Serious:I applaud you standing up for the biological brothers of the
world who want to get married. All four of them are planning a parade in which
you personally will appear in effigy on a float.Let's at least
try to keep our answers close to sane and our "slippery slope" fallacies
at least plausible. Frankly, if two brothers want to get married, have at it.
Somehow I fail to see that as one of society's pressing issues.The weird tangents, mental gymnastics and spiritual fevers people go through
to oppose SSM rights is a sight to behold . . though it is getting old. The
arguments are always the same, and never stand on firm legal ground. You're
losing. Just accept it, clutch your "Proclomation to the Family" firmly
to your chest, and breathe. It'll be OK. I bet you that 35% of
the world turns gay after SSM is legalized across the US. Tops.
Re: Understands MathAgain you get caught up in the words and miss
the point."So what does it say about you that you use the
word?" It probably means that my opinion is different from the public words
of the "professionals" you seem to speak for. I clearly stated that it
is my opinion that homosexuality is a disorder. Get over it.The
numbers are irrelevant. I am advocating that the SCOTUS put the issue to
rest.If I could give you individual quotes, which I can't
because I do not collect them, you would dismiss them anyway. Again you mince
words.My original point still stands. The issue needs to be put to
rest so we as a society can move on and stop wasting our efforts on it. Do you have anything to say about my original point or do you want to
continue to pick at the minutia?This is a silly conversation...
@Samson01 wrote: "I used the term not with any "animus" as you
claim." Then, "It is my opinion that homosexuality is a
disorder.""Disorder" is a word used by medical and
psychological professionals, and the professionals do not use it to describe
homosexuality.So what does it say about you that you use the
word?"The number 1.9% is a number that was given on a NPR
segment and I quoted it. If it is wrong I suspect that it is no more inaccurate
than the numbers you quote."After doing some searches, I see
that in a Gallup poll from October 2012, 1.9% of people 65 or older identified
as LGBT. Among the total population it is 3.4%, and among people 18-29, it is
6.4%. That may have been the source of the number that you passed on without
context.Context is important."You may call it
updating or any other euphemism, but it is being redefined. That is the word
used by many SSM advocates."Name them.
Re: Understands MathI used the term not with any "animus" as
you claim. Common sense, biology, and evolution simply indicate that
homosexuality is an abnormal state that differs from the norm. There are many
disorders that we all may or may not have that differ from the ideal. It is my
opinion that homosexuality is a disorder.The number 1.9% is a number
that was given on a NPR segment and I quoted it. If it is wrong I suspect that
it is no more inaccurate than the numbers you quote. Doesn't really
matter. If you read my original post you would clearly see that I do not
advocate withholding any rights from anyone. My point was that the SCOTUS needs
to put this issue to rest and that I would personally abide by whatever decision
was arrived at. I think you are lumping your response to my posts with what you
would like to say to many others.Redefining marriage is exactly what
is being done. You may call it updating or any other euphemism, but it is being
redefined. That is the word used by many SSM advocates.
To "Bob K" actually, I don't want you to shut up and go along.
What I want you to do is the opposite. I want you to read the Book of Mormon,
Read the Doctrine and Covenants, read the Proclamation on the Family. After you
become informed, think about what you have read, is it good is it bad, would you
be a better person following the doctine or not. Then, honestly and scincerly
pray to God and ask him if the things you have read are true.If you
do decide that it is good, keep thinking and asking questions. The more I read
and think about what I know the more patterns I see in history both scriptural
and secular.As for disgarded children, that does not happen. My
nices and nephews have told me about all of the gay kids that are in their
mostly LDS schools few, if any, have been disgarded. In actuality, when a child
declares themselves to be gay, there are even more resources and support within
the LDS church than ever before.
Has there ever been a prosperous society where same-sex marriage was the norm?
Bob K:"As a non-lds person, I notice the lack of a path for members to
communicate to the prophet to please focus on an issue to see what God tells
him."I'm sure the LDS prophet is aware of the problems of
the world and seeks God's direction. "I do not think that
God means for His children who were born Gay to need to separate."People enter into this world with all kinds of conditions, drives, appetites,
and afflictions. The idea is to recognize what God would have us do and become,
and work toward that ultimate goal. The idea is not to obstinately tell God to
accept what we are. He probably won't.Those too arrogant to
look to God for help and do what's needed to orient themselves with
God's design will, in the end, likely stand alone.
