Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[Prestor John]

Oh, my gosh! I was seriously not going to participate any more in this thread, but this statement is so cruel and so offensive on so many levels it's absolutely unbelievable. You make it sound like the ONLY purpose any of us have it to procreate, and that someone who cannot do that is of no worth to society. In my nearly 11 years on this forum, I have never read such a horrific statement -- not by a Christian, not by a Muslim or a Jew, not by a pagan, not by an atheist.

Agreed.

No wonder people generally don't know what the LDS Church believes and teaches about homosexuality.

The bad examples set by people professing to be "Christian" has placed a blanket over anyone who has a belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[sojourner]

It has caused violations of the First Amendment.

In what way? By not allowing people with certain beliefs to discriminate against those who don't fit those beliefs?

Opinions and interpretations change, that does not mean that heterosexual and "same-sex marriage" are the same or equal.

Of course they're the same. Two adults get married. How are they not equal? And why put same-sex in parentheses and not heterosexual?

The LDS Church and I both agree with and support the principle of "Separation of Church and State" because we believe that people need to be free to choose for themselves what to do and believe.

In what way, again? by not allowing them to discriminate against someone?

 

[Prestor John]

In what way? By not allowing people with certain beliefs to discriminate against those who don't fit those beliefs?

This is equitable to someone coming to my house, knowing that I am LDS, and asking me to give them an alcoholic beverage. After I explain that I do not drink and don't think that anyone should and that I do not have any alcoholic beverages - they cry "discrimination!" against me.

It's like going to India and asking for some beef. When they don't supply you any you cry "discrimination!"

There are lots of other places for same-sex couples to go to adopt children. Why go to the Catholic Church, whose beliefs are clear regarding homosexuality?

The government forcing the Catholic Church to cease offering those services unless they betray their faith is discrimination and it violates the First Amendment.

Of course they're the same. Two adults get married. How are they not equal? And why put same-sex in parentheses and not heterosexual?

I do not believe that the only prerequisite for marriage should be that you the participants be "adults".

If that were the case then you would have no problem with a man marrying his daughter on her 18th birthday? They would both be consenting adults. You have no issue with that?

I would say that their relationship should be considered "equal" under the law, but that should not mean that a homosexual relationship is the "same" as a heterosexual one. They are fundamentally different.

I place the term "same-sex marriage" in parenthesis because I do not personally believe that such a thing exists.

In what way, again? by not allowing them to discriminate against someone?

It is so much better for people to be discriminated against because of their religion rather than their sexual orientation, right?

 

[Prestor John]

The word itself matters in some contexts. For instance, some countries honour foreign marriages (including same-sex marriages), but not foreign civil unions.

The United States does not honor polygamous marriages. A foreign national may enter with his many wives but he can only declare that one of them is his legal wife.

Should this be a reason to promote polygamist marriage in the U.S?

Anyhow, there's nothing stopping you from holding views on what you think constitutes "real" marriage that differs from civil law. Some denominations have been doing this for years when it comes to divorce and remarriage; you can do the same with same-sex marriage if it suits you.

Thank you.

Does that mean that public schools won't teach my children that homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" are "normal" and "acceptable"?

Does that mean I can opt my children out from being taught what I do not personally agree with?

Does that mean I could chose to not place any of my tax dollars towards an institution that encourages something I do not agree with?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is evidence, however, that children greatly benefit from having both a mother and a father in the home. Men and women have different methods of parenting, which are both necessary for healthy development of children.

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.

It has caused violations of the First Amendment.

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

You may feel that this is a clear/cut decision, but you need to remember that this new ruling was still a split decision.

That's how most decisions are.

Five Justices decided to redefine marriage.

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. In many ways, it mirrors and parallels the legal struggles to grant interracial couples the right to wed.

Petitioning the Federal government to not recognize "same-sex marriage" is a right had by anyone, even the LDS Church and does not necessarily need to be driven ONLY by religious reasons.

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

How could we be "following the same legal arch" when the topic is so fundamentally different?

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.

Does that mean that public schools won't teach my children that homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" are "normal" and "acceptable"?

Does that mean I can opt my children out from being taught what I do not personally agree with?

Does that mean I could chose to not place any of my tax dollars towards an institution that encourages something I do not agree with?

