Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

sojourner · Mar 23, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
I do not actually know, however, there are questions to be asked, like, what that unconditional bond is and whether someone who is not biologically attached can feel that bond that is all to apparent with biological parents.

This is naive thinking.

Prestor John · Mar 23, 2016

Shadow Wolf said:
The evidence is showing that is not true. In either this thread or the other, I posted a meta-analysis of over 70 studies, and the conclusion was the the children of homosexual parents do just as well as children of heterosexual parents.

I’d be interested in reading that. Would you mind posting that link again?

A question that came to my mind when I read this comment was, “What do you and those who performed these studies consider “well”?”

Shadow Wolf said:
When it comes to things like discrimination, taking your child to a doctor, and allowing equal rights for all, oh well.

I would like to talk about this a bit more because I am not a fan of discrimination. This issue, however, is a whopper of a predicament and I believe it showcases the violations made to the First Amendment.

What is or is not a “marriage” or a “family” is very important to many religions. The family is the fundamental unit of society. Even though practitioners of various faiths may be able to negotiate the appropriate uses of those terms on a personal level, the leaders of these faiths cannot.

This issue is a big one for the LDS Church as well. Many members are demanding that changes be made to Church doctrine and policy, but that is not something that is simply “done” by the voice of the people. The Church declares to have been given its doctrine from God and therefore only God can offer any amendments or changes.

Anyone found unworthy may be denied access to certain Church services. Both the LDS and Catholic Churches do not recognize “same-sex marriage” as approved by God and they consider homosexual acts to be sinful. Therefore, certain Church services cannot be extended to those who commit homosexual acts, unless they repent and change their behavior.

Forcing a Church to offer services to those they deem unworthy, according to their doctrine and interpretation of scripture, is not religious freedom.

The State is trying to force the Church to change their definitions of what a “marriage” and “family” are, which would change their doctrine.

For people claiming to want “freedom”, they don’t seem to understand that that should apply to people you disagree with too. Same-sex couples are free to choose other organizations to receive adoption services. Why demand that a religion conform to their way of thinking? “My way or the highway”?

I believe that the Catholic Church should be able to refuse their services to anyone they consider unworthy, according to their doctrine and interpretation of scripture.

I don’t know much about same-sex couples being unable to take their children to the doctor other than certain pediatricians taking it upon themselves to break their oaths as physicians.

Shadow Wolf said:
Such "rights" are not worth protecting to begin with, and equal rights and privileges should be barred from no one, especially when there is no other reason than a particular group not liking another group.

First, I’d like to know what you consider a “right”?

I believe that a couple wanting to become parents is a privilege that cannot be denied them. Do I believe that that privilege also gives them the right to force their interpretation of “marriage” and “family” on those who would disagree with them?

No, I do not believe that it does. There are other organizations that can help them become parents.

I have been refused service before because of my religious affiliation. I did not make a fuss. I just went somewhere else that would take my business.

I cannot speak for anyone else but my disagreement with the homosexual community has nothing to do with “dislike”. I can confidently state that “dislike” of homosexuals does not apply to the LDS Church either. It is very possible to love someone, yet disagree with what they are doing.

Shadow Wolf said:
That's how most decisions are.

Thank you for mentioning this. It is so true.

Marriage has always been between men and women and had been defined as only between one man and one woman in this country since 1996. That definition is now considered unconstitutional by only five Justices, which does not mean that it may be found constitutional once again someday. These things are not set in stone. There are no “absolutes” when it comes to Man’s law.

Shadow Wolf said:
They didn't redefine anything. The extended a right to a group that was having that right denied to them for no reason other than some religious groups thinks this group should not have their rights.

Incorrect.

“Some” religions believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman and they feared that any legal change to that definition would lead to First Amendment violations. Which it has.

You don’t seem to know much about these religions and their stance on this issue if you think they simply want to deny a minority their rights.

If the State was not trying to force the Church to change how they view marriage, there would not be an issue. However, the State is forcing the Church to do so.

Many people are angry with the LDS Church for petitioning the government (which is a constitutional right guaranteed by the First Amendment) to keep the definition as it was. These people claim that the LDS Church should not be able to do this because of a “separation of Church and State”.

However, these same people have no issue with the State trying to force the Church to change what they believe a “marriage” and “family” are. The State is trying to force the Church to change their doctrine. That is not a “separation of Church and State”. That is not religious freedom.

That is hypocritical.

Shadow Wolf said:
That is the only real reason, as their are no scientific or other reasons to deny it.

That is also incorrect.

There are experts and studies which support traditional marriage as well.

Also, don’t forget the obvious violations to the First Amendment which are already taking place.

Shadow Wolf said:
It is the same, because for religious reasons people wanted to prevent interracial couples from getting married, and they were concerned about the destruction of family, decay of moral values, and much of the same stuff-all claims with no scientific basis or solid grounds to stand on-all just to deny a basic right to a group they have religious objections to.

I would not say that they desired to deny interracial marriages based on “religious reasons”, but rather “personal reasons”.

There is no support in the scriptures that a married couple need be the same race. However, the scriptures are clear that homosexuality is a sin.

I don’t disagree with interracial marriage, but I would say that the “prophecies” made by those “Christians” have come to fruition. The family is under attack and there has been a decay of moral values.

Shadow Wolf said:
You can try and isolate your children, but it won't work, except that it tends to backfire.

Trying to teach my children what I believe is right is in no way “isolation” and no one has the right to tell me how to raise them.

I believe homosexuality is a sin and it only leads to misery. I want my children to believe that as well. The public school system has no right telling them otherwise. The schools should refrain from teaching children about moral issues.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. Time will tell.

Prestor John · Mar 23, 2016

ADigitalArtist said:
In my opinion based on the exchange that we've had, you're misrepresenting what the first amendment allows, if you continue to think the LDS church has or should have the power to regulate civil marriage, word or contract.

I asked you to stop trying to mislead and distract with this red herring.

Could you please quote me advocating this idea you keep presenting? Instead of insisting that I “continue to think” this way (which I don’t), just quote me saying it.

If you cannot quote me saying it then you cannot assume that I “think” that way.

You are, again, trying to paint the LDS Church’s constitutional right to petition the government as an effort to establish religious laws or a theocracy.

This exaggeration showcases your personal belief that religions in this country should not have the right to petition the government. You are providing evidence that you do not actually support the First Amendment.

You also did not deny my accusations against you of skimming my posts and assuming to know the position of the LDS Church which has led you to jump to conclusions about the motivations behind the LDS Church’s petition of the government and my support of that petition.

ADigitalArtist said:
That there is no legal difference between the battle for interracial marriage and the battle for same-sex marriage, that popular interpretation of religious scripture isn't an authority in civil law.