@ El Chango. Rarely, is there as much consensus in any area of
social science as in the case of same-sex couple parenting, which is why the
American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations
with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support
of gay and lesbian parental rights". These organizations include the
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American
Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,
American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social
Workers,Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable
Children, and Canadian Psychological Association. That was easy.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, Ut"To "Bob K" since you are
not LDS, let me explain some key points of LDS doctrine when it comes to gay
marriage.First, the LDS church teaches that marriage is between a man and
a woman. That is it."...Yes, I know the religion is based on
marriage and procreation leading to prosperity, sainthood, etc. Smith did a good
job!"When a gay LDS child leaves their family, friends, and
church, it is because the child has turned their back on the people they leave,
they are not sent away."...You ought to look on the streets of
SLC for the discarded teens."As the scriptures point out, the
greatest commandment is to love God. If we love God then we will follow his
commandments."... You take the doctrines of the lds to be the
definite commandments of God, which is OK for you, but it's not your place
to expect everyone else to follow them.If you want to know more,
contact your local LDS missionaries.... Always the same deal: we are
told to shut up and read the book of mormon, and stop thinking for ourselves.
The stay has been denied, so now it is up to the 9th circuit. Maybe there will
be some gay weddings in Idaho on Friday! Also, NOM has been denied standing to
defend the ban in Oregon. I love it when the good guys win.
Re: Understands Math"Rational basis."Okay then,
It's not rational for a man to marry another man. The only marriage should
be between one man & one woman. It's the only relationship that can
rationally make sense for a marriage. That was easy!!Gay partners
cannot have a child TOGETHER. If they choose some other means to have a child,
that child will be deprived of a Mom or a Dad. You can't tell me that you
could replace my mom with a man and we could have the same relationship I shared
with my mother.Whenever there is a study out that says that children
are raised best by a mother & father, a cry is raised that the study is
biased & not to be trusted. Whenever a study comes out that says that
children don't need both a Mom & Dad, which flies in the face of
personal experience for millions, that study is hailed as pure and without bias.
Give me a break!
Has anyone noticed that this judge was appointed by a Republican? Has anyone
noticed that she is not the only Conservative jurist to rule against the
prohibition of same sex marriage?What planet do you people live on
that think that the judiciary is a liberal cabal intent on destroying your
Redshirt there are some corrections to your post that need to be made.The LDS Church has taught publicly since 1896 that marriage is between a man
and a woman, and privately since the 1910s or so. Before that they taught that
marriage could also be between a man an multiple women. The scriptures and
prophets provide ample support that this was inspired by god.I'm guessing you haven't talked to too many gay members of the
church. If you had would know that there are far too many who were treated
terribly by other church members and sadly even by their own families. There are
again far too many who have indeed been shunned and sent away.Finally, marriage between one man and one woman ONLY is not an eternal
principle. To this day a man who has lost his wife can remarry in a temple and
will have both wives for all eternity. In fact there are at least two members of
the quorum of the twelve who are sealed to two women. So the eternal principle
is actually that marriage is between a man and a woman, or several women. That
fact cannot be disputed.
@Serious wrote: "If we can't base our laws on judeo-christian
tradition, who's to say what is moral?"Golden Rule.That was easy!
To "Bob K" since you are not LDS, let me explain some key points of LDS
doctrine when it comes to gay marriage.First, the LDS church teaches
that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is it. That is what the
scriptures say and what Prophets have been inspired by God to say.Second, families are not about this life only. The marital relationships that
we have now can last throughout eternity. The reason for this is that a married
couple will be able to continue to have children.When a gay LDS
child leaves their family, friends, and church, it is because the child has
turned their back on the people they leave, they are not sent away.As the scriptures point out, the greatest commandment is to love God. If we
love God then we will follow his commandments. As I have just explained,
marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that it is an eternal
principle.If you want to know more, contact your local LDS
@Serious"Homosexuals can't have children together!"In-vitro, adoption (especially in states like Utah where single people can
adopt), and surrogate parenting still exist along with some children coming from
previous heterosexual relations (bisexuals exist you know). "How
can you remove one requirement while still arguing the others should
stay?"That requirement list used to include "of the same
race" but we removed that while keeping the others the same. "we had better throw out our laws pertaining to murder & theft...