"Nothing suffocates you more than
The passing of everyday human events
Isolation is the oxygen mask you make
Your children breathe in to survive" - Marilyn Manson
You can try and isolate your children, but it won't work, except that it tends to backfire.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In my opinion, which is based on the exchange we have had, I feel that this is due in large part to your refusal to accept my opinion. This is not to say agree with my opinion, but that you do not accept it.

Instead of taking my opinion for what it was, you kept trying to mislead and distract from my main points by repeating your, "Religion should not be establishing laws" red herring argument as if that was what I was advocating when I was not.

I also feel that you assumed what the stance of the LDS Church was in regards to homosexuality and its reasons were for wanting to petition the government. Therefore you jumped to conclusions about the LDS Church without knowing what they had even presented to the Supreme Court. This caused you to also assume a lot about me and my reasons for supporting the LDS Church.

Also, I feel that because of your assumptions about me and the LDS Church, you did not feel the need to fully read and process my posts. It felt like there was a lot of skimming of my posts on your part.


It has caused violations of the First Amendment.


I do not understand why you would include the crossed out portion of your comment or was it crossed out by someone else after you had submitted it?

There is evidence, however, that children greatly benefit from having both a mother and a father in the home. Men and women have different methods of parenting, which are both necessary for healthy development of children.

No matter how masculine a woman may be, she is not male. No matter how feminine a man may be, he is not female.

Whether or not you agree with the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" is irrelevant. They discourage children being raised by same-sex couples because it indoctrinates children into believing that homosexuality is acceptable and "normal", when they believe that it is neither.

The fact remains that since the United States has began to recognize "same-sex marriages" the Catholic Church had to either change their doctrine or be forced to no longer offer certain services that they performed and viewed them as expressions of their faith.

It is completely relevant and presents damages.


You may feel that this is a clear/cut decision, but you need to remember that this new ruling was still a split decision. Five Justices decided to redefine marriage. The definition of married as described by DoMA was considered constitutional since 1996. Opinions and interpretations change, that does not mean that heterosexual and "same-sex marriage" are the same or equal.

I feel that you keep mentioning things like this because of the assumptions you have about me and the LDS Church.

The LDS Church and I both agree with and support the principle of "Separation of Church and State" because we believe that people need to be free to choose for themselves what to do and believe.

Petitioning the Federal government to not recognize "same-sex marriage" is a right had by anyone, even the LDS Church and does not necessarily need to be driven ONLY by religious reasons.


How could we be "following the same legal arch" when the topic is so fundamentally different?

You keep drawing this line, but I still don't see the connection. I think you are just trying to discredit me and the LDS Church by appealing to past bigotry of certain "Christians".

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

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

And that there is not, in fact, any evidence that children in intersex households do better than children in same-sex households. And quite a bit of evidence that says the contrary: they thrive just as well. So far 'gender roles' in parenting have not been proven at all let alone proven necessary in any way for children's health.

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.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is equitable to someone coming to my house, knowing that I am LDS, and asking me to give them an alcoholic beverage. After I explain that I do not drink and don't think that anyone should and that I do not have any alcoholic beverages - they cry "discrimination!" against me.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The United States does not honor polygamous marriages. A foreign national may enter with his many wives but he can only declare that one of them is his legal wife.

Should this be a reason to promote polygamist marriage in the U.S?

Do you understand that this doesn't relate to my post at all?

Thank you.

Does that mean that public schools won't teach my children that homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" are "normal" and "acceptable"?

Does that mean I can opt my children out from being taught what I do not personally agree with?

Does that mean I could chose to not place any of my tax dollars towards an institution that encourages something I do not agree with?

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.

 

[sojourner]

This is equitable to someone coming to my house, knowing that I am LDS, and asking me to give them an alcoholic beverage. After I explain that I do not drink and don't think that anyone should and that I do not have any alcoholic beverages - they cry "discrimination!" against me.

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."

The government forcing the Catholic Church to cease offering those services unless they betray their faith is discrimination and it violates the First Amendment.

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

I place the term "same-sex marriage" in parenthesis because I do not personally believe that such a thing exists.

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.

I would say that their relationship should be considered "equal" under the law, but that should not mean that a homosexual relationship is the "same" as a heterosexual one. They are fundamentally different.

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 so much better for people to be discriminated against because of their religion rather than their sexual orientation, right?

Nobody's discriminating against people because of their religion. 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. Were we discriminating against the KKK for upholding Jim Crow? I don't think so.

 

[sojourner]

Does that mean that public schools won't teach my children that homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" are "normal" and "acceptable"?