Here you go again with another red herring.

Please quote where I said, “The popular interpretation of religious scripture should be considered an authority in civil law.”

If you cannot quote me saying that, then you cannot claim that I made that argument.

I never said that there was no “legal” difference between people advocating interracial or “same-sex marriage”. What I said was that there was a “fundamental” difference between the two.

The motivations behind someone’s arguments are important, but they are not necessarily the only thing supporting their argument.

To the religious, something being established as the Word of God is more important than someone’s personal opinion.

Interracial marriage is not condemned in the scriptures, while homosexuality is. This should make all the difference behind a believer’s motivation, which is very important to the topic at hand because you keep referencing it.

It may not be an important distinction to you, but it is to those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

ADigitalArtist said:
This bigotry against homosexuals is just as much bigotry as it was against POC.

Not wanting “marriage” and “family” to be redefined is not “bigotry”.

You are trying to present another red herring.

ADigitalArtist said:
The crossed out section was an acknowledgement that the whole topic is not directly applicable because gay adoption was already legal and anti discrimination laws were already in place.

You are incorrect.

In regards to the issue of “same-sex marriage” the violations of the First Amendment did not begin with the Supreme Court’s decision. These violations have been occurring on a State level for years.

There has been much discrimination against those who refuse to redefine “family” and “marriage” over the years.

ADigitalArtist said:
And to be perfectly, brutally honest, I don't give a **** if a Catholic adoption center doesn't approve or struggles with updating their policies to continue receiving government incentive for their agency, any more than if they were discriminating against prospective parents that are POC.

This red herring about people of color still does not strengthen your position.

While your outbursts about not caring about the freedom of religion for others again exhibits your disregard of the First Amendment.

You only want those who agree with you to be “free”.

ADigitalArtist said:
The damages is greater to the children not placed in loving homes those bigots have no evidence they will fail to thrive in.

They do not have to provide any evidence and your insistence that they need to is a sham.

If they were to allow unmarried heterosexual couples and same-sex couples to adopt children from their program, they would be confirming the secular redefinition of “family” and “marriage” in violation of what they believe to be the Word of God.

Your insistence that the Catholic Church be forced to act in opposition to their doctrine to appease the homosexual community showcases your own intolerance and bigotry.

ADigitalArtist said:
And that there is not, in fact, any evidence that children in intersex households do better than children in same-sex households.

Even if this were true, does it even matter?

Do all religions need to supply scientific evidence to back up their doctrine?

People are not “free” to believe what they want unless there is some scientific evidence supporting that belief?

How do you not see that as an attack on the freedom of religion?

ADigitalArtist said:
And quite a bit of evidence that says the contrary: they thrive just as well.

Which no one has supplied and I highly doubt proves anything definitively.

What does “just as well” even mean?

ADigitalArtist said:
So far 'gender roles' in parenting have not been proven at all let alone proven necessary in any way for children's health.

Another red herring.

I never mentioned “gender roles”. What a mentioned were the differences in parenting had by males and females. The sexes are different. They manage situations differently. They react differently. Children should learn to know those differences. I believe there would be less “gender confusion” in this world if people revered those differences rather than supplant them.

ADigitalArtist said:
But, again, it's irrelevant because the marital status of gays and lesbians isn't an issue in discussing either legal gay adoption or anti-discrimination laws.

It is completely relevant. You just don’t want it in the spotlight.

The fact remains that the Catholic Church was forced to either change their doctrine or no longer offer adoption and other social services.

Which was a violation of the First Amendment and is irreligious intolerance.

ADigitalArtist said:
No it isn't. It'd be more like someone going into a community center where there is a party going on and demanding no alcohol be served to blacks or Jews, despite that they, too, own the community center and there's no good reason but opinion why they should be excluded from the offer being made to others.

This does not apply at all.

First, there are many religion owned community centers in the U.S. which provide a lot of charitable services.

Second, homosexuals do not “own” Catholic Churches.

Third, if you believe that you “own” a community center because you pay taxes and can therefore dictate what is done in one, then you should also believe that I “own” public schools and have the right to dictate what they teach?

Lastly, it is not simply “opinion” that causes Catholics and others to not accept “same-sex marriage”, but doctrine. Their system of beliefs condemns the practice and they have a right to live by their faith.

Prestor John · Mar 23, 2016

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Do you understand that this doesn't relate to my post at all?.

Yes it does.

You were arguing that simply changing the word “spouse” to “life partner” would be ineffective for same-sex couples because other countries may only honor foreign “marriages” and not simple “civil unions”.

I brought up the fact that the U.S. does not honor polygamous marriages to illustrate the point that the laws and interpretations of the U.S. should not be dictated by the laws and interpretations of other countries.

Just because other countries honor polygamous marriages does not mean that the U.S. must honor them.

Same thing goes for “same-sex marriages” in the U.S. Other countries do not have to honor them.

I also wanted to point out that even though the U.S. does not honor those polygamous marriages, you don’t see citizens of those countries picketing to have the laws of the U.S. changed to conform to their idea of what is or is not a marriage.

I was basically trying to tell you that your argument was very weak.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
It doesn't mean any of those things. Teaching kids positive character traits like respect for the people around them and to not be jerks to gay people is a good idea regardless of same-sex marriage.

Please explain how my beliefs regarding homosexuality and marriage must mean that I do not have respect for other people or that I am a “jerk”.

Prestor John · Mar 23, 2016

No apology necessary. You are free to comment and I am glad you are here. This is an important issue and I feel it should be given the time and effort it is due.

SkepticThinker said:
There is evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare no worse or better (although sometimes slightly better in the categories of compassion and empathy) than kids raised by opposite-sex couples.

I would love to see some of this evidence. Would you mind sharing a link?

How does one measure a person’s compassion or empathy?

SkepticThinker said:
I don't know what masculinity or femininity has to do with it.

I was claiming that men and women parent differently. They operate differently. They react to situations differently. I believe that a child should be exposed to all of these differences in order to develop ideally.

I mentioned masculinity and femininity only to stress the point that no matter how similar someone might be to the opposite sex, a male is not a female and a female is not a male. Therefore, they cannot provide those differences that I believe are crucial.

SkepticThinker said:
So does that mean then, that the Catholic Church would rather these children have no parents at all?

This is a false dichotomy.

You are oversimplifying the situation and are trying to make it appear that the Catholic adoption services had only the one choice or nothing. That is not the case. That is not true at all.

SkepticThinker said:
So Is that more moral than allowing two loving people to raise them who happen to be of the same sex?

I am grateful that this will never be an option because there are always heterosexual couples looking to adopt.

I only know so much about Catholicism (I am not Catholic), but I know that they did not want to allow unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt their children either.

