Prop 8 unconstiutional

For discussion of political issues in general.

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby ithink » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:19 pm

thebestsun wrote:ithink, I was with you on the root of the problem but then you went and seemed to be suggesting that by gays getting married they are not living in sin anymore? Is this what you meant to say? Because "married or not" Homosexuality is still a son and no earthly contract is gonna change that. And their marriage is certainly not going to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.
That was totally tongue in cheek, sorry if it came across as a legitimate statement. I'll edit it with an emoticon so it's not misunderstood again. :-o
"Sometimes we LDS members seem not as concerned about being the light of the world as being lit up in the lights of the world".
ithink
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Sponsor

Sponsor
 
The Mormon Chronicle

Latter-day Conservative

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby Thinker » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:40 pm

ithink wrote:...I believe P8 is not constitutional because it infringes on the religious liberty of the couple whether gay, or singular, or even plural. Marriage is a religious institution first.

Ithink,
We have shared similar perspectives on other issues, but not this one.
Let's define constitutional: "Of or relating to an established set of principles governing a state."
What is the basic unit of the state? FAMILY.
Marriage's primary purpose in governing the state, is to ensure the safety & well being of children.
After all, children (not spouses) are the future of the state.
If marriage is a religious institution first, why do you "first" need to get a marriage license by the state?
There are studies that clearly show that children need both a mother & father, not just to BE CONCEIVED, but also they need both to have the most balanced upbringing. Legalizing gay marriage is dishonoring mothers & fathers, saying one or the other is not needed, when we know that they are. Currently, gay couples already have "rights" under co-habitation and common law marriage laws. The ONLY reason to legalize gay marriage is to try to force the minority's preferences on the majority & as statistics show, this is NOT in the best interest of the majority & even many of the homosexual minority...as you will read below in statistics.

You mentioned that you don't care what happens behind closed doors...
Would you feel the same way if your children were indoctrinated into homosexuality and experimented?
Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where gay marriage has been enacted, these rights have been infringed upon. Here are a few examples where those with homosexual preferences have pushed their assumed rights, which infringed on the rights of others...
*Freshmen were told not to tell their parents about a pro-gay seminar & were required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Derrfield, Illinois Mar. 2007).
*In March, 2007, a Massachusetts high school banned parents from attending a seminar for students on how they can know they are homosexual.
*In October, 2008, First graders (6 year-old students) were taken on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher's wedding.
*In Oct 2008, a Hayward CA public elementary school celebrated "Coming Out Day."

Normalizing & even encouraging children to explore homosexuality obviously causes more to experiment with homosexuality.
"The Legal Liability Associated with Homosexuality Education in Schools... This report is part of an integrated strategy to inform and educate parents, students and school officials across the nation of its contents and of their respective rights and duties. It has documented the concern that the health of students in many schools across the country may have been compromised and their First Amendment rights may have been denied."
http://www.afamichigan.org/images/Legal ... 200504.pdf

Also, others' rights have been infringed upon in favor of supporting gay rights.
*In April 2008, an Albuquerque photographer was fined over $6,000 for refusing to be hired to photograph a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.
*In May, 2008, a black administrator was fired from the U of Toledo, Ohio, for writing an editorial objecting to the comparison of black discrimination to same-sex marriage.
*An intolerant opponent of Proposition 8 even violently attacked & injured a Proposition supporter in Oct. 2008.
*On November 19, 2008, eHarmony, a Christian-based matching service was forced by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights to provide website matching services for homosexuals.


Homosexuality (deemed as "death" by an ex-homosexual & ex-gay rights leader) is NOT what we want to teach children, especially considering that statistically, (according to the US CDC) homosexual practices present risks... since homosexuals switch partners often, they are more likely to get STDs & AIDS (which 2 friends of mine died from).
http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2000/m ... ay2000.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/doc
We also know that anal sex is risky (for anal fissures, colon rupture & anal cancer), even in 2 healthy males.

Evidence shows being gay IS a choice, more linked to environmental influences than to biology...
Science Does NOT Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf
Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts

"1. No research has found provable biological or genetic differences between heterosexuals & homosexuals that weren't caused by their behavior.
2. In 2 large studies conducted... Homosexuals overwhelmingly believed their feelings and behavior were the result of social or environmental influences.
3. Older homosexuals often approach the young
4. Early homosexual experiences influence adult patters of behavior
5. Sexual conduct is influenced by cultural factors - esp. religious convictions
6. Many change their sexual preferences
7. There are many ex-homosexuals"
Environmental factors may influence sexual orientation
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archiv ... t/06102608

The APA changed the definition of homosexuality not because of scientific studies, but because of political harrassment from gay lobbyists.
http://www.freewebs.com/theborngayhoax/theapa.htm
Last edited by Thinker on Fri May 11, 2012 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Thinker
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby AshleyB » Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:25 pm

