Mormons face flak for backing Prop. 8

[mcguin]

all right, but before we get started recognise that I don't believe the word of God ended with the bible. I believe God still has guidence to us his children and as such continues to reveal his will to living prophets today as he did in biblical times. because of things like pornography which is an issue today that wasn't 2,000 years ago. God is not silenced.

To begin it's going to be hard to use the old testament or old covenant. when Jesus fulfilled the law of moses and gave us the new testament or new covenant. Jesus gave us the higher law. With new revelation Jesus expects us to follow higher standards now than he did the people of moses.

but this isn't anything new to you. you live and follow the bible. right?

now you sound like a mormon!

 

[Built]

biochem, in your own words, what is your understanding of the negative effect upon society in allowing gay marriage?"

 

[KelJu]

and now we are back to the effects upon society as a reason for denying them a marriage certificate.

I have no problems giving POA for things.

What? No no no no no. Back to what you said.

What would a marriage certificate do to change their lives?

You tell me what it changes for a straight couple.

 

[Built]

all right, but before we get started recognise that I don't believe the word of God ended with the bible. I believe God still has guidence to us his children and as such continues to reveal his will to living prophets today as he did in biblical times. because of things like pornography which is an issue today that wasn't 2,000 years ago. God is not silenced.

To begin it's going to be hard to use the old testament or old covenant. when Jesus fulfilled the law of moses and gave us the new testament or new covenant. Jesus gave us the higher law. With new revelation Jesus expects us to follow higher standards now than he did the people of moses.

but this isn't anything new to you. you live and follow the bible. right?

I was poking at you, friend.

 

[bio-chem]

now you sound like a mormon!

i dont believe i ever stopped

 

[bio-chem]

biochem, in your own words, what is your understanding of the negative effect upon society in allowing gay marriage?"

We have had this conversation before. on multiple different threads for different discussions as well as this one. I admit that I am not capable of explaining it to the degree that article is. so i will only say this.

a society is strongest when the basic structure of a family is strengthened. a mother and father in a relationship built upon love and selflessness. children raised in this enviorment have the greatest chance of growing up and having having happy lives and healthy relationships themselves. we should do all we can to strengthen these family relationships.

 

[Built]

My husband and I cannot have children.

Does this threaten the basic structure of the family?

 

[danzik17]

We have had this conversation before. on multiple different threads for different discussions as well as this one. I admit that I am not capable of explaining it to the degree that article is. so i will only say this.

a society is strongest when the basic structure of a family is strengthened. a mother and father in a relationship built upon love and selflessness. children raised in this enviorment have the greatest chance of growing up and having having happy lives and healthy relationships themselves. we should do all we can to strengthen these family relationships.

What does that have to do with marriage? It sounds like you are against same sex couples adopting children, not against them being married. I'm not going to blame you either; who knows what kind of psychological effects it will have on a child to have 2 fathers or 2 mothers.

 

[lnvanry]

not when they want a religious institution that doesnt believe in gay marriage to marry them.

wait, where in any of the props does it REQUIRE a private institution to marry a gay couple? No law can force a church to marry any couple....gay or staight

 

[bio-chem]

My husband and I cannot have children.

Does this threaten the basic structure of the family?

yea, thats what I'm saying

we have done all of this before. I'm not doing it again. if you want to discuss something in that article I would be happy to write about it. otherwise. i've posted in here way too much.

 

[Built]

That's okay, I understand. Sometimes we have strong opinions we cannot explain.

 

[MCx2]

That's okay, I understand. Sometimes we have strong opinions we cannot explain.

 

[PreMier]

That's okay, I understand. Sometimes we have strong opinions we cannot explain.

c'mon now your just fishing for an argument

 

[Splash Log]

We have had this conversation before. on multiple different threads for different discussions as well as this one. I admit that I am not capable of explaining it to the degree that article is. so i will only say this.

a society is strongest when the basic structure of a family is strengthened. a mother and father in a relationship built upon love and selflessness. children raised in this enviorment have the greatest chance of growing up and having having happy lives and healthy relationships themselves. we should do all we can to strengthen these family relationships.