Catholics only want the children in their programs to go to families. They do not define “family” as just any group of people that have a deep regard for one another. They only consider a group to be a “family” if the female mother and male father are married.

The Catholic Church, as an organization, does not want to be caught supporting what they consider to be sinful behavior. They consider heterosexual sexual relations outside of marriage to be sinful. They also consider homosexual sexual relations to be sinful.

Allowing any of these “entities” to adopt one of their children would be redefining what they consider a “family” and “marriage” and it would inadvertently mean that they are supporting what they consider to be sinful behavior.

SkepticThinker said:
I think the Catholic Church has a lot of self-examination to do before it can even begin to dictate morality to anyone else.

This observation is based on a false dichotomy.

SkepticThinker said:
Heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage are now all just called “marriage.” There’s no point differentiating the two. You should probably get used to it.

No. That is a violation of my religious rights guaranteed to me by the First Amendment.

The fundamental differences had among both genders are multiplicative when introduced into a heterosexual relationship. These differences are what can enhance, ennoble and empower a relationship that a same-sex couple just cannot duplicate.

Prestor John · Mar 23, 2016

sojourner said:
No it's not. It's like a gay married coming to your house and you refusing to introduce them as "John and his spouse Andy."

That is a good point. You are right. I cannot accept their marriage on religious grounds so I could not refer to either of them as a “spouse”.

They should not be able to contend with me over that issue because they are in my house and my belief regarding their relationship does not alter that relationship nor deny them any rights.

They would still be welcome into my home and I would not prevent them from entering anyone else’s home.

sojourner said:
No it's not. Because the church is foisting its religious views upon people who don't believe the same things.

Actually, the Catholic Church is not at all “foisting” anything on anyone.

The same-sex couple is free to go somewhere else to adopt a child.

If, however, the Catholic Church somehow “blacklisted” that same-sex couple by getting all other adoption agencies to refuse them because they are homosexuals, then I would agree with you. They would definitely be “foisting” their religious views on that same-sex couple.

But since the Catholic Church did not do that and any same-sex couple was free to go somewhere else, you cannot claim that the Catholic Church “foisted” anything on anyone.

They simply enforced their policies and doctrine.

sojourner said:
It exists. Get over it. This isn't about you. This isn't the world according to you. This is all of us, and some of us are homosexual and married to each other.

Who do you think you are?

You cannot force me to believe what I am to believe any more than I can force someone to no longer act on their homosexual tendencies.

I do not have that authority, so neither do you.

If this issue truly is about “all of us”, as you claim, then how is it not about me? Am not I a part of “all of us”?

This decision affects me and everyone else whether you want to believe it or not.

I mean, the Catholic Church no longer offers adoption services because of this issue and you have the gall to say that this issue doesn’t affect others?

No man is an island. Everything we do affects everyone else. Stop being so naïve.

sojourner said:
How? How are they "fundamentally" different? What's the "fundamental" that's different, and how does that difference preclude you from honoring the relationship?

It is not the differences that cause me to refuse to honor their “marriage”, but rather what I believe to be the Word of God that causes me not to honor it. I cannot condone sin, no matter how well-intentioned.

The fundamental differences should be obvious. They lie in our genders. The differences in men and women were designed to complement one another in every way. Be it emotionally, spiritually, biologically – it does not matter. They were designed to work together, both in opposition and attraction, to bring the couple to eventual perfection. Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.

sojourner said:
Nobody's discriminating against people because of their religion.

That is incorrect.

When my religion defines “marriage” as only between a man and a woman and then the State demands that I change that definition to conform to their secular understanding, then my religious freedom is destroyed.

The Catholic Church was forced to stop offering charitable services that were considered expressions of their faith because of this issue. They, and any other religion that considers marriage as only between a man and a woman, are being discriminated against.

sojourner said:
If you think homosexual marriage is wrong because of your religion, then you're perfectly free to not enter into a homosexual marriage. What's being curtailed is your entitlement that's causing your discrimination.

By denying someone their right to define “marriage” and “family” according to their religious beliefs and then forcing them to decide to either deny their faith or to stop helping children according to what they believed was the best possible way is discrimination.

If you do not see that then you are blind.

sojourner said:
Were we discriminating against the KKK for upholding Jim Crow? I don't think so.

It was not the KKK that upheld the Jim Crow laws. It was the Democratic Party that both legislated and enforced the Jim Crow laws.

Now look at you comparing any religion that believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman to the KKK.

You do not respect anyone’s freedom of religion. To you, the First Amendment should only be applicable to you and those who agree with you.

That is hypocrisy and bigotry to the extreme.

sojourner said:
No, because homosexuality and marriage are both "normal" and "acceptable," according to SCOTUS and the mental health community.

Both of those terms are subjective. I do not consider homosexuality as either “normal” or “acceptable”.

sojourner said:
No, just because someone disagrees that blacks are equal to whites doesn't mean that we're not going to teach that they are.

This discussion has nothing to do with homosexuals being “equal” to heterosexuals. At least, not the way you are using that word.

My desire to preserve traditional marriage and to teach against the sin of homosexuality does not at all mean that I consider homosexuals “inferior” to myself.

I believe that they should be considered “equal” to me under the law. Meaning that they are entitled to the same tax and decision making benefits. However, that does not mean that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality.

Just because you are selling cookies door to door, that doesn’t make you a Girl Scout.

sojourner said:
No. Everybody pays taxes, because everybody's a citizen.

Sorry, this is just inaccurate.

Everyone does not pay taxes. And not only citizens are taxed. Also not “everybody” in the U.S. are citizens.

sojourner said:
Taxes aren't based on "what I like."

Not according to you and people that agree with you.

Some people did not like how the Catholic Church defined “marriage” and “family”, so the Catholic Church was threatened to lose their tax exempt status unless they changed that definition.

Apparently, you believe that taxes are about what people “like” and “don’t like”.

sojourner said:
This is nothing more or less than entitlement.

I would say that this is the pot calling the kettle black.

Prestor John · Mar 23, 2016

I chose not to respond to your earlier comments to me because they were absurd.

The loss of your partner is tragic, but in what universe could I possibly be blamed for it?

I did not think that you were mature enough to handle this type of discussion.

I hope I was wrong

JoStories said:
This is patently false. There have been many studies that have shown that same sex couples can and do raise well developed children. For example:

"We conclude that there is a clear consensus in the social science literature indicating that American children living within same-sex parent households fare just, as well as those children residing within different-sex parent households over a wide array of well-being measures: academic performance, cognitive development, social development, psychological health, early sexual activity, and substance abuse."

(Manning, W. D., Fettro, M. N., & Lamidi, E. (2014). Child well-being in same-sex parent families: Review of research prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief. Population research and policy review, 33(4), 485-502.)

This is just one study, and trust me, there were hundreds of thousands of like minded studies showing the same thing.

Thank you for sharing this with me. Would you mind sharing an actual link? I want to know how they measured these things and what they focused on. I would also like to know if they continued the studies into the adulthood of those children.

Needless to say, there are many studies that would contradict what you shared and neither side has truly “proven” anything.

It is not as “patently false” as you would assume.

JoStories said:
It is certainly not discrimination. It may violate the church's precepts, and one could say that if they refuse, they are standing for their own views on the topic but I know of no one who would say that this is discrimination. Wrong headed, absolutely. But, IMO, to say that its discrimination is a lie.

Would you mind clarifying this a bit for me? I got confused.

JoStories said:
Most states still have incest laws on the books but most would also call this a misdemeanor and not choose to prosecute as it would tie up the courts with idiotic cases that are not germane or important to justice as we know it.

Would you mind sharing your opinion on this?

Since some people like to use the argument in defense of “same-sex marriage” that they are two consenting adults, so there is no issue, would you personally believe this logic could also apply to incestuous relationships?

JoStories said:
And as for your views on SSM, and putting things in parentheses, ask me if I care that you do? I don't.

I was merely being clear on how I felt about “same-sex marriage”.

Also, I have to say, that this is a bunch of bull. Of course you care. You care so much! You and others cared so much about what I and others think that you had to completely change the definition of marriage so you could "feel" more accepted and normal.

You don't have to agree with me. You can argue with me all you want, but don't come in here and lie to me.

JoStories said:
What I do care about is that it is legal and people like you can complain all you want but it would not change a thing. We can still marry.

I wonder what you would have said to a heterosexual person if he/she had something akin to this to you back in 1996 when DoMA was first enacted.

“I don’t care about what people like you think. You can complain all you want, it won’t change anything. It’s illegal for you to marry.”

Luckily for me I never took this immature approach. Rather, I tried to best explain why I believed the way that I do.

I think I may have been right. You might not be mature enough to engage in this type of discussion.

For a religious forum website, a lot of people on it sure don’t want to hear what religious people believe.

Prestor John · Mar 23, 2016

Demonslayer said:
Here's my advice...think about what's best for your children and less about your inability to adapt to changing times.

This is so funny. I wonder why no one on this site has ever asked me why I believe that homosexuals should not get married.

Sure, they asked me “Why…are you a bigot?...do you hate?...do you think people shouldn’t have equal rights?” But not a single person has asked me what the LDS view is concerning homosexuality.

You people just lump everyone who opposes homosexual marriage into the category of “bigot” and never ask any real questions. It’s sad.

Let me make this very clear for you:

You have no idea what is best for my children.

You have no idea why I believe the way I do.

You are woefully ignorant of my faith and God.

This leads me to ask you, “Considering all that you don’t know mentioned above, why would I want to listen to your advice?”

Demonslayer said:
Because if you go teaching your children that gay people are abnormal and unacceptable…

I don’t like and therefore will never use the term “gay” when referring to homosexuals.

By definition, homosexuality is abnormal. Unless, of course, you want to change the definition of that word too, like “marriage”.

You know what, it’s funny. The definition of the word “gay” had also been changed over the years. It used to mean “carefree” or “joyful”, but then took on an immoral edge. Wow. In a few years, what will the word “marriage” mean?

What I feel is or is not acceptable is not determined by you or popular opinion.

Demonslayer said:
…and start laying down the typical religious-based nonsense about how vile and evil and disgusting homosexuality is, one of two things is going to happen.

I have never used the terms “vile” or “evil” to describe homosexuality. It is a sin, but that doesn’t mean much since everyone commits sin. I don’t even personally find it all that “disgusting”. Human sexually is a complicated thing.

That being said, God has been very clear about homosexuality. Those who act on their homosexual tendencies need to repent and change their ways.

Demonslayer said:
1) your kids will by into it and carry around their father's bigotry which will make it very difficult for them to function in this increasingly accepting and kind society; or

You don’t seem to understand the definition of the word “bigotry”. That word implies an “intolerance” or “hatred”. I am neither intolerant of nor do I hate homosexuals.

You confuse the words “tolerate” with “accept”. I tolerate homosexuality. What other choice do I have? Yet, I don’t believe it to be acceptable behavior.

It is not healthy for a society to “accept” everything. Also, don’t confuse accepting someone’s behavior with being kind to that person. They do not mean the same thing.

You, like a lot of people, instantly assume that if someone is opposed to “same-sex marriage” then they must be bigots. That is neither “accepting” nor “kind” of you to do, which makes you a hypocrite.

Demonslayer said:
2) your kids will not buy into it and the will see their father as a sad old religious bigot

You seem to be a powder keg of bias and bigotry.

You equate the words “sad”, “old”, “religious” and “bigot”.

What an intolerant and narrow-minded way of thinking.

You further prove your own hypocrisy.

Demonslayer said:
This train has sailed, religious people.

You see, this is the importance of having clear-cut definitions for words. A “train” does not “sail” anywhere. Trains do not, nor have they ever, had sails. I believe you were trying to refer to a “ship” or “boat”.

This is the price of changing the definitions of word, like “marriage”, on a whim. You don’t even know what you are saying. No one is going to be speaking the same language soon.

Demonslayer said:
Give it up with the gay thing already, it's making you all look foolish and driving more and more young people away from organized religion.

Being true servants of God has never been a popularity contest. Also, the scriptures clearly testify that the ways of God will appear to be “foolish” to the world.

Thank you for further fulfilling the prophecies recorded in the scriptures.

Demonslayer said:
Believe it or not, the last generation used to get bent out of shape about interracial marriage. Imagine today the reaction if you came out and said a black person marrying a white person is abnormal, unnatural, etc,?

I know it. They had no scriptural basis for such a belief.

Demonslayer said:
That's what y'all are starting to look like with this gay thing.

Except there is a clear scriptural basis for opposing “same-sex marriage”.

Demonslayer said:
Jesus never said a damn thing about homosexuality, but he did say to love everyone so how about cut the crap, 'aight? Kumbaya, lighten up.

The Lord Jesus Christ did not need to speak on the issue of homosexuality because His audience, the Jews, had the Law of Moses given to them, that had already clearly explained that homosexuality was a sin.

The Lord Jesus Christ claimed not to have come to destroy the Law of Moses. There is no reason to assume that He endorses homosexuality.

Do you believe that to “love” someone means that you must accept everything they do?

If you do, then I hope you don’t have children. Much of parenting involves denying children from doing what they want to do, because it would be harmful. Yes, they cry and whine when you stop them from trying to drink the blue liquid they found under the sink, but that’s better than letting them do it, right?

