Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

LDS Church leaders restate opposition to Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#1 Hemidakota

Hemidakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 15447 posts

Posted 13 July 2010 - 08:43 AM

LINK: LDS Church leaders restate opposition to gay marriage

#2 kimiko

kimiko

    Senior Member

  • Inactive with Posts
  • 114 posts

Posted 15 July 2010 - 10:45 AM

Don't think it helped any...

Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriages : NPR

#3 prisonchaplain

prisonchaplain

    Senior Moderator

  • Senior Moderators
  • 12373 posts
  • LocationFederal Way, WA

Posted 15 July 2010 - 11:21 AM

I can imagine people saying the same to Martin Luther King, early in the Civil Rights campaign. Fortunately, he stuck to his vision. Standing for righteousness is never wasted. IMHO, the reason most would support such marriages is that the believe the condition of homosexual desire is completely biological. If we could see that such activity is more akin to adultery, fornication, or even alcohol abuse--all combinations of biological desire and human will, then perhaps we'd see these calls for marriage recognition as more of a special interest campaign than a human rights one.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton


#4 kimiko

kimiko

    Senior Member

  • Inactive with Posts
  • 114 posts

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:17 PM


IMHO, the reason most would support such marriages is that the believe the condition of homosexual desire is completely biological. If we could see that such activity is more akin to adultery, fornication, or even alcohol abuse--all combinations of biological desire and human will, then perhaps we'd see these calls for marriage recognition as more of a special interest campaign than a human rights one.


Agreed! To me, it's all about choices.

#5 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 15 July 2010 - 01:46 PM

Im going to stand out here a little. I couldn't care less what government has to say about marriage in any way. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults (in some cultures between families, such an in arrainged marriages). Government has no moral or constitutional authority, by virtue of statute, section, or inference, to allow or prevent the willing private contract of performance. It is completely moral and legal to contract one's self into indentured servitude (such as in Military service - in which penalties up to and including death may be ajudicated for violations of the contract) and things of that nature (such as pornographic activities and prostitution which are unregulated under federal and constitutional authority). I have no problem with two consenting adults of the same sex entering into a marriage contract. Lets remember what a marriage contract actually entails. While it may vary dramatically from contract to contract, and cultures and societies, a marriage contract details the rights and responsibilities of the contracted individuals; responsibilities such as maintenance and care being provided, obedience to lawful requirements (for women in many coutries) of intimacy, et cetera. What authority or constitutional right is there for the government to forbid this legal activity from taking place? I personally do not think that health care is a right for anyone. Mandating employer supported health maintenance payments (insurance is a misnomer - insurance is indemnification against a possible unforseen activity or happening. Health maintenance contract describes, legally and factually, what is being required to be provided) is an absolute abomination. But if its legall to do this for varied sex contracts of marriage, why would it not be legal and morall to require it for same sex private contracts of performance? People whine about all these 'government' employees who have same sex benefits; that the public should have the same 'right.' I say, "Why the &*$% are there so many employees of the government, the largest employer in the NATION (that's onlt the Federal government, including States, counties, municipalities and all of their offshoots and comissions, the number approaches almost 60% of the workforce! That's right, 4 of us work our butts off to provide the sustinance for 6 of you! How fair is that???)??? Employees of the government should be extremely few because morally and constitutionally there is few responsibilities or rights of the government! Get back to the law and foundations of this country, and you'll see affordable health maintenance; we'll be back to an economy where a physician will be able to make a living solo and could support his family quite well in isolated areas (a chicken for a house visit type life). Anyway, my point is that the government has no moral or legal authority to prevent homosexuals from entering into other kinds of contracts; that's known as DISCRIMINATION, which is an ABOMINATION. That is my legal and MORAL opinion. I simply choose not to participate in a homosexual relationship; that is my right. I do not believe that homosexuality is.. right. But I do not believe that homosexuals are condemned as sinners solely because of sexual orientiation that may or may not be controlable to them. I do honesty believe that some people are born gay, and that God the Father and Jesus Christ love them as much as the rest of us. I have homosexual friends, many of them, and I'd have most of them in my corner any day of the week over many people in my ward. I think we'll find that The Father will be far more forgiving than any of us could even possibly hope to imagine; if the Atonement applies to everyone, even to Adolph Hitler or Jerry Lewis (his 'comedy' is almost as bad as The Holocaust), and I assure you it certainly does; it applies to men who lie with men and women who lie with women. I don't choose to practice homosexuality, and I don't think that its.. 'right,' religiously speaking; but I do not think it to be immoral legally or consitutionally speaking. Be kind and unconditionally loving to everyone you meet; they are all fighting a terrible battle, the depths of which and the causes of which you have no ability to even begin to understand. What is easy for you to overcome is nearly impossible and devastating for another. I know this from personal experience.
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#6 crazypotato

