Prop 8 unconstiutional

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Matthew.B
captain of 100
Posts: 877
Location: Syracuse, New York

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by Matthew.B »

BrentL wrote:Its not about law, or the right to contract, or any other philosophies of men...
+1
BrentL wrote:
Why seest thou this man, and hearest him revile against this people and against our law?
And now it came to pass that the people were more angry with Amulek, and they cried out, saying: This man doth revile against our laws which are just, and our wise lawyers whom we have selected.
But the more part of them were desirous that they might destroy Alma and Amulek; for they were angry with Alma, because of the plainness of his words unto Zeezrom; and they also said that Amulek had lied unto them, and had reviled against their law and also against their lawyers and judges.
And the people went forth and witnessed against them—testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land; … ….. Now this was done before the chief judge of the land.
http://www.youtube.com/user/davidkat99# ... plBQGogYEk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This...

The law has become corrupt. The Ammonihahites of our day succeeded in changing the law and its precedents.

believer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1129

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by believer »

We need to remember the purposes for coming to earth:

1. To gain a body
2. As a test to see if we will be obedient to God.

TO GAIN A BODY
Two men cannot produce a body for Heavenly Father's spirit children to come to earth. Two women cannot produce a body for Heavenly Father's spirit children to come to earth. Only a man and a woman can do that. Marriage is the way the Lord has sanctioned for us to provide bodies for Heavenly Father's spirit children. That is the way you and I got here.

Ancient civilizations have been destroyed because they went against the purposes of God. It is one thing for individuals to do that. It is quite another thing for a nation to give it the stamp of approval. That is what happens when laws are passed that sanction wickedness that goes against the purposes of God. We are setting ourselves up for destruction.

Sodom was destroyed because of it. Gomorah was destroyed because of it. The people of Noah's day were destroyed because of it. Many others have been destroyed because of it. ARE WE GOING TO CONSENT TO THE DESTRUCTION?

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by ithink »

gkearney wrote:... I am opposed to the state sanction of any marriage as it is an intrusion of the government into the matter of religion...
I agree, this is my whole point. And marriage is not a right, we get married because we have a right to choose to get married. Big big difference there. So that court that called marriage "a right" is right out of line....

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by ithink »

BrentL wrote:Its not about law, or the right to contract, or any other philosophies of men.
Right, it's not. We're not discussing (I think), the rightness of the gay marriage, but the rightness of them being allowed to choose that course.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by ithink »

Matthew.B wrote:...and the recent marriage in Australia of a man to his dog.

Currently, I think law is based more on the moral sentiments of the people, and less and less upon logical precedent. And the moral sentiments of the people are in the final stages of degradation before wholesale rebellion against true principles and doctrine.
I agree, but the role of government is not to enforce the good, but prevent evil. If society thinks bestiality is wrong, and it does, then charge the man with that. Above that, an animal cannot enter into a two way binding contract, so that is a total joke. But two men can, and two women can. And they "can"! We can't stop them because we haven't said, legally, that homosexuality is not acceptable in our society, therefore we cannot say that marriage (approved) + homosexuality (tacitly approved) = unapproved! We can't do that! See, the real problem isn't the cohabitation, it's the homosexuality!


On second thought, I do wonder, wouldn't it be better to have these gays get married than to have them continue living in sin? :o) :p
Last edited by ithink on February 9th, 2012, 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AshleyB
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1675
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by AshleyB »

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.

And Col Flagg...what you say about the pole shifts are pretty frightening. I never put much weight into those theorys but then I had a dream where HF said " I will turn all things on their heads." In speaking of the last days. I couldn't remember the rest of what I was told before for that but that last sentence really stuck with me.

User avatar
LukeAir2008
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2985
Location: Highland

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by LukeAir2008 »

Its got nothing to do with Temple marriage. Is it acceptable for Bishops to marry unrepentant deviants in LDS chapels? That's what is coming. The Church wont have any choice but to defy the government and go underground. This has been coming since 1890. The Church cannot be friends with Babylon. It just doesn't work. Ever. We've bent over backwards to accomodate the world but time is running out. The true Church and the true saints and the true gospel are always hated and despised by the world. We're going to have to face the music eventually.

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by gkearney »

Matthew.B wrote:recent marriage in Australia of a man to his dog.
That was not a legal marriage in Australia. That is to say you can have any sort of ceremony you like with your dog, cat toaster, what have you but you will not get a marriage certificate or have it recorded here unless you are being married to a consenting adult of (for the time being anyway) the other gender to yourself. The Marriage Act here makes that quite clear. So while the man marries his dog in Australia story was great fun for the media one should not go about presenting it as a real lawful marriage it was more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

User avatar
Rose Garden
Don't ask . . .
Posts: 7031
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by Rose Garden »

Brent, what you said is true. I'd like to summarize it into one sentence to make it easier to understand:

It is essential for us to prohibit homosexual unions because it will bring the judgments of God upon us.

This is the missing element that is causing so much confusion on this topic among church members. We have the right to protect ourselves. We must never accept immoral behavior of any kind or sanction it by government or we invite the judgments of God to come upon us.

believer
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1129

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by believer »

Called to Serve----You said that very well. And that is so true.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by ithink »

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

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by Thinker »

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/doc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Homosexual Researchers Debunk ‘Born Gay’ Urban Legend
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/724179/posts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Thinker on May 11th, 2012, 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

AshleyB
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1675
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by AshleyB »

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.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by Fiannan »

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?

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by Fiannan »

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.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by ithink »

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.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by ithink »

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.

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by Thinker »

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Why Children need both Mother-Love and Father-Love" Glenn T. Stanton
http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... I0804G.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Why Children Need a Mother and a Father" Bill Muehlenberg
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/ ... -a-father/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Thinker
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12975
Location: The Universe - wherever that is.

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by Thinker »

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_agreement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.

User avatar
ithink
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3206
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Prop 8 unconstiutional

Post by ithink »

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.

Post Reply