These are precisely the reasons why Elder Bednar when explaining the churches stance on prop 8 said that the problem is that tolerance is only a ONE WAY STREET. He was DEAD on.
- Ashley Bullock

" When we begin to know how to come to Him, He begins to come to us. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to receive us. " - Joseph Smith (King Follet Discourse)
AshleyB
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:31 am
Location: Colorado
Been thanked: 863 times

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby Fiannan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:08 am

Okay, I am just wondering if Prop 8 was doomed from the start since it stated marriage was only to be between one man and one woman. My point is that goes contrary to the scriptures. So if that is the case can we really sit back and wonder where God was (intervention) in making sure the law, once passed, would be preserved in some way?
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
Fiannan
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3342
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:14 pm
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby Fiannan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:20 am

A perfect solution to all of this would be to make marriage MORE of a legal contract -- but one that would be enforced just like any other legal contract. Then if people want to have a church wedding so be it, but if they are a couple of atheist gay guys then they can just sign their contract.

Now here is what I would have in that contract: An agreement that takes in all the current expectations of marriage, but also includes everything that a per-nuptual agreement would contain. This would make sure that the couple, or threesome, or whatever agreed to issues like who would get the kids if a breakup occurs and even terms of child support. Naturally, most people would choose to say there would be joint custody since, at the time of the marriage, most people love one another and actually have empathy for the otehr spouse -- something that does not generally exist at the time of a divorce.

At least as child custody is concerned such a contract system would force many family-court lawyers to have to get a different job.
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
Plato
Fiannan
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 3342
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 2:14 pm
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby ithink » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:24 am

Thinker wrote:Let's define constitutional: "Of or relating to an established set of principles governing a state."
What is the basic unit of the state? FAMILY.

Ideally, but not today. Above the family is the government. They can and will take your kids away if they want to. Take you away too. So what you are calling constitutional is not, certainly not the way government works today. Think government = usurper.

Thinker wrote:If marriage is a religious institution first, why do you "first" need to get a marriage license by the state?
Because they have usurped that power.

Thinker wrote:You mentioned that you don't care what happens behind closed doors...
Would you feel the same way if your children were indoctrinated into homosexuality and experimented?
Yes.

Thinker wrote:Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where gay marriage has been enacted, these rights have been infringed upon.
Then homeschool them. We do. And we have had gay marriage here in BC for years. I have gay clients. They are nice people. I find them to be quite honest, hard working, but different yes.

You gave a lot of references about homosexuality, not gay marriage. Like I said, if society condones marriage, and they tacitly condone homosexuality, you can't just pull the plug when you add them together. You just pull the plug on the homosexual issue, then you don't need to worry about the secondary marriage issue, but as we all know, the cat is out of the bag now and will never get back in on it's own.
"Sometimes we LDS members seem not as concerned about being the light of the world as being lit up in the lights of the world".
ithink
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby ithink » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:27 am

Fiannan wrote:A perfect solution to all of this would be to make marriage MORE of a legal contract -- but one that would be enforced just like any other legal contract. Then if people want to have a church wedding so be it, but if they are a couple of atheist gay guys then they can just sign their contract.

Now here is what I would have in that contract: An agreement that takes in all the current expectations of marriage, but also includes everything that a per-nuptual agreement would contain. This would make sure that the couple, or threesome, or whatever agreed to issues like who would get the kids if a breakup occurs and even terms of child support. Naturally, most people would choose to say there would be joint custody since, at the time of the marriage, most people love one another and actually have empathy for the otehr spouse -- something that does not generally exist at the time of a divorce.

At least as child custody is concerned such a contract system would force many family-court lawyers to have to get a different job.
Exactly. What people who want to ban gay marriage might be failing to realize, is they are going to "do it" anyway. So if you don't like "it", then say so. You won't be popular, but hey, it's in the way you say it too, and how and where. Like I said, I have clients who are gay marrieds. They know I'm not if favor of it, but they're still my clients. I told them if their God is OK with it, great. Mine isn't. They just laugh. It's all we can do.
"Sometimes we LDS members seem not as concerned about being the light of the world as being lit up in the lights of the world".
ithink
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby Thinker » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:37 am

ithink wrote:
Thinker wrote:Let's define constitutional: "Of or relating to an established set of principles governing a state."
What is the basic unit of the state? FAMILY.

ithink wrote:Ideally, but not today. Above the family is the government. They can and will take your kids away if they want to. Take you away too. So what you are calling constitutional is not, certainly not the way government works today. Think government = usurper.
Who is our future government? Children.

Thinker wrote:If marriage is a religious institution first, why do you "first" need to get a marriage license by the state?
ithink wrote:Because they have usurped that power.
And to protect future society & government members (children).