crazypotato

    Banned

  • Inactive with Posts
  • 439 posts

Posted 15 July 2010 - 03:19 PM

Mr T, You sound like a libertarian. I understand what you are saying, but when the church specifically states that legalizing gay marriages and condoning homosexual unions leads to the downfall of a society, I believe that although logically it may not make sense, we should have faith in the prophet and support marriage as a sacred institution. I agree in all you are saying about small government and the government getting their noses out of people's private business, but when the proclamation on the family comes out, and then a bunch of messages from the First Presidency warning against gay marriage, I think this is more than a political issue, but a prophetic warning.

#7 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 15 July 2010 - 03:47 PM

I am a Liberterian, in a very very liberal sense. The only thing I want my government to do, on the Federal level, is to protect my borders from aliens, foreign armies, and foreign business influence; which means I'd kick out most foreign businesses, cut off American businesses who've moved their manufacturing overseas, and prevent foreign interfierance in our markets. I want an agrarian national society that doesn't have to poke its nose into everything else the rest of the world is doing. I believe it would be best for people to abandon cities wholesale and move to small family farms; people could then EAT. We don't need to have 2 or more automobiles per family; one is enough and sometimes too much. There's nothing wrong with a little walk or planning trips to the market. We don't need clothes made in Bengal, Vietnam, or Bora Bora; we can make our own from domestically produced cotton and wool. We don't need to be able to fly anywhere at any time; yeah its nice and convenient, but I'd rather have flying go back to being a luxury and rare; preserving my hearing from all the noise produced by aircraft. The only time in my life I can recall not being bothered by the sound of aircraft, anywhere I've ever been, was after 9/11 when no aircraft went anywhere and people stayed home with their families. It was very quiet. We don't need to compete on the world futures markets. We can produce all the food we need, and more. On coast to coast trips with the kids going to visit family for holidays, We'd go to a lot of cities; but I pointed out to my daughters the real reason America is powerful. Its not because we can make anything technological. Its not because we have electric delivery to every home or indoor plumbing. Its not because we have paved roads or scyscrapers. Its because we can feed ourselves. That is the real power in life. And not just ourselves, we can produce surplus so great we can feed the world. Nobody in poor nations need starve; we are more than capable of producing and delivering everything needed to end famine.. Or we would if farmers were not paid to NOT farm crops, in order to keep the price of grains high and the demand even higher. We don't need to police the world; we can feed it. During the First World War, the Relief Society released its decades long stockpile of wheat to feed the European Continent for nearly the whole duration of the conflilct.. just from what Mormon women tucked away from surplus'. Anyway, to the topic. I do believe that allowing "anything goes" is destructive to a society such as ours that has so much governmental interfierance and control over what is 'right and wrong.' There is a reason that Brigham Young moved the Saints to Utah, an independant and free land at the time; and created their own nation. The new nation made laws and protected its society by creating a government that was very inobtrusive and founded on the laws of God. Our modern national society, while originally founded on the laws of The Almighty, and "...upon the precepts of the gospel of Jesus Christ," (Patrick Henry in his Last Will and Testament), originally needed no laws, nor could anyone even fathom one, that would allow or prohibit private contracts - even up to and including usery. People were uniformly religious and voluntarily tailored their activities to their own conciences as perceived by them and dictated by their faith. Now people just wait for Da Gubmint to tell them to do, or not do something. Yes, this warning is Prophetic; but I do not believe in the way most people are interpreting it. I believe that the warning is to repent and voluntarily submit to the will of The Father as directed by His laws and urged to by The Living Prophet. Gay marriage is unimportant, in my opinion, and worthy of no debate. it is the willful abdication of responsibility and governance from ourselves to the Government, which as a corrupt organization, does not seek to edify, enlighten, or improve our spirits; only to control our actions. My 2¢
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#8 Wingnut

Wingnut

    A little nutty, with wings

  • Members
  • 10410 posts
  • LocationCleveland, OH

Posted 15 July 2010 - 05:16 PM

Standing for righteousness is never wasted.


Well stated, sir!
Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. -- C.S. Lewis

If we're going to be stupid about this, we're going to be stupid on my terms. -- my husband

#9 LocalFarms

LocalFarms

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 197 posts

Posted 15 July 2010 - 06:07 PM

I am a Liberterian, in a very very liberal sense. The only thing I want my government to do, on the Federal level, is to protect my borders from aliens, foreign armies, and foreign business influence; which means I'd kick out most foreign businesses, cut off American businesses who've moved their manufacturing overseas, and prevent foreign interfierance in our markets.

I want an agrarian national society that doesn't have to poke its nose into everything else the rest of the world is doing.

I believe it would be best for people to abandon cities wholesale and move to small family farms; people could then EAT.

We don't need to have 2 or more automobiles per family; one is enough and sometimes too much. There's nothing wrong with a little walk or planning trips to the market.

We don't need clothes made in Bengal, Vietnam, or Bora Bora; we can make our own from domestically produced cotton and wool.

We don't need to be able to fly anywhere at any time; yeah its nice and convenient, but I'd rather have flying go back to being a luxury and rare; preserving my hearing from all the noise produced by aircraft. The only time in my life I can recall not being bothered by the sound of aircraft, anywhere I've ever been, was after 9/11 when no aircraft went anywhere and people stayed home with their families. It was very quiet.

We don't need to compete on the world futures markets. We can produce all the food we need, and more. On coast to coast trips with the kids going to visit family for holidays, We'd go to a lot of cities; but I pointed out to my daughters the real reason America is powerful. Its not because we can make anything technological. Its not because we have electric delivery to every home or indoor plumbing. Its not because we have paved roads or scyscrapers.

Its because we can feed ourselves.

That is the real power in life. And not just ourselves, we can produce surplus so great we can feed the world. Nobody in poor nations need starve; we are more than capable of producing and delivering everything needed to end famine.. Or we would if farmers were not paid to NOT farm crops, in order to keep the price of grains high and the demand even higher.

We don't need to police the world; we can feed it.

During the First World War, the Relief Society released its decades long stockpile of wheat to feed the European Continent for nearly the whole duration of the conflilct.. just from what Mormon women tucked away from surplus'.

Anyway, to the topic.

I do believe that allowing "anything goes" is destructive to a society such as ours that has so much governmental interfierance and control over what is 'right and wrong.' There is a reason that Brigham Young moved the Saints to Utah, an independant and free land at the time; and created their own nation. The new nation made laws and protected its society by creating a government that was very inobtrusive and founded on the laws of God.

Our modern national society, while originally founded on the laws of The Almighty, and "...upon the precepts of the gospel of Jesus Christ," (Patrick Henry in his Last Will and Testament), originally needed no laws, nor could anyone even fathom one, that would allow or prohibit private contracts - even up to and including usery. People were uniformly religious and voluntarily tailored their activities to their own conciences as perceived by them and dictated by their faith.

Now people just wait for Da Gubmint to tell them to do, or not do something.

Yes, this warning is Prophetic; but I do not believe in the way most people are interpreting it. I believe that the warning is to repent and voluntarily submit to the will of The Father as directed by His laws and urged to by The Living Prophet.

Gay marriage is unimportant, in my opinion, and worthy of no debate. it is the willful abdication of responsibility and governance from ourselves to the Government, which as a corrupt organization, does not seek to edify, enlighten, or improve our spirits; only to control our actions.

My 2¢


Awesome post. My nickname on this site is LocalFarms because I also believe a return to an agricultural society could be an answer to quite a bit of our problems. I would also add that we need to localize farming so we don't have to pay for the fuel to ship it out to us.

Back on subject though; while I agree with you on a political level, and in fact voted against a ban on gay marriage here in Arizona, I regretted not following the council of the General Authorities (at least as how I interpret it) later on after I thought about it further.

#10 Hemidakota

Hemidakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 15447 posts

Posted 15 July 2010 - 06:26 PM

I can imagine people saying the same to Martin Luther King, early in the Civil Rights campaign. Fortunately, he stuck to his vision. Standing for righteousness is never wasted.

IMHO, the reason most would support such marriages is that the believe the condition of homosexual desire is completely biological. If we could see that such activity is more akin to adultery, fornication, or even alcohol abuse--all combinations of biological desire and human will, then perhaps we'd see these calls for marriage recognition as more of a special interest campaign than a human rights one.


I have talked offline with a couple LDS members who are attracted to the same gender since childhood but never experience it physically and I believe there is some creditability to this but not a biological issue but more of a spiritual experience.

#11 prisonchaplain

prisonchaplain

    Senior Moderator

  • Senior Moderators
  • 12373 posts
  • LocationFederal Way, WA

Posted 15 July 2010 - 08:13 PM

I've stated this in discussions with members of the board who favor same-sex marriage. My view is that we should grant equal or almost-equal legal rights to such couples. We might even consider civil unions. However, marriage is an institution that is traditionally faith-based, and one which also represents society's best standard of family. In mostly secular communities, then, perhaps gay marriage makes sense. However, in the U.S., which is 85% Christians, and in which over 90% say they believe in God, I just don't see granting marriage as a solemn human right. It's called "holy matrimony." Most Americans see gay unions as less than holy--even if we sympathize those with such attractions.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton


#12 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 15 July 2010 - 09:04 PM

I don't approve of 'gay marriage,' I simply believe that government has absolutely no authority to interfiere with approving or prohibiting the lawful entry into private contract by anyone in their majority, of sound mind, and of informed consent. To "approve" of "almost equal rights" is discrimination, no matter how you look at it, and is an abomination. What authority do you, or anyone for that matter, have to "grant" marriage? Are you entering into that contract? Are you somehow an involved party? Why are 'priests' allowed to officiate over a marriage? Is it because of somekind of power or authority granted by the state (or God for that matter)??? No, its because of needing WITNESSES who are unimpeachable in case the contract between the two is contested. That's also why there are other "Witnesses" required in most states; to stand as proof that the contract was entered into WILILNGLY, TRUTHFULLY, WITHOUT RESERVATION or FALSE REPRESENTATION, and WITHOUT DURESS. What authority do you or anyone have to 'deny' the ability of two adults, of informed consent, in their majority and right minds, to lawfully enter into a contract of performance OF ANY VARIETY??? Equality is a solemn human right. Being able to enter into private contract is a solemn human right. Being free from having other people force their views upon you is a solemn human right; as declared and preserved in the Bill of Rights and by the virtue of Agency as granted by God. Frankly, I'm offended by your presumption that you have some kind of authority or position of moral superiority in this, or any matter, simply because you put on a Rat Catcher and thump a Bible. Discrimination of any variety is an abomination; as is suposing to force others to conform to your personal opinion of what is right or wrong. BTW, marriage is not "primarily faith based," nor has it ever been historically. Marriage has been practiced in many forms and names for millenia, even in countries where they'd never heard of Jesus Christ, God, or Santa Claus. Its been around for much longer than Christianity, Judiasm, or any other recorded religion. Its what people naturally do; it requires no permission or justification of any organization, government, or stuffed shirt in a white collar and a fancy little dress who rings bells to get heaven's attention, who burns incense to help prayers rise to heaven on the smoke, or who beseeches the attention of saints by prayer to a graven image (such as Saint Medals) to pay special attention to, or pretect them from anything, ever. I dont mean to be offensive, but I want you to understand just how off base I think you are, and how completely I believe you've misinterpreted the 'authority' of clergy. Any clergy. And yes, I would say the exact same thing to Thoman Monson if he made the same argument to me, because I believe it to be abhorrent and an abomination.
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#13 pam

pam

    Keep your hands off my gumdrops.

  • Administrators
  • 52373 posts
  • LocationUtah

Posted 15 July 2010 - 10:44 PM

Honestly I see nothing wrong with PC's post. What he said made a lot of sense. To accuse him of acting all superior and out of line even for a clergy is out of line in itself in my opinion. PC is one of the most humble people I have ever personally met. And yes I have met him in person.

#14 pam

pam

    Keep your hands off my gumdrops.

  • Administrators
  • 52373 posts
  • LocationUtah

Posted 15 July 2010 - 10:57 PM

BTW, marriage is not "primarily faith based," nor has it ever been historically. Marriage has been practiced in many forms and names for millenia, even in countries where they'd never heard of Jesus Christ, God, or Santa Claus. Its been around for much longer than Christianity, Judiasm, or any other recorded religion. Its what people naturally do; it requires no permission or justification of any organization, government


Interesting you should say this.

Henry B. Eyring

Our Heavenly Father wants our hearts to be knit together. That union in love is not simply an ideal. It is a necessity.

The requirement that we be one is not for this life alone. It is to be without end. The first marriage was performed by God in the garden when Adam and Eve were immortal. He placed in men and women from the beginning a desire to be joined together as man and wife forever to dwell in families in a perfect, righteous union. He placed in His children a desire to live at peace with all those around them.


Whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu or any other religion. Marriage has been around since Adam and Eve. The first marriage being performed by God himself.

#15 prisonchaplain

prisonchaplain

    Senior Moderator

  • Senior Moderators
  • 12373 posts
  • LocationFederal Way, WA

Posted 15 July 2010 - 11:55 PM

I don't approve of 'gay marriage,' I simply believe that government has absolutely no authority to interfiere with approving or prohibiting the lawful entry into private contract by anyone in their majority, of sound mind, and of informed consent.


Okay...but this does fly in the face of 6000 of human experience. Governments have indeed been the authority that recognized marriage.

To "approve" of "almost equal rights" is discrimination, no matter how you look at it, and is an abomination.


Well, no. Marriage is not a right. Adopting kids is not a right. Having one's alternative family pattern (Sally has two mommies) taught to public school children is not a right. It's not an abomination for societies to tolerate private behavior, while not granting it the full approval of traditional marriage.

What authority do you, or anyone for that matter, have to "grant" marriage? Are you entering into that contract? Are you somehow an involved party?


Precedence. Marriage has, for 6000 years, largely been considered a matter of community recognition.

Why are 'priests' allowed to officiate over a marriage? Is it because of somekind of power or authority granted by the state (or God for that matter)???


Actually, yes. "By the authority granted me by the state of Washington..."

No, its because of needing WITNESSES who are unimpeachable in case the contract between the two is contested. That's also why there are other "Witnesses" required in most states; to stand as proof that the contract was entered into WILILNGLY, TRUTHFULLY, WITHOUT RESERVATION or FALSE REPRESENTATION, and WITHOUT DURESS.


Actually, your "other witnesses," are the witnesses. The priest is the officiant.

What authority do you or anyone have to 'deny' the ability of two adults, of informed consent, in their majority and right minds, to lawfully enter into a contract of performance OF ANY VARIETY???


Quite a bit actually. Again, the precedence of human history is that marriage is a matter ordained by faith communities, but recognized by civil ones.

Frankly, I'm offended by your presumption that you have some kind of authority or position of moral superiority in this, or any matter, simply because you put on a Rat Catcher and thump a Bible.


Actually I was commenting like everyone else here...just based on being a part of the forum.

Discrimination of any variety is an abomination; as is suposing to force others to conform to your personal opinion of what is right or wrong.


We discriminate every time we make choices. My personal opinion means nothing...unless an overwhelming majority agrees.

BTW, marriage is not "primarily faith based," nor has it ever been historically. Marriage has been practiced in many forms and names for millenia, even in countries where they'd never heard of Jesus Christ, God, or Santa Claus. Its been around for much longer than Christianity, Judiasm, or any other recorded religion. Its what people naturally do; it requires no permission or justification of any organization, government, or stuffed shirt in a white collar and a fancy little dress who rings bells to get heaven's attention, who burns incense to help prayers rise to heaven on the smoke, or who beseeches the attention of saints by prayer to a graven image (such as Saint Medals) to pay special attention to, or pretect them from anything, ever.


Impassioned words, but in most necks of the woods the majority of marriages are religious, and the state must indeed recognize it for the union to have legal standing.

I dont mean to be offensive, but I want you to understand just how off base I think you are, and how completely I believe you've misinterpreted the 'authority' of clergy. Any clergy. And yes, I would say the exact same thing to Thoman Monson if he made the same argument to me, because I believe it to be abhorrent and an abomination.


You seem to find my being a clergyperson offensive. I made no mention of it in my posts, and I'm not sure why you repeatedly mention it. Is it really germaine to this conversation?

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton


#16 Gwen

Gwen

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5483 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:05 AM


Frankly, I'm offended by your presumption that you have some kind of authority or position of moral superiority in this, or any matter, simply because you put on a Rat Catcher and thump a Bible.

Discrimination of any variety is an abomination; as is suposing to force others to conform to your personal opinion of what is right or wrong.


sitting here i can't think if a single occurrence of discrimination that didn't start and end with derogatory names (aka name calling) against the discriminated party..... hummmmm is there an insert foot smile?

i don't have problems, i have issues
problems can be fixed, issues you just deal with



"The grass is not, in fact, always greener on the other side of the fence. Fences have nothing to do with it.
The grass is greenest where it is watered. When crossing over fences, carry water with you and tend the grass wherever you may be."
-Robert Fulghum


#17 hordak

hordak

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 2175 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:32 AM

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults

Government has no moral or constitutional authority, by virtue of statute, section, or inference, to allow or prevent the willing private contract of performance.

I have no problem with two consenting adults


Just out of curiosity...

Why do most who say government has no right to "interfere" with marriage define marriage as 2 consenting adults , which is the Government's Definition?

How/Why is keeping John and Steve from getting hitched with marriage defined as 2 consenting adults of opposite gender discriminatory while keeping John, Jane and Sue from getting hitched with marriage defined as 2 consenting adults of opposite gender is considered A-OK?

It like me saying i have the right to practice Mormonism under" freedom of religion" just like the Catholics and Baptist, But it was meant for Christians only so the Wiccans don't have that right
"There are not enough general authorities to do all the thinking for the membership of the church." J. Golden Kimball


"I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord." Elder Oaks

#18 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:34 AM

First off, you're intentionally intellectually dishonest if you believe that there's ony 6,000 years of human history to draw precident from. There is archeological proof that is indesputable that shows homosapien has been the apex lifeform on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. Indesputable proof; to the point where not even the most devout member of any reliegion who has even half a brain rejects the cannon of the earth only being 6,000 years old, and I can't think of a single modern reliegion who continues to espouse that view. On the topic of "power granted you by the State of Washington," it is not the power to marry two people (they can only marry each other - you can only officiate as an OFFICIAL granted the authrority to declare the contract entered into legally. No matter what you postulate to the people entering into the contract, or if they even refuse to utter a word to you or themselves, the only legally binding act is in signing the marriage contract at the time of officiation. I know this to be true as I've been authorized several times by law and custom to officiate over marriage and other 'solemn' acts). I recommend you expend some effort in study of contractual law and the authority of the State. Entering into private contract is a human right ordained by The Almighty and is free from whatever petty restrictions you'd like to put on it. The adoption of children isn't a right.. I don't even know how to respond to that statement. What right or authority does the state have, legally or consituttionally, to allow or prevent it. Your use of the phrase 'authority by precident' is the same one used for millenia to rationalize serious abuses such as genocide, murder, opression, slavery, stigimitization, and separation; hardly something I'd be proud of. Does precident make it right that an entire Caste of people in India are considered worthless and tainted? The "Untouchables" are exempt from protections under law; one wishing to abuse or deprive them up to including of their lives, is free from prosecution, and may in fact be abeited by law. That's not company I'd wish to be standing in when I try to justify my position to The Almighty. Put it any way you want it; there is no intellectually honest way to defend descrimination in any form. We are warned "not to judge," but that does not mean "accept anything that goes, from anyone" (accepting discrimination is just as bad as making uninformed judgements), it simply means "judge not lightly," which means not before having honestly and intellectually examining a topic. I really couldn't care less that you're a paid clergyman (even though Nephi had a few choice words about your profession... Something on the lines of calling it an abomination; ya know, "eat thy bread from the sweat of thy own brow all the days of thy life" and all that), I simply take exception that you use that avocation, whether or not you state what it is, as a basis to make claims that are utterly indefensible. You have no moral authority because you strap on a rat cather. You have none because you hold a Doctorate of Divinity or Theology. You have no authority because you lead a congregation. In fact, I'd say that you'll be held to a higher standard than the rest of us because of your assumption of authority or knowledge. I'm done with this topic because I'm about to say a few things that would be considered.. unkind. Suffice it to say that you hold no prominance with me because of employment. I've never been impressed by station or celebrity, and account amongst my actual friends Generals, Senators, minor royalty, Medal of Honor recipients, men of industry.. farmers, soldiers, waiters, plumbers, and one or two convicted criminals. I place absolutely no stock in position or education; other than where they're used for the benefit of those who cannot help themselves. I do not need, nor do I seek, you approval or agreement on anything. I only require honest debate free of opinions on morality based upon prejudice or emotional argument.
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#19 Justinator1

Justinator1

    Member

  • Inactive with Posts
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:36 AM

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Emphasis mine.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see the state trying to force religions and people to recognize "non-traditional" unions as marriages is one step toward the disintegration of the family. I, for one, don't want any part of the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

For those who may disagree, who may think that homosexual marriage does not lead to the disintegration of the family, I urge you to go back and study your Old Testament.

#20 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:40 AM

Just out of curiosity...

Why do most who say government has no right to "interfere" with marriage define marriage as 2 consenting adults , which is the Government's Definition?

How/Why is keeping John and Steve from getting hitched with marriage defined as 2 consenting adults of opposite gender discriminatory while keeping John, Jane and Sue from getting hitched with marriage defined as 2 consenting adults of opposite gender is considered A-OK?

It like me saying i have the right to practice Mormonism under" freedom of religion" just like the Catholics and Baptist, But it was meant for Christians only so the Wiccans don't have that right


It is not ok, under any circumstance, for government to interfier with consenting adults entering into contract. I have nothing against plural marriage; I have no interest in entering into a contract of Bigamy (one wife at a time was sometimes more than enough - hence why I'm single now), but I wouldn't stop those who wised to from doing to.

I did not mis-speak when I defined it as 'two consenting adults,' I simply did not use the phrase "between all legally interested parties" as I should have. My phraseology was unintentionally constraned due to paying greater attention to the words and phrases being bandied about than the correct terms in the common vernacular.
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq