let’s pretend for a minute that we know for sure that sexual orientation is a conscious choice (major hypothetical!). Do you think that should make a difference in the way gay people are treated in society?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This person leaves the religion of Christianity and joins a whole new completely different one, the Buddhists. She has turned her back on the Christian God to worship another. That is pretty obvious that she has turned her back on the Christian God because she has admitted it. I have not judged her in anyway. Her own words condemned her. I left the Mormon church for various reasons. A Christian Church. I remained a Christian and I have continued worshiping God. There is no comparison here.

Except your claim was not that she turned her back on the Christian god, but that she turned her back on god.

Fact. I know that Sojourner has a Micky Mouse certificate confirming he has been called as an apostolic clergy,

That's still a very judgemental statement, and something you don't know. All you're doing is attacking his credentials because you don't agree with him.

His calling is a fraud that is compounded by his teaching of false doctrine and enacting false quasi ceremonies. No judgement, all facts.

That is judgemental, because you don't possess these "facts."

 

[sojourner]

She has turned her back on the Christian God to worship another. That is pretty obvious that she has turned her back on the Christian God because she has admitted it.

That, in fact, is patently NOT what she said. She allows that God is larger than religion -- a fact that even the apostles accept, since God was not a "Christian" God, but the Jewish God.

I remained a Christian

How do you know? Christianity is something that is defined by the body of believers, which you admit you turned your back on. It's right there next to your avatar. Perhaps, if you both left the church, neither one of you is Christian, if "leaving the church" is the defining criterion.

I know that Jesus conferred the Keys of the priesthood on the disciples, as the Holy Ghost confirmed that for me whilst I was reading it. Fact

Not fact. Belief. Did you see it happen? Where's the material evidence? Nope. Not "fact." Fact.

I know that none of the disciples passed the keys onto anybody else, so when they died they took the priesthood with them. Fact

How do you "know?" You don't "know." You believe. Others (myself included) believe That they did pass that authority to their successors. As Christians, we operate from belief. You "know" nothing of the sort. Fact.

I know that Sojourner has a Micky Mouse certificate confirming he has been called as an apostolic clergy, because I believed him. I know this because there is no one on the face of the earth that has them to pass onto anyone, except, maybe, the Mormons, if their story be true. Conclusion, he is not authorized to act in the name of Jesus Christ. His calling is a fraud that is compounded by his teaching of false doctrine and enacting false quasi ceremonies. No judgement, all facts.

You believe. You don't "know." Conclusion: I am authorized, because the body of Christ, who carries the authority to act on Christ's behalf, confirms God's call to ordained ministry. That's the belief upon which the body of Christ operates. You "know" nothing of the sort. In fact, Mrs. Grundy, it is your "knowledge" that is fraudulent.

 

[Ingledsva]

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).

They already do.

They just can't force their religious laws on others.

*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(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).

There is no "free market of religion" that decides "whether liberal or conservative churches grow." Really, all you have to do is look at the South, and you get a really good prime example of how society perpetuated and allowed for the existence of heavy and extreme racial intolerance, and this legal discrimination and intolerance did not end until the federal government stepped in. And despite the fed's involvement, such attitudes are still alive throughout many places in the South. It's not a free market, but the efforts of those who have endured and preserveered in the face of opposition to change the hearts and minds of those filled with hate.

 

[SSDSSDSSD3]

There is no "free market of religion" that decides "whether liberal or conservative churches grow." Really, all you have to do is look at the South, and you get a really good prime example of how society perpetuated and allowed for the existence of heavy and extreme racial intolerance, and this legal discrimination and intolerance did not end until the federal government stepped in. And despite the fed's involvement, such attitudes are still alive throughout many places in the South. It's not a free market, but the efforts of those who have endured and preserveered in the face of opposition to change the hearts and minds of those filled with hate.

If they don't like their religion they could just leave? (Seriously, if tomorrow some Muslim wanted to eat pork or sausage, they should leave; or if some Christian wants a gay marriage same thing). Religion brings people together, not divide them; (when Europe became Christian different ethnic groups went into the same Church and stopped fighting each other, same with the Islamic conquests.) We have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion, (I've visited the south and I know that they want to keep their conservatism strong).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If they don't like their religion they could just leave? (Seriously, if tomorrow some Muslim wanted to eat pork or sausage, they should leave; or if some Christian wants a gay marriage same thing).

Some places, sure. Some places, not unless you want to go to prison or sign your death warrant.

Religion brings people together, not divide them

Is that why Christians and Muslims have spent so long butchering themselves and each other? And even today religion is highly divisive, as is apparent by both anti- and pro-GLBT movements within churches, and the legal battles that many of that anti- crowd wage in order to install their religious views as legal policy for everyone in society.

 

[JoStories]

I think its about time that all religions keep their beliefs to themselves, in stead of forcing it down peoples throats, who the hell do they think they are ??.

Amen to that Psycho. You still have that permanent SFM card?

 

[JoStories]

Really?

Sigh...two responses to one post. What was the "Oh Dear" all about? And yes, really. They are good people of many faiths and of none. But I see who they are and don't judge them based on religion or the lack thereof. We don't always agree but that is just dandy because friends can do that.

 

[JoStories]

You did when you said you that WERE a Christian.

What does that have to do with me believing in God? God is not just the God of the Christian faith. Do you tell all Jewish people they don't believe in God? How about Buddhists or Pagans or any of the other myriad faiths? What you are seeking here to monopolize God and I am pretty sure God would not be too please with that.

 

[JoStories]

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

that is your opinion sir. Not mine. And your opinion has no effect on my path or my belief in God.

 

[JoStories]

That is because you are a bigot.

In what way? My mother is a devout Christian and I support and pray with her, although I don't call it prayer. So in what way? Do I seem to be a racist? I assure you I am not.

 

[JoStories]

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.

You misunderstand my responses to you. I do not agree with your assessment of this but I respect that you feel it should be that way. However, that being said, I have seen too much to be able to agree with you. In my career, I traveled for a living as a nurse in critical care teaching and practicing. I have been to so many poor and downtrodden areas that are like what I had wrote about. The Caribbean, Africa, Hawaii, Alaska, the southeast US, etc. In most of those places, and in particular, in places like NYC and LA, women were often uncaring. Some of them thankfully had abortions but not all. Those that didn't, many could not have cared less about the child. One woman carried a dead fetus to term so she could toss it in a dumpster. If the world were as rosy as you portray, that scenario might be nice. But that scenario is also somewhat rare. I do know that my best friend has looked for her birth mother for 60 years and has found nothing..most likely for the good considering the time frame. If I have offended you, I humbly apologize.