Loving someone does not at all mean you need to accept everything that they do.

You are woefully ignorant of everything we have just discussed. How about you take some advice from me?

Beat it. Grown-ups are talking.

sojourner · Mar 23, 2016

Prestor John said:
Interracial marriage is not condemned in the scriptures, while homosexuality is

Homosexuality isn't condemned. Certain acts are condemned, but it's not even clear that those acts relate to homosexuality.

Prestor John said:
People are not “free” to believe what they want unless there is some scientific evidence supporting that belief?

How do you not see that as an attack on the freedom of religion?

People can believe what they like. They just can't foist those beliefs upon the rest of society through legislation.

Prestor John said:
I believe there would be less “gender confusion” in this world if people revered those differences rather than supplant them.

What you believe is immaterial. "Gender confusion" is a non-term.

sojourner · Mar 23, 2016

Prestor John said:
They should not be able to contend with me over that issue because they are in my house and my belief regarding their relationship does not alter that relationship nor deny them any rights.

Problem is, the world isn't "your house." It's not the Catholics' house. And it's not the Mormons' house.

Prestor John said:
Actually, the Catholic Church is not at all “foisting” anything on anyone.

Sure it is! "We don't believe homosexuality is OK, so we're not allowing you to adopt this child."

Prestor John said:
If this issue truly is about “all of us”, as you claim, then how is it not about me? Am not I a part of “all of us”?

So is the homosexual down the street. And her/his partner.

Prestor John said:
No man is an island. Everything we do affects everyone else.

That's right! So, when you go around saying that homosexuality is a sin, it affects people!

Prestor John said:
It is not the differences that cause me to refuse to honor their “marriage”, but rather what I believe to be the Word of God that causes me not to honor it. I cannot condone sin, no matter how well-intentioned.

See above. The bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. The word ain't in there. There is no Greek or Hebrew term for "homosexual."

Prestor John said:
The fundamental differences should be obvious. They lie in our genders. The differences in men and women were designed to complement one another in every way. Be it emotionally, spiritually, biologically – it does not matter. They were designed to work together, both in opposition and attraction, to bring the couple to eventual perfection. Neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord.

I thought you just said that it wasn't about the differences. Also, the differences you mention can be internal, as well as external. Therefore, a man can (and does!) exhibit some "female" tendencies, and vice versa.

Prestor John said:
When my religion defines “marriage” as only between a man and a woman and then the State demands that I change that definition to conform to their secular understanding, then my religious freedom is destroyed.

They're not forcing you to change anything. All they want is for you to recognize others.

Prestor John said:
By denying someone their right to define “marriage” and “family” according to their religious beliefs and then forcing them to decide to either deny their faith or to stop helping children according to what they believed was the best possible way is discrimination.

Marriage isn't primarily a religious definition, though. It's primarily a legal definition.

Prestor John said:
Now look at you comparing any religion that believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman to the KKK.

Both are discriminatory.

Prestor John said:
You do not respect anyone’s freedom of religion. To you, the First Amendment should only be applicable to you and those who agree with you.

Incorrect. You can believe what you want. You just can't force everyone else to agree with you.

Prestor John said:
Both of those terms are subjective. I do not consider homosexuality as either “normal” or “acceptable”.

What you consider is immaterial. Again: this isn't about you.

Prestor John said:
My desire to preserve traditional marriage and to teach against the sin of homosexuality does not at all mean that I consider homosexuals “inferior” to myself.

Of course it does, because you consider that some people are sin, and that you are not sin.

Prestor John said:
I believe that they should be considered “equal” to me under the law. Meaning that they are entitled to the same tax and decision making benefits. However, that does not mean that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality.

In what way are they different from each other?

Prestor John said:
Apparently, you believe that taxes are about what people “like” and “don’t like”.

No, that's what you think.

Prestor John said:
I would say that this is the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course you would.

Shadow Wolf · Mar 23, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
Well, that is debatable. I do not actually know, however, there are questions to be asked, like, what that unconditional bond is and whether someone who is not biologically attached can feel that bond that is all to apparent with biological parents.

Family is so much more than just whose blood you have in you. Family isn't even about blood, it's about those who care for you, those you care about, those you are close to, those you go to in times of need, those who come to you in times in need, it is unconditional love, and blood just is utter irrelevant in those regards.

Shadow Wolf · Mar 23, 2016

sojourner said:
Because, obviously, Jesus wants us to suffer for him. What a load of bad theology! Children are not expected to be martyrs, and to think that they are is patently biblically-baseless.

Afterall, Hell is for children.

Shadow Wolf · Mar 23, 2016

Prestor John said:
A question that came to my mind when I read this comment was, “What do you and those who performed these studies consider “well”?”

Emotionally well, socially well, relations with peers - the children of homosexual parents do just as well as children of heterosexual parents. There is no need for alarm or concern.

Prestor John said:
I would like to talk about this a bit more because I am not a fan of discrimination. This issue, however, is a whopper of a predicament and I believe it showcases the violations made to the First Amendment.

In many cases, this just is not happening. In some cases, such as "no negroes/gays allowed," oh well.

Prestor John said:
This issue is a big one for the LDS Church as well. Many members are demanding that changes be made to Church doctrine and policy, but that is not something that is simply “done” by the voice of the people. The Church declares to have been given its doctrine from God and therefore only God can offer any amendments or changes.

The state is not forcing the Church to change. If it happens from within (as was the case with allowing black people), that is entirely within the church. The state had nothing to do with it.

Prestor John said:
Forcing a Church to offer services to those they deem unworthy, according to their doctrine and interpretation of scripture, is not religious freedom.

That is not happening.

Prestor John said:
The State is trying to force the Church to change their definitions of what a “marriage” and “family” are, which would change their doctrine.

Again, that is not happening.

Prestor John said:
That definition is now considered unconstitutional by only five Justices, which does not mean that it may be found constitutional once again someday. These things are not set in stone. There are no “absolutes” when it comes to Man’s law.

Actually, with Obama getting to appoint Scalia's successor, it is pretty much a done deal. If a Democrat wins the White House in November, there will be zero chance of it ever being over turned. And the Republicans will be forced into a situation where they can either start supporting same-sex marriage, or be further alienated from younger voters, and the next generation of young voters, which means they will never get back in the White House.

Prestor John said:
“Some” religions believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman

Yup. And no one is forcing them to believe otherwise.

Prestor John said:
You don’t seem to know much about these religions and their stance on this issue if you think they simply want to deny a minority their rights.

I know much more than you are giving me credit for.

Prestor John said:
That is also incorrect.