those are also laws rooted in the judeo-christian tradition. "First off... our Christian faith didn't invent "don't
steal". Secondly, there are secular reasons to ban those.
dalefarr: "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" from the First
Presidency and Quorum of 12 Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints presented by President Gordon B. Hinckley, September 23 1995 is the mind
and will of the Lord Himself. The family proclamation could not be more
unmistakably plain and simple on gender roles in God's plan for
Families.If one does not believe these 15 men are Prophets and
Apostles of the Lord you are certainly free to believe that but to those who do
believe and sustain them we are obligated to know their words are the words of
the Lord Himself. That is what is intended, that is what is meant by making
this Proclamation to the World. We are also under commitment to treat all
people with respect, kindness and dignity and our Prophet and Apostles have
reminded us of that commitment when it comes our treatment of those who may be
homosexual. Unless the prophet announces that he has had a
revelation from God that SSM is prohibited, Mormons, myself included should back
off from treating our gay brothers and sisters differently than we treat each
I thought I would let the Judge herself answer some of the objections raised by
the people commenting on this story.“The Defendants offered no
evidence that same-sex marriage would adversely affect opposite-sex marriages or
the well-being of children. Without proof, the Defendants’ justifications
echo the unsubstantiated fears that could not prop up the anti-miscegenation
laws and rigid gender roles of days long past.”“Then as
now, it is the duty of the courts to apply the law to the facts in evidence.
Here, the facts are clear and the law teaches that marriage is a fundamental
right of all citizens, which neither tradition nor the majority can deny.”
“‘The history of our Constitution . . . is the story of
the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or
excluded.’ United States v. Virginia (1996). Slow as the march toward
equality may seem, it is never in vain.”From Judge Dale's
ruling in Latta v. Otter, May 13, 2014.
Unless the prophet announces that he has had a revelation from God that SSM is
prohibited, Mormons, myself included should back off from treating our gay
brothers and sisters differently than we treat each other.
@Samson01 wrote: "Personally I feel that redefining an essential societal
institution because 1.9% of us have a disorder is absurd...but it is the reality
of our day."First of all: "Disorder"? I think
you'll find that no medical or psychological authorities consider members
of Gender and Sexual minorities to intrinsically have a disorder. For you to use
that term shows animus on your part. (And it's that kind of animus by
lawmakers that has contributed to bans against same-sex marriage being
overturned.)Second: "1.9%"? That's an awfully precise
(and low) number. I'm thinking the standard estimate of 3 to 5 percent is
probably closer to the mark. And I'm pretty sure the constitution
doesn't say "you can withhold rights from groups that are small
enough."Third: "Redefining." No, marriage is not being
redefined. It's only a matter of updating who is allowed to be married.
Marriage is no more being redefined than if the minimum marriage age in Utah
were to be increased from 15 to 16. Saying that marriage is being
"redefined" would imply that current marriages would be changing. They
won't be. At all.
One of the earliest known laws against murder is found in the code of Ur-Nammu
in 2100 BCE, approximately. By comparison the 10 Commandments, according to the
legend were written in about 1800 BCE. The code of Ur-Nammu also has laws
against robbery (theft), kidnapping, adultery, assault, lying, and much more.
Nothing in the 10 commandments was original, they borrowed from laws that had
been a part of other cultures for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years
before they were written. I'm with Understands Math, a rational
basis is the best foundation for law.
@Serious wrote: "If we can't base our laws on judeo-christian
tradition, who's to say what is moral?"Rational basis.That was easy!
The overall agenda for which SSM is taking the lead is spelled out in "The
Overhauling of Straight America" by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide
Magazine, November 1987. This article was one of the defining efforts in the
start of the present day war being waged against marriage and the family. Kirk and Erastes define "The first order of business is
desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To
desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference
instead of with keen emotion." Until you have read this article don't
think the issue is just about making marriage something it has never been
defined to be, there is an even larger agenda. You will recognize these same
methods, marketing strategies, and techniques outlined over 25 years ago with
what is happening even right here in the discussions of comments on this and
every other related article. Most people in Utah are against SSM but we
don't speak up because of many of the reasons mentioned in the article.