Does that mean I can opt my children out from being taught what I do not personally agree with?

Does that mean I could chose to not place any of my tax dollars towards an institution that encourages something I do not agree with?

No, because homosexuality and marriage are both "normal" and "acceptable," according to SCOTUS and the mental health community.
No, just because someone disagrees that blacks are equal to whites doesn't mean that we're not going to teach that they are.
No. Everybody pays taxes, because everybody's a citizen. Taxes aren't based on "what I like."

This is nothing more or less than entitlement.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In my opinion, which is based on the exchange we have had, I feel that this is due in large part to your refusal to accept my opinion. This is not to say agree with my opinion, but that you do not accept it.


Instead of taking my opinion for what it was, you kept trying to mislead and distract from my main points by repeating your, "Religion should not be establishing laws" red herring argument as if that was what I was advocating when I was not.


I also feel that you assumed what the stance of the LDS Church was in regards to homosexuality and its reasons were for wanting to petition the government. Therefore you jumped to conclusions about the LDS Church without knowing what they had even presented to the Supreme Court. This caused you to also assume a lot about me and my reasons for supporting the LDS Church.


Also, I feel that because of your assumptions about me and the LDS Church, you did not feel the need to fully read and process my posts. It felt like there was a lot of skimming of my posts on your part.


It has caused violations of the First Amendment.


I do not understand why you would include the crossed out portion of your comment or was it crossed out by someone else after you had submitted it?


There is evidence, however, that children greatly benefit from having both a mother and a father in the home. Men and women have different methods of parenting, which are both necessary for healthy development of children.No matter how masculine a woman may be, she is not male. No matter how feminine a man may be, he is not female.

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 don't know what masculinity or femininity has to do with it.

Whether or not you agree with the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" is irrelevant. They discourage children being raised by same-sex couples because it indoctrinates children into believing that homosexuality is acceptable and "normal", when they believe that it is neither.

So does that mean then, that the Catholic Church would rather these children have no parents at all? Is that more moral than allowing two loving people to raise them who happen to be of the same sex? I think the Catholic Church has a lot of self-examination to do before it can even begin to dictate morality to anyone else.

The fact remains that since the United States has began to recognize "same-sex marriages" the Catholic Church had to either change their doctrine or be forced to no longer offer certain services that they performed and viewed them as expressions of their faith.


It is completely relevant and presents damages.



You may feel that this is a clear/cut decision, but you need to remember that this new ruling was still a split decision. Five Justices decided to redefine marriage. The definition of married as described by DoMA was considered constitutional since 1996. Opinions and interpretations change, that does not mean that heterosexual and "same-sex marriage" are the same or equal.

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.

I feel that you keep mentioning things like this because of the assumptions you have about me and the LDS Church.


The LDS Church and I both agree with and support the principle of "Separation of Church and State" because we believe that people need to be free to choose for themselves what to do and believe.


Petitioning the Federal government to not recognize "same-sex marriage" is a right had by anyone, even the LDS Church and does not necessarily need to be driven ONLY by religious reasons.



How could we be "following the same legal arch" when the topic is so fundamentally different?


You keep drawing this line, but I still don't see the connection. I think you are just trying to discredit me and the LDS Church by appealing to past bigotry of certain "Christians".

Sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to throw in my two cents on a couple of things you had said.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is equitable to someone coming to my house, knowing that I am LDS, and asking me to give them an alcoholic beverage. After I explain that I do not drink and don't think that anyone should and that I do not have any alcoholic beverages - they cry "discrimination!" against me.

It's like going to India and asking for some beef. When they don't supply you any you cry "discrimination!"

There are lots of other places for same-sex couples to go to adopt children. Why go to the Catholic Church, whose beliefs are clear regarding homosexuality?

The government forcing the Catholic Church to cease offering those services unless they betray their faith is discrimination and it violates the First Amendment.


I do not believe that the only prerequisite for marriage should be that you the participants be "adults".

If that were the case then you would have no problem with a man marrying his daughter on her 18th birthday? They would both be consenting adults. You have no issue with that?

I would say that their relationship should be considered "equal" under the law, but that should not mean that a homosexual relationship is the "same" as a heterosexual one. They are fundamentally different.

I place the term "same-sex marriage" in parenthesis because I do not personally believe that such a thing exists.


It is so much better for people to be discriminated against because of their religion rather than their sexual orientation, right?

How so?