If I chop my dick off and had it made into a vagina, and get tits, then I marry a man and we adopt an infant child of the same race and never tell them they are adopted and raise him/her like I am a woman would the results be the same?

 

[MCx2]

c'mon now your just fishing for an argument

Seems to me she just wants an explanation, which bio can't seem to give in his own words. Good strategy though. Next time I'm debating something I'm just going to post links instead of thinking of my own rebuttals.

 

[bio-chem]

If I chop my dick off and had it made into a vagina, and get tits, then I marry a man and we adopt an infant child of the same race and never tell them they are adopted and raise him/her like I am a woman would the results be the same?

try it. let me know how that goes for you.

 

[PreMier]

Seems to me she just wants an explanation, which bio can't seem to give in his own words. Good strategy though. Next time I'm debating something I'm just going to post links instead of thinking of my own rebuttals.

fuck that.. she is fishing for an argument, thats it. typical really.

same with you, thats a fucking cop out. read this.. and you will see what his rebuttal is


How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

 

[PreMier]

honestly, lets take a look at america today, vs. america back in the 40's or 50's. i could seriously write a 1000 page essay on this shit.

right now we have a society that feels its OK to have children out of wedlock.. we have a society that doesnt have shit for a family structure.. and the kids have nothing to look up to other than MTV and fucking reality tv shows.

what has that caused? well, because of that, there are less family values/and structure. they dont have a mother/father to teach them how to be fiscally and morally responsible. so they are left to watch tv, and learn from their friends (so smart ). now, we have more debt in our country than ever, there are more foreclosures, there is more crime etc. and i personally feel that all this relates back to weak family structure and improper marriages. if they had parents there to teach and guid them, this wouldnt happen

now take a look at america 60 years ago.. people lived within their means, they had tight social/family bonds.. and because of that they were able to pay off their homes, retire and live good lives.

i could go on and on.. but this shit just pisses me off

 

[MCx2]

fuck that.. she is fishing for an argument, thats it. typical really.

same with you, thats a fucking cop out. read this.. and you will see what his rebuttal is


How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. �€??“It won�€™t affect you, so why should you care?�€™ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children �€“through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

Good work, you've proved nothing except you can press ctrl+c & ctrl+v.

Do you even know what cop-out means?

I have no vested interest in this topic. Gays getting married doesn't affect me in the slightest, and it has no bearing on the way others' live their lives either. Attempting to micromanage the morals of others is just flat out pompousness, and it's exactly what has the USA in the doghouse with the rest of the world. I understand the argument of marriage being a "sacred union between a man and a woman", unfortunately the law has made it more of a business deal than something sacred and denying gays " the perks of doing buisness" is flat out criminal. Things have changed quite a bit over the past 2 centuries, you should check it out...

 

[bio-chem]

Good work, you've proved nothing except you can press ctrl+c & ctrl+v.

Do you even know what cop-out means?

I have no vested interest in this topic. Gays getting married doesn't affect me in the slightest, and it has no bearing on the way others' live their lives either. Attempting to micromanage the morals of others is just flat out pompousness, and it's exactly what has the USA in the doghouse with the rest of the world. I understand the argument of marriage being a "sacred union between a man and a woman", unfortunately the law has made it more of a business deal than something sacred and denying gays " the perks of doing buisness" is flat out criminal. Things have changed quite a bit over the past 2 centuries, you should check it out...

or maybe you should just take a second and read what you copied. everything you just used as an argument was addressed in what you just passed over. its not a cop-out to quote something. do you know what cop-out means?

 

[MCx2]

or maybe you should just take a second and read what you copied. everything you just used as an argument was addressed in what you just passed over. its not a cop-out to quote something. do you know what cop-out means?

Did I say what he did was a cop-out?? Did you leave your reading skills at home today?

 

[MCx2]

My original point was, how is me pointing out the fact that you've been dancing around Built's questions for 2 pages, a cop-out?

 

[bio-chem]

Did I say what he did was a cop-out?? Did you leave your reading skills at home today?

no dumb ass. you were saying i'm coping out by leaving a link.

and despite the fact that i left that link two pages ago. no one has tried to touch it. just ignored it. i can only assume it is because it makes sense, and addresses the issues yet goes against your point of view so all you can do is ignore it. good luck with sticking your head in the sand the rest of your life

 

[tucker01]

lets just ban marriage....it fucks everything up.