Google the article and read for yourself.
The SCOTUS needs to put this issue to bed one way or the other. This tearing
down of state laws and state constitutions must be settled by the highest court
in the land and not by individual judges.Personally I feel that
redefining an essential societal institution because 1.9% of us have a disorder
is absurd...but it is the reality of our day.There is also the point
that heterosexuals have done far more damage to the institution of marriage than
SSM could ever do.I am all for rule of law and in this case the law
is ambiguous and needs to be defined by our highest court. I think the SCOTUS
will rule in favor of SSM. Once established, I will honor the law. Will the
LGBT community do the same if it does not go their way? I doubt it.
@Wilf55 - Didn't you mean to say:"Inasmuch as laws have
been enacted by federal and state legislatures disallowing same-sex marrriage,
which laws have been pronounced unconstitutional by the court of last resort
Congratulations Idaho!!! Another state and another step toward equality across
the nation.This are sincere questions to those who oppose SSM on
religious ground.During his ministery on earth, Jesus preached and
found that the clerics defending the law and the prophets were no really
following the spirit of the convenant between God and his people.Here many of you claimed that the Gospel talks against homosexuality. That is
false. Only Paul in his letters to the Romans and Timothy mentions something
that many people have interpreted literally as a reproach of same sex
relationships. However, the same people reject openly or just ignore other
teachings of Paul i.e. women being silence in their congregation and others. The Lord always preached about the spirit of the law and the benefit
toward humankind.My questions:How does SSM negatively
affects you?Do you think God opposes children being adopted and
raised by SS parents?Can you mention true examples of negatives
concequences product of families headed by SS parents?Does God
listen and rejoices in the love of SSM and their children?What would
Jesus say about this issue?
@Serious: "I guess that becasue we are throwing out our marriage laws, we
had better throw out our laws pertaining to murder & theft... those are also
laws rooted in the judeo-christian tradition. We can't have our laws have
any roots in religion."Laws on murder and theft are not
"judeo-christian," they are found in different cultures around the
world. The laws that are most closely related to "judeo-christian"
values are the ones seeking to regulate personal relationships and personal
choices - sodomy laws, which have no rational basis, laws limiting alcohol
sales, and so on. If we actually had "judeo-christian" laws,
our society would look much closer to Iran or Afghanistan with their theocratic
legal system. As it is, we are slowly moving in the direction of the most
civilized countries, like Norway and Sweden.
And suddenly, the majority of the country is moving towards equality.Welcome, joyous day.
@SeriousThe LGBT community will continue to raise families like
they've been raising them for decades. It's just more visible now. How
do LGBT have kids? Some from previous relationships, some use cryobanks, some
adopt, some use surrogates. What would a couple with infertility problems do?
That's what they do.Congrats Idaho!
@Serious: "Homosexuals can't have children together!"If
homosexuals can't have children can somebody please explain why these two
urchins are in my home calling me "mom" and asking if their other mother
is going to get home early enough to go with us to Girl Scouts tonight? Oh. Yeah. Because "homosexuals" can adopt. And we can do
artificial insemination, like some hetero couples. And we can have kids from
previous relationships. And we can raise kids for relatives who can't
parent. We are couples. We have children. We have families. We raise
our children, together. Some have raised children and now have grandchildren.
Don't tell me you are "all about the children" when you
are trying to say my children don't exist while you are busy treating them
as second class citizens.
@Wilf55;"12.We believe in being subject to kings, presidents,
rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."--- But you can still refuse to marry LGBT couples in your churches if
you want to.
Whenever I read a story on SSM either from another local or a national news
outlet, it is always accompanied by photos of SS couples. A few are of them
kissing. Most are not. What I see in the faces of the couples are tears of joy
and unbridled happiness. Here I see hands. It continues to boggle my mind why
there are those who still want to deny people that happiness and the rights
afforded to the rest of us.
@Serious"If we can't base our laws on judeo-christian
tradition, who's to say what is moral?"What judo-christian
laws should we enact and force on others that do not believe the same thing?
Also all Christian beliefs are not the same. There are dozens of Christian
faiths that do not discriminate against same sex couples like the Episcopal
church. So stopping SSM would be a violation of their religious beliefs. If
marriage is strictly a religious practice than a religion should have the
freedom tho marry those they see as worthy and not be restricted by the state.
Also why in your eye does your God think that SSM is wrong? Is it
because in Leviticus it says it an "abomination". Well think of this, a
person can break all 10 of the most holy Christian commandments and still get be
legally married under God even while serving a prison sentence for those crimes.
Marriage Equality will become the law of this country the only thing
stopping it now is a short amount of time. If you don't like it you have
the freedom to speak out against it but it will happen.
Step by step we are moving to a point where we can expect to read something
like:"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress allowing
same-sex marrriage, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court
of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to
use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have
them do likewise."
@Serious;Infertile and elderly couples, who are incapable of having
children are allowed to marry so why not LGBT couples? BTW, LGBT couples can
have children through ALL the same means available to infertile heterosexual
couples - we CAN have children.We are not a theocracy and your
"Judeo Christian" values have no place in secular law when those
"values" are discrminatory (which is, in fact, not a value at all but is
anti-values).@wrz;SCOTUS will rule in favor of equality
and against bigotry and discrimination.@Lib;You never
had the right to use the "democratic process" to violate the civil
rights of LGBT American in the first place.
I love this point in the decision:"Idaho’s Marriage Laws
fail to advance the State’s interest because they withhold legal,
financial, and social benefits from the very group they purportedly
protect—children." p. 48This is the same thing I saw in
the Utah argument: "We want to protect children, so we must deny this group
of children the security of a family." The logic doesn't fly.Oh, well. Another day, another activist judge. (Or maybe, just maybe,
there's something to the whole equal protection thing after all.)
Legalized bigotry is losing."Another one bites the dust".
I picked the wrong job. I should have been a judge! Then I could uphold or
ignore whatever laws I want!"Specify what marriage is to protect
the long-term interest of society in my state, as voted by the people"?
Pssh, screw that. All I have to do is label people who don't agree with me
as bigots, homophobes, or other such names and poof!
Congratulations, Idaho!To the lawyers out there, is the AG
considering appealing directly to SCOTUS because the 9th Circuit has previously
held LGBTs to be a suspect class? What might he argue as justification for
skipping a step in the process?And a bit of speculation: I noticed
that none of the plaintiffs are male and it made me wonder if it's still
too risky to be a gay male in Idaho.
May I relate this to Utah, as well as to Idaho?As a non-lds person,
I notice the lack of a path for members to communicate to the prophet to please
focus on an issue to see what God tells him.--- no matter how great a man
the present prophet may be, it seems as if the world has changed drastically
after he had already become an adult. To me, no human is so perfect that he
cannot gain from the input of younger people.The equality train is
moving at a speed that no one could have predicted.People born Gay
into lds families deserve better than to have to leave friends, family, and
church behind in order to marry the person they loveMormon families
deserve better than to either lose their Gay children or have to tell them to be
celibate, due to their "affliction" as if crippled.Just from
a pragmatic point of view, the lds church is slated to lose many members who are
Gay, or who have Gay family, as marriage equality becomes the standard.I do not think that God means for His children who were born Gay to need to
Activist judges trying to legislate their personal views from the bench must be
impeached or voted out of office. Legislatures legislate as part and parcel to
the democratic process. Our democratic process is violated when judges take on
the role of elected representatives and the will of the people. The ruling
brings shame on judicial and legislative process. The government is granted
power from the will of the people, not the other way around.
"Today's decision, while disappointing, is a small setback in a
long-term battle that will end at the U.S. Supreme Court."SCOTUS
has no alternative but to rule in favor of Idaho's (and other states)
marriage law of man/woman. The Court has already ruled that federal law (DOMA)
re marriage is unconstitutional. And the US Constitution says all powers not
delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the
people.The only thing left involves the 14th Amendment's
'Equal Protection of the law.' Equal protection of State law, that
is. And all Idaho citizens have equal protection under Idaho State law... i.e.,
marry someone of the opposite sex. This applies to all equally.
Finally,If we can't base our laws on judeo-christian tradition,
who's to say what is moral? Who decided that same sex marriage is good
& polygamy is not? I guess that becasue we are throwing out our marriage
laws, we had better throw out