Question about same-sex marriage vs. religious freedom

[LateOutOfBed]

That's the thing is these laws aren't about taking people's rights away. Everyone still has the right to get married. It just has to be to a person of the opposite sex. They still have all their agency to do whatever they want. For Utah at least it's about defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is exactly opposite how the founding father's (and I'd argue God) intended things to be. Our constitutional system was designed to create a government which protected rights, and did not dole them out.

The truth is, today nobody has the right to get married, until the government approves it. Try it, go get married without getting a "license" from the government first. You're technically breaking the law if you get married without one.

The question about gay marriage is simply about whether the government should change to whom they allow a privilege, benefit, or "right". This whole argument really isn't about rights, but about benefits and privileges and how the government hands them out. It's about getting the "married" tax deductions because we've been fooled into believing that all the taxes the government establishes are valid, etc. This argument in our world today is all about keeping us distracted fighting and arguing the wrong fights.

The fight we should be fighting is to get government out of the marriage business. The only time government should be involved with a marriage is when one party violates a term of the marriage agreement and the contract between the individuals is being dissolved and then only as mediation to ensure the measures outlined in the contract are upheld properly.

So, whether you're for or against "gay marriage" is really irrelevant... if you're arguing either side, you're arguing for government control over handing out benefits and rights as if it really is their job and therefore you support the improper role of government in our society today.

-- Geoff

[KMCopeland]

Don't they have the right to exercise their agency in any way they want, regardless of whether it is right or not?

Yes.

[KMCopeland]

Do people have the right to steal (exercising their agency), or to have sex with little children (exercising their agency), or etc. and etc. I mean, there are those whose "desire" to have sex with little children.

Laws against stealing and pedophilia are laws that protect other peoples' rights. They are therefore constitutional. The law against homosexual marriage is a law against something that doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. And is therefore unconstitutional.

[Ezra]

That's the thing is these laws aren't about taking people's rights away. Everyone still has the right to get married. It just has to be to a person of the opposite sex. They still have all their agency to do whatever they want. For Utah at least it's about defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is exactly opposite how the founding father's (and I'd argue God) intended things to be. Our constitutional system was designed to create a government which protected rights, and did not dole them out.

The truth is, today nobody has the right to get married, until the government approves it. Try it, go get married without getting a "license" from the government first. You're technically breaking the law if you get married without one.

The question about gay marriage is simply about whether the government should change to whom they allow a privilege, benefit, or "right". This whole argument really isn't about rights, but about benefits and privileges and how the government hands them out. It's about getting the "married" tax deductions because we've been fooled into believing that all the taxes the government establishes are valid, etc. This argument in our world today is all about keeping us distracted fighting and arguing the wrong fights.

The fight we should be fighting is to get government out of the marriage business. The only time government should be involved with a marriage is when one party violates a term of the marriage agreement and the contract between the individuals is being dissolved and then only as mediation to ensure the measures outlined in the contract are upheld properly.

So, whether you're for or against "gay marriage" is really irrelevant... if you're arguing either side, you're arguing for government control over handing out benefits and rights as if it really is their job and therefore you support the improper role of government in our society today.

-- Geoff

I agree that government has no place In the marrage business. The constitution gives those rights to the state if they choose to take it on.
Some argue that the reason for tax breaks on married family's is that we have an obligation to the future generations and gay marriages do not creat offspring so don't deserve tax breaks. But to me that's a system inside a system .

We should have no taxation . Then it wouldn't matter who married who.

Untell wicked men changed the constitution the governments was not allowed to directly tax people. I guess God knew this would be the case when he said. In d&c 98


5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

And evil has came from changing the constitution.

[Benjamin_LK]

@natekriv
Baptism is not the same as being born of god. In my opinion this is the same as baptism of fire and holy ghost, which may or may not accompany baptism+confirmation.

My guess is that, more often than not, members have not experienced this.

I believe that Jeffrey Holland was wrong, or at least people interpret him wrongly. However I'm comfortable saying he's just wrong. A person truly freed of their sins or the effects of the fallen world will not have identifiable homosexual traits. So says I.


@sen6b
I think that SSA etc is not A choice, but choiceS. As such I can easily understand that many/most sufferers might not have a clear idea of what they did to cause it; yet I feel inclined to bet that in every case they could have made other choices which would have made them straight. I think such key choices happen early, and after years of cumulative impact cannot easily be reversed. In that sense someone who has struggled with SSA for years may have no choice but to fight with the issue the remainder of their lives. But who am I to say?

My only authority is my own life. Pre and early puberty I had a friend, and to sum up we nearly became gay. I struggled with some level of fantasy for a few years. This is a fact. I used meditative techniques to fight them. They were not all focused on raging against the problem and I bet that was lucky for me or else I would have just made it worse. As it is I'm one weird and messed up customer... but I'm straight as far as I can tell. And I'm pretty sure I made the choice, and I'm pretty sure that it was other choices which led to the struggle in the first place.

Some people might dismiss my case as unusual. Some might dismiss me as 'you were straight all along'. Some might dismiss me as a repressed bisexual. All I have is a conviction that I made choices which dictated how things played out, and other people do as well.

From what I've known, I have reason to believe that cause varies from person to person.

[KMCopeland]

Bottom line is it's none of our business until they hurt someone. Just like anything else. In the absence of gay marriage violating someone else's rights, it's totally constitutional, and whether it's a sin or not is totally none of our business.