 

[JoStories]

There is evidence, however, that children greatly benefit from having both a mother and a father in the home. Men and women have different methods of parenting, which are both necessary for healthy development of children.

No matter how masculine a woman may be, she is not male. No matter how feminine a man may be, he is not female.

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.

 

[JoStories]

This is equitable to someone coming to my house, knowing that I am LDS, and asking me to give them an alcoholic beverage. After I explain that I do not drink and don't think that anyone should and that I do not have any alcoholic beverages - they cry "discrimination!" against me.

It's like going to India and asking for some beef. When they don't supply you any you cry "discrimination!"

There are lots of other places for same-sex couples to go to adopt children. Why go to the Catholic Church, whose beliefs are clear regarding homosexuality?

The government forcing the Catholic Church to cease offering those services unless they betray their faith is discrimination and it violates the First Amendment.

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.

 

[JoStories]

I do not believe that the only prerequisite for marriage should be that you the participants be "adults".

If that were the case then you would have no problem with a man marrying his daughter on her 18th birthday? They would both be consenting adults. You have no issue with that?

I would say that their relationship should be considered "equal" under the law, but that should not mean that a homosexual relationship is the "same" as a heterosexual one. They are fundamentally different.

I place the term "same-sex marriage" in parenthesis because I do not personally believe that such a thing exists.

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

 

[Demonslayer]

Does that mean that public schools won't teach my children that homosexuality and "same-sex marriage" are "normal" and "acceptable"?

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

Because if you go teaching your children that gay people are abnormal and unacceptable 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.

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

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

This train has sailed, religious people. 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.

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,? That's what y'all are starting to look like with this gay thing. 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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because if you go teaching your children that gay people are abnormal and unacceptable 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.

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

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

Or...

3) His own kid will be gay, and his attitude will drive the kid to estrangement from his father at best or suicide at worst.

 

[Demonslayer]

Or...

3) His own kid will be gay, and his attitude will drive the kid to estrangement from his father at best or suicide at worst.

Could be this too.

Nothing good can come of it, and I have personal experience. My father is 70 now, and when we were growing up was very outspokenly against homosexuals. I mean this was like the late 70's early 80's when calling people f*gs and qu*ers in public was still considered acceptable.

I didn't know it was wrong, he was my dad and I thought gay people were bad because of it. Later in life of course when I moved out of the house and met gay people, I realized that my dad was just an old-time homophobe like a lot of men his age. I didn't really hold it against the old man, these things are generational.

But my sister pretty much disowned him. She wouldn't talk to him anymore and told him straight out that she was embarrassed by him. This crush him, as you might imagine, and eventually he found his way to a more "enlightened" view of gay people.

All is well now, they reconciled and I think my dad actually became a better person because of it. But it caused a lot of family pain and misery for a long time.

Older people....your kids aren't going to understand the anti-gay thing. All it's going to do is cause you strife. Hold on to it like grim death if you wish, but a better path is to try to come to a modern understanding of the issue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could be this too.

Nothing good can come of it, and I have personal experience. My father is 70 now, and when we were growing up was very outspokenly against homosexuals. I mean this was like the late 70's early 80's when calling people f*gs and qu*ers in public was still considered acceptable.

I didn't know it was wrong, he was my dad and I thought gay people were bad because of it. Later in life of course when I moved out of the house and met gay people, I realized that my dad was just an old-time homophobe like a lot of men his age. I didn't really hold it against the old man, these things are generational.

But my sister pretty much disowned him. She wouldn't talk to him anymore and told him straight out that she was embarrassed by him. This crush him, as you might imagine, and eventually he found his way to a more "enlightened" view of gay people.

All is well now, they reconciled and I think my dad actually became a better person because of it. But it caused a lot of family pain and misery for a long time.

Older people....your kids aren't going to understand the anti-gay thing. All it's going to do is cause you strife. Hold on to it like grim death if you wish, but a better path is to try to come to a modern understanding of the issue.

When one of my school friends came out as gay in his teens, his father moved the whole family back to Botswana in an effort to get him out of the gay-friendly environment of Canada. My friend moved back to Canada on his own when he was 18, but was estranged from his family. It's hard to say for sure, but I think his treatment by his family - as well as his experience as an out gay person in Botswana - were what pushed him to kill himself.

 

[Demonslayer]

but I think his treatment by his family - as well as his experience as an out gay person in Botswana - were what pushed him to kill himself.

Wow, very sorry to hear that. And here I thought my experience was bad. : /