Thinker wrote:You mentioned that you don't care what happens behind closed doors...
Would you feel the same way if your children were indoctrinated into homosexuality and experimented?
ithink wrote: Yes.
Then why do you homeschool (or have your wife homeschool) your children?

Thinker wrote:Children have the right to not be taught homosexuality in school. Yet, in places where gay marriage has been enacted, these rights have been infringed upon.
ithink wrote: Then homeschool them. We do. And we have had gay marriage here in BC for years. I have gay clients. They are nice people. I find them to be quite honest, hard working, but different yes.
Cue the violin music...
Yes, there are people with sexual preferences of the same sex, who are nice. And not all have STDs or AIDS... Some are loyal to their partner, like my cousin. But statistically, as ex-Gay-Rights Leader & ex-homosexual Michael Glatze said, “Homosexuality is death, and I choose life."
We can say Anorexics, Addicts or People who prefer sex with children are so nice... But condoning harmful behavior is ignor-ant.
What does concluding that someone just "can't help themselves" regarding deviated sexual preferences imply for Pedophiles?
APA Reverses Diagnostic Change on Pedophilia...
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedcrisis.html
"The Movement to Legitimize Pedophilia
In 1981, Dr. Theo Sandfort, co-director of the research program of the Department of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Utrecht, Netherlands, interviewed 25 boys aged 10 to 16 who were currently involved in sexual relationships with adult men. The interviews took place in the homes of the men. According to Sandfort, "For virtually all the boys ... the sexual contact itself was experienced positively..." Could an adult-child sexual contact, then, truly be called positive for the child? Based on the research presented, Sandfort answered that question in the affirmative."
On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have Known http://www.narth.com/docs/whatapa.html
Do you see how this type of thinking can lead to harm for children?
ithink wrote:You gave a lot of references about homosexuality, not gay marriage. Like I said, if society condones marriage, and they tacitly condone homosexuality, you can't just pull the plug when you add them together. You just pull the plug on the homosexual issue, then you don't need to worry about the secondary marriage issue, but as we all know, the cat is out of the bag now and will never get back in on it's own.
What do you mean, "pull the plug on the homosexual issue"?
We can't stop people from having homosexual sex if they want to.
But we CAN have laws that support marriage between a man and a woman.
Children (our future) NEED this...
"Children Need Both A Mother And A Father" Dr. A. Dean Byrd
http://www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html

"Why Children need both Mother-Love and Father-Love" Glenn T. Stanton
http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... I0804G.pdf

"Mothers' and Fathers' Socializing Behaviors in Three Contexts: Links with Children's Peer Competence"
Pettit, Gregory S.; Brown, Elizabeth Glyn; Mize, Jacquelyn; Lindsey, Eric
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=EJ563106

"Why Children Need a Mother and a Father" Bill Muehlenberg
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/ ... -a-father/
Thinker
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby Thinker » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:51 am

Fiannan,
But don't you see?
Gay couples already have rights under laws like common law marriage and cohabitation agreements...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_agreement
Even if no contract is written up, they have rights.
Yet even more rights are extended if a couple creates a contract when they begin living together.

There is no need to redefine marriage to include sexual deviations.
In fact, doing so will harm many - including homosexuals (& others who are persuaded to be homosexual) by condoning statistically harmful behavior and by not giving children what they need most: BOTH a mother and father.
Thinker
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Postby ithink » Sun Feb 12, 2012 1:24 am

Thinker wrote:But we CAN have laws that support marriage between a man and a woman.
Pretty hard post to read, I wasn't even sure reading it what I had written vs. what you had written. I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what good government does. I agree with you wholeheartedly that there are enough perversions out there to make a man sick for a decade. I'd rather not know about any of them, but some will find their way into my consciousness. My position is not to exalt marriage by law, but to punish debauchery. Since I think we were unable to close the gate before those horses got out, we are now stuck trying all kinds of patchwork, getting involved in all kinds of disputes and so on. To me, we're like the unwed teen age girl who finds out she's pregnant. She's appalled, scared, worried, and does everything in her power to make it right, but alas, the decision to avert such an untimely event was made in the past, and now "we're" living the very uncomfortable consequences.

I say we oppose the homosexuality, not the homosexual marriage. Can you see how if we oppose one, we need not worry about the other? But we all have a sinking feeling don't we, that we've come so far that we cannot oppose it now!

This then is in line with my thinking that good laws do not promote the good, but rather restrain the evil. And this paradigm shift makes all the difference in the world.
"Sometimes we LDS members seem not as concerned about being the light of the world as being lit up in the lights of the world".
ithink
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: Canada
Been thanked: 24 times

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: embryopocket, Fiannan and 46 guests