It is not incorrect because there is no such thing as a "traditional marriage." Maybe inside of your own bubble it exists, but in the grand scheme of things no such thing has ever existed.

Prestor John said:
There are experts and studies which support traditional marriage as well.

And they are Conservative Christians who typically and frequently rely on Freudian ideology, and try to force people into a mold and attach events to them that may-or-may-not have actually happened.

Prestor John said:
Also, don’t forget the obvious violations to the First Amendment which are already taking place.

You can still believe whatever you want. You just can't publicly discriminate. And if discrimination is a part of a religion, it isn't worth protecting.

Prestor John said:
I would not say that they desired to deny interracial marriages based on “religious reasons”, but rather “personal reasons”.

Believe me, it happens for religious reasons.

Prestor John said:
Trying to teach my children what I believe is right is in no way “isolation” and no one has the right to tell me how to raise them.

If you don't want your children learning such things, you'll have to keep them away from it.

Prestor John said:
I want my children to believe that as well.

It's disgusting that you would want your children to believe someone is an abnormal sinner who doesn't deserve basic human rights.

Prestor John said:
The public school system has no right telling them otherwise. The schools should refrain from teaching children about moral issues.

Public schools have no right teaching religious dogma. That homosexuality is normal and perfectly fine is a scientific fact. It's not even an issue of morality, other than that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, sex, gender, ethnicity, and so on deserve to be treated with respect, dignity, and should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else in society.

Serenity7855 · Mar 23, 2016

sojourner said:
The drivel only serves to perpetuate institutional violence. As such, to remain silent while it goes on is to be complicit in it. I refuse to be complicit in it.

I to refuse to be complicit. I don the full armor of God.

Since the texts are inherently multivalent, I'd have to say that this cheap attempt at ad hominem and provocation is wasted. Here's the quoted text from Isaiah:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners

and recovery of sight for the blind,

to set the oppressed free,

19to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Let's take a look at what Jesus has been anointed to do: proclaim good news to the poor (downtrodden).
Let's take a look at what Jesus was sent to do: 1) proclaim freedom for prisoners, 2) sight for the blind, 3) free the oppressed. Your problem is that you have a particular, fundamental and stylized notion of what constitutes "salvation." Typical for a 21st-century Christian who appears to be confused about the very nature of the body of Christ. In the time when the texts were written, the language was decidedly less theologically loaded and far more common and practical. For the writer, salvation was the common, physical act of setting people free from their oppression. It's the same thing that's happening with homosexuals today: they're being set free from the system that's oppressing them.

This simply doesn't address my post.[/QUOTE]

Several times in Jesus’ life, He shows that He was a man on a mission. He had a purpose, which He intentionally fulfilled. Even at a young age, Jesus knew that He “must be about Father’s business”. In the last days of His earthly life, Jesus “resolutely set out for Jerusalem,” where He knew that he would have to atone for the sins of all mankind. That He would be killed, mocked and raised from the grips of death. It could be said that the fundamental mission of Christ’s time on earth was to fulfill God’s plan of saving the lost, The Plan of Salvation or Redemption. The problem here is that you do not know what the Plan of Salvation or the whole mission of Christ is, and if you did you would know that it encompasses all that you have said but a great deal more.

Jesus put it this way "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost". ” Jesus had just been criticized for going to the house of a “sinner.” Jesus responded by affirming His mission was to save people who needed saving. How was He to achieve this. By proclaiming the word of God, by showing that He was the son of God, by performing miracles to show who he was, to teach the word of God and exhort all men to follow the teaching that he proclaimed, to fulfill the Mosaic law and introduce the Abrahamic covenant, to save mankind from their sins by taking upon himself their sins, thus giving them salvation/immortality, and finally, to give us all eternal life through His resurrection. Many times during Christ’s ministry, He sought to forgive those whom the self-righteous leaders of the day shunned, and promised them that their sins would be forgiven them. He sought out and saved the woman at the well and the Samaritans of her town, the sinful woman with the alabaster jar, and even one of His own disciples, Matthew, who had been a tax collector. Jesus mission was to save the souls of mankind through his atonement and resurrection, as laid out in the Plan of Salvation.

More ad hominem fecal matter to which we need pay no attention. Can't even spell "juvenile" correctly. A jejune attempt at best, and usually the first indicator that you have no reasonable argument left and are feeling frustrated.

Tit for tat, as expected. Who is we. Do you speak on other posters behalf. Do you have their permission to do that and if you have then you should disclose that to all participants of this thread. Or, more likely, do you use the word "we" to intimidate me.

OK. So, IOW, you simply treat (your word -- not mine) women as possessions. Your Freudian slip is showing.

No, just more words in the mouth again. You are very disingenuously scheming, aren't you?

Not every woman is your wife. Many, many more (ref. feminist movement) want to work, be independent, and treated equally and as human beings -- not possessions.

I did not say that they were. Do you talk in the present tense or the past tense. Something you should have stated in order for me to give an accurate rebuttal.

Your perspective is that women who don't work, whose only task is to raise children, are happy, because they're "in their place." The reference to the chain is hyperbole, designed to illustrate how ridiculous that perspective really is within mainstream society. But I think you already know what I meant.

That might be correct if it were true, however, that is not what I said so the argument is invalid.

Exactly. All of this oppression of homosexuals has nothing whatsoever to do with God.

No

It's got everything to do with human beings, acting according to their own will.

Yes

In this case, those human beings are the majority, have the social power and, hence, the entitlement to force others into boxes of their choosing

.

Hyperthetical.

Serenity7855 · Mar 23, 2016

The problem isn't with my writing; it's with your comprehension. Heck, you can't even seem to be able to spell "delivery" correctly, and you're being critical of my writing?

Yes I am. Many great leaders of our time were poor spellers so your attempted connection between stupidity and poor spelling falls flat on its face. Secondly, if you have problems deciphering what I write because of spelling mistakes then it is your own comprehension is dubious not mine. I can understand what you say despite your spelling mistakes and your need to bring it to my attention in an attempt to taunt and belittle me. Not what you would call ethical.

You are here to provoke. I am here to defend and refute.

You are here to provoke. I am here to defend and refute. I have better things todo then to provoke anyone. You seem extremely proficient at it though.

Hmm... how quickly you forget (or else cover up your litter box with sand...). After a cursory examination of just a few pages of this thread, I refer you to your posts numbered, 722, 726, 731, 746, 749, 751, 760. I'm sure there are more examples. In each of these you do object to homosexuality and homosexual marriage (which is an expression of the love of two people), and not just to anal sex. I'm trying to portray you in an honest light -- to illustrate just how weak your position really is. Mission accomplished, I should think.