 

[MCx2]

Unlike the right to own property the right to marriage is not a universal one. The states posses the right to regulate marriage as well as to pass laws for the betterment of society as decided by the voice of the people. The voice of the people is being determined right now. I think this is needed as it is not the courts dictating but legislation determining this issue.

As to the reason why I believe society will be better off please refer to the article I posted. I will never be able to explain it as well as that article.

For the rest of your post I think we are getting a little off topic to the original point of the topic, but that is almost to be expected. I will have to go back and re-read your posts to find the one specifically regarding the comparison to racism. sorry i don't have time at the moment.

As to any of the LDS faiths past policies or doctrines I would be happy to answer any questions about them specifically, but I'm not really of the belief that this is the thread for that.

And as DOMS has pointed out. This is very much a Pandoras box. what is next? pedophiles and polygamy come to mind as the next groups to be clamoring for the right to marriage. I would love to see someone here argue gays should have this right, but polygamists should not. (as a clarification I do not support either)

This was my favorite. You didn't have time to address Built (who is owning you in this discussion btw) but you had time to make 4 posts over the following hour...

You do a mean soft-shoe.

 

[bio-chem]

This was my favorite. You didn't have time to address Built (who is owning you in this discussion btw) but you had time to make 4 posts over the following hour...

You do a mean soft-shoe.

actually its because im at work and can respond to stupid posts like yours quickly. hers is an intelligent post that will require more time at one sitting than i have to give at the moment.

 

[PreMier]

Good work, you've proved nothing except you can press ctrl+c & ctrl+v.

Do you even know what cop-out means?

I have no vested interest in this topic. Gays getting married doesn't affect me in the slightest, and it has no bearing on the way others' live their lives either. Attempting to micromanage the morals of others is just flat out pompousness, and it's exactly what has the USA in the doghouse with the rest of the world. I understand the argument of marriage being a "sacred union between a man and a woman", unfortunately the law has made it more of a business deal than something sacred and denying gays " the perks of doing buisness" is flat out criminal. Things have changed quite a bit over the past 2 centuries, you should check it out...

a cop out is avoiding responsibility. and thats what im saying your doing. if you "dont care because it doesnt effect you" then why post in here? your just a bitch that wants to argue, you always pull some shit like this.

maybe you should read something about benjamin franklin.. he separated virtue, morality, and faith from organized religion, although he felt that if religion in general grew weaker, morality, virtue, and society in general would also decline. and thats what the article i posted talkes about. america was not established to impress european countries. so who gives a shit

 

[MCx2]

actually its because im at work and can respond to stupid posts like yours quickly. hers is an intelligent post that will require more time at one sitting than i have to give at the moment.

You had all last night, or are you waiting for someone to change the subject again so you can do more dancing?

a cop out is avoiding responsibility. and thats what im saying your doing. if you "dont care because it doesnt effect you" then why post in here? your just a bitch that wants to argue, you always pull some shit like this.

maybe you should read something about benjamin franklin.. he separated virtue, morality, and faith from organized religion, although he felt that if religion in general grew weaker, morality, virtue, and society in general would also decline. and thats what the article i posted talkes about. america was not established to impress european countries. so who gives a shit

It doesn't affect you either you moron, or anyone in this thread that's not gay. That's my point.

 

[PreMier]

It doesn't affect you either you moron, or anyone in this thread that's not gay. That's my point.

thats where you are wrong.. im a constitutionalist, and i believe that society is declining because of a lot of things. allowing gays to marry is one of them. so it does effect me.

 

[bio-chem]

You had all last night, or are you waiting for someone to change the subject again so you can do more dancing?

nope, had a date last night. cant spend all my time on IM. sorry.

It doesn't affect you either you moron, .

no, it effects society. to see how please read the post above you yourself quoted. I'm starting to grow tired of your worthless shit. Kelju, built, crazy enough. they know how to share ideas. you should try learning from them