722 This isn't about me. It is about gay marriage. If you want to debate then debate my opinions without insulting my person.
726 This is a religious forum and this thread is debating Gay marriage. Of course the subject of gays is going to arise.
731 You are doing it again. This is not about me and my person. We are debating gay marriage we are not trying to insult serenity the most. Get off my back you trouble making zealot with a spiteful tongue. You have made it all to clear that you are not here to debate.
746 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.
749 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.
751 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.
760 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.

Now, you are trying to say that I am lying about my acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle, well you were obviously lying about my objections to homosexuality as none of thjese quotes you have posted suggests anything of the sort.I may have used the word homosexuality instead of anal sex, however, the examples below demonstrates how I feel anout homosexuality. There are plenty more as well. You are a real piece of work aren't you. You have tried to set me up by misrepresenting me. How do you feel about that.
430 I accept gays and their inability to procreate. I do not accept lies being peddled as the truth.
478 Well, i don't have a problem with homosexuals either. The effect that they have on my life is zero. I am doing what any good Christian should be doing, that is, defending the word of God, and in this case it is - Leviticus 22. Man shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. I am not unique in my belief, all Christians believe this, otherwise, they are not Christian
565 I don't oppose homosexuality. I have not said that I do. I oppose those who peddle a lie as the truth for their own advantage. I oppose those who are unscrupulous in their attempt to make wrong right by deceiving and lying just to make them feel guiltless about the perversions that is a part of their lifestyle. No, I do not oppose homosexuals, they will have to stand accountable for their sin, as will I.

You seem to want me to go away awfully badly.

Not at all, I want you to debate honestly without using trickery.

This is the third time you've suggested that course of action. I wonder why you would wish such a thing, if you're "here to debate" and "don't become upset?" Surely, after having called me "dishonest," "ignorant," "sounding stupid," "no serious knowledge of Christianity" (post #746), "insulting" (post #747), "trouble making zealot with a spiteful tongue" (post #748), "lying," "gay" (post #750), "delusional," "desperate" (post #751) "blind," "agitator" (post #773), Oh! And the coup de grace: "knowledge of scripture falls short of that of an ordained minister" (post #833), I should think you'd want to keep me around so that you could set me straight and save my miserable, dishonest, ignorant, stupid, dumb, insulting, trouble-making, zealous, spiteful, lying, gay, delusional, desperate, blind, agitating, unordained soul. But maybe, in your magnanimous Christian love for all people (as Jesus taught), you just don't care enough about me to do so?

I do not have the time to go through post desperately trying to find dirt on you, however, I have responded to your insults. If you do not like insults in retaliation then either stop insulting me or leave the debate.

I dismiss it because statistics prove nothing and can easily be twisted.

Homosexuals are not "misfits."

They are acceptations to the rule, mis-fits

They do act in the same way as the "rest" of us:

We don't all dress in pink clothing and talk camp intentionally and tell everyone that we are straight.

they love, they have desires, they want to be loved.

Agreed

They do comply with the "norm" inasmuch as we allow them to do so.

They act outside of the envelope and the circle of life.

They are not "abnormal" in their behavior.

They indulge in anal sex, which is abnormal. Many take poppers to facilitate anal sex. Many take recreation drugs and alcohol to reduce their inhibitions. Some use small animals to insert into their rectum, among other phallic objects. a questionably high proportion of pedophiles are also homosexual.

As you so aptly put above: "Citation required, otherwise it is anecdotal, your subjective opinion." Cite one credible source that says homosexuals are "misfits" and act "abnormally."

That is my educated opinion, it is anecdotal, however, if you want a links then here it is.

WHY HOMOSEXUALITY IS ABNORMAL
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27902859?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

The Devil's Misfits: The True Face of Homosexuality - My Testimony
Jay Hudson.a former homosexual, and now a born-again, Spirit-filled preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, has a God-ordained Call to expose the true face of homosexuality. He is anointed to operate in the Spiritual Gifts of Prophecy, Word of Knowledge, Healing and Exhortation. He is passionate to reach out to those individuals who are desiring to depart from the homosexual lifestyle; while he also desires to encourage and educate parents and siblings who have a loved one who is currently living in the gay or lesbian lifestyle. He offers sound biblical advice to loved ones, as well as, sharing with Church Leaders, on the proper manner in which to ready the Church, for ministering to those homosexuals who are exiting out of the lifestyle.

You forgot the part about context. You were talking "in general." But "in general," fathers do not love their children unconditionally. Just in 12 counties in Missouri last year, there were over 9000 cases of child abuse. And those are just the ones we know about -- the ones that actually get reported and followed up on. There are many more counties in Missouri, 49 other states in the country, and many other countries on earth

Your world is very black and white isn't it? You see no further then the nasty pictures. As I said, and you have confirm right here, fathers, in general, love their children unconditionally, very often, even when they abuse them. I am sorry but your opinions are so blinkered by your bigotry. You are not reasoning objectively which means that you are stuck in your own beliefs. You have just assumed that if a father abuses his child then he cannot possibly love him unconditionally. How could you know that?

You said life is much worse now. The (short) list I posted were commonplace in the past, and not commonplace now, thereby showing that life is not "much worse" now.

You are wrong. I am not going to link you to government statistic, I have done that to no avail, but you are wrong, and you are wrong because you have not been converted by the Holy Ghost.

Serenity7855 · Mar 23, 2016

I am sorry if I have not answered anybody, there are just to many to respond to all at once but I will try

sojourner · Mar 23, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
In the last days of His earthly life, Jesus “resolutely set out for Jerusalem,” where He knew that he would have to atone for the sins of all mankind.

Substitutionary atonement is neither the only interpretation, nor is it the best.

Serenity7855 said:
It could be said that the fundamental mission of Christ’s time on earth was to fulfill God’s plan of saving the lost, The Plan of Salvation or Redemption.

And that refutes my point ... how, again? The ones who are lost are, in general, the ones who are shunned by "polite society."

Serenity7855 said:
The problem here is that you do not know what the Plan of Salvation or the whole mission of Christ is, and if you did you would know that it encompasses all that you have said but a great deal more.

The problem here is that you have no idea what I do or do not know. Of course it encompasses a great deal more, but we're dealing with the specifics of a group that has been systemically oppressed. My statements are cogent to that context.

Serenity7855 said:
“The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Jesus had just been criticized for going to the house of a “sinner.” Jesus responded by affirming His mission was to save people who needed saving. How was He to achieve this. By proclaiming the word of God, by showing that He was the son of God by performing miracles, to teach the world of God and exhort all men to follow the teaching that he proclaimed. to fulfill the Mosaic law, to save mankind from their sins by taking upon himself theiir sins thus giving the salvation/immortality, and finally, to give us all eternal life through His resurrection. Many times during Christ’s ministry, He sought to forgive those whom the self-righteous leaders of the day shunned and promised them that their sins would be forgiven them. He sought out and saved the woman at the well and the Samaritans of her town, the sinful woman with the alabaster jar, and even one of His own disciples, Matthew, who had been a tax collector. Jesus mission was to save the souls of mankind through his atonement and ressurection, as laid out in the Plan of Salvation.

So, why don't you forgive the supposed "sin" of homosexuals, if you're a follower of Jesus?

Serenity7855 said:
You are very disingenuously scheming, aren't you?

No, I'm pointing out the systemic violence that's flying so far under your radar that you're actually touting it as a virtue.

Serenity7855 said:
I did not say that they were.

Yet you imply that all women want what your wife wanted.

Serenity7855 said:
That might be correct if it were true, however, that is not what I said so the argument is invalid.

yeah, it really is. You said that in your day, women were treated like gold; that they didn't have to work outside the home and could just raise the kids, which was the most honorable thing they could do. That statement implies that women want to do those things. It also implies that any other course of action is "less honorable." IOW, you're fashioning a gilt chain for them that most don't want to be tied down to.

Serenity7855 said:
Hyperthetical.

Hypothetical. And it's not hypothetical -- it's factual. It was factual for antebellum America, it was factual for Nazi Germany, and it's factual today, because the same systems are in place in all cases, and they're perpetuated by the entitle majority.

sojourner · Mar 23, 2016

Serenity7855 said:
Yes I am. Many great leaders of our time were poor spellers so your attempted connection between stupidity and poor spelling falls flat on its face.

Great leaders who are poor spellers realize that they're poor spellers, and part of what makes them great leaders is that they don't attempt to critique the writing of others who are better at it than they.

Serenity7855 said:
Secondly, if you have problems deciphering what I write because of spelling mistakes then it is your own comprehension is dubious not mine.

I don't have such a problem. Just pointing out the rampant hypocrisy. I'm here to help. ;-)

Serenity7855 said:
You are here to provoke.

I've offered no new ideas. Everything I've posted has been in response. By definition, that's not provocation.

Serenity7855 said:
I am here to defend and refute.

What, exactly, are you "defending?" Because it ain't homosexuals or homosexual marriage.

Serenity7855 said:
I have better things todo then to provoke anyone.

Might I suggest, then, that you get about those "better things," because, thus far, provocation is about all you've accomplished here.

Serenity7855 said:
722 This isn't about me. It is about gay marriage. If you want to debate then debate my opinions without insulting my person.
726 This is a religious forum and this thread is debating Gay marriage. Of course the subject of gays is going to arise.
731 You are doing it again. This is not about me and my person. We are debating gay marriage we are not trying to insult serenity the most. Get off my back you trouble making zealot with a spiteful tongue. You have made it all to clear that you are not here to debate.
746 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.
749 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.
751 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.
760 Nothing relating to gay marriage here.

Now, you are trying to say that I am lying about my acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle, well you were obviously lying about my objections to homosexuality as none of thjese quotes you have posted suggests anything of the sort.I may have used the word homosexuality instead of anal sex, however, the examples below demonstrates how I feel anout homosexuality. There are plenty more as well. You are a real piece of work aren't you. You have tried to set me up by misrepresenting me. How do you feel about that.
430 I accept gays and their inability to procreate. I do not accept lies being peddled as the truth.
478 Well, i don't have a problem with homosexuals either. The effect that they have on my life is zero. I am doing what any good Christian should be doing, that is, defending the word of God, and in this case it is - Leviticus 22. Man shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. I am not unique in my belief, all Christians believe this, otherwise, they are not Christian
565 I don't oppose homosexuality. I have not said that I do. I oppose those who peddle a lie as the truth for their own advantage. I oppose those who are unscrupulous in their attempt to make wrong right by deceiving and lying just to make them feel guiltless about the perversions that is a part of their lifestyle. No, I do not oppose homosexuals, they will have to stand accountable for their sin, as will I.

So, which is it? Are you fer it, or agin it? According to your posts here, you're talking out both sides of your mouth.

Serenity7855 said:
They are acceptations to the rule, mis-fits

What "rule?" How do they represent an "exception?" They love, they want to be loved, they express that love, just like everyone else.

Serenity7855 said:
We don't all dress in pink clothing and talk camp intentionally and tell everyone that we are straight.

See above. You referred to #478: "I don't have a problem with homosexuals..." yet, here, you obviously have some kind of problem with them.

Serenity7855 said:
They act outside of the envelope and the circle of life.

What "envelope?" They love, they want to be loved, they express that love, just like everyone else.

Serenity7855 said:
They indulge in anal sex, which is abnormal.

Not universally.

Serenity7855 said:
That is my educated opinion

I object to your use of the term "educated" in this context.

Serenity7855 said:
fathers, in general, love their children unconditionally, very often, even when they abuse them.

In what way does "abuse" = "unconditional love???" Abuse and love are patently incompatible. This rot is precisely why I object to your use of the term "educated" above.

Serenity7855 said:
You are wrong. I am not going to link you to government statistic, I have done that to no avail, but you are wrong, and you are wrong because you have not been converted by the Holy Ghost.

Uh huh. Prove that I have not. This is just more of your narrow, bigoted perspective. I disagree with you, therefore, I must not be a real Christian. You've managed to stuff a whole shoe store in your mouth here.

Serenity7855 · Mar 23, 2016

sojourner said:
This is naive thinking.

Yes, of course it is if you are blinker visioned.

Ingledsva · Mar 23, 2016

Prestor John said:
...

Forcing a Church to offer services to those they deem unworthy, according to their doctrine and interpretation of scripture, is not religious freedom.

The State is trying to force the Church to change their definitions of what a “marriage” and “family” are, which would change their doctrine.

For people claiming to want “freedom”, they don’t seem to understand that that should apply to people you disagree with too. Same-sex couples are free to choose other organizations to receive adoption services. Why demand that a religion conform to their way of thinking? “My way or the highway”?

I believe that the Catholic Church should be able to refuse their services to anyone they consider unworthy, according to their doctrine and interpretation of scripture.

...

The Catholic Church is a church, not an adoption agency.

They took on that roll to add to their rolls.

They require a faith commitment for adoption, - which is illegal.

If they discriminate against homosexuals in the adoption arena - they should lose any right to administer adoption services.

And AGAIN - no one is forcing the church to change its outdated beliefs. They can hold them as long as they wish.

However - as a registered adoption agency they have to comply with the law.

They accept taxpayer money from state and local governments, the attached obligation is to treat all equally.

If they don't wish to comply with the law, - they should give up the licenses.

*

Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists

HEATHEN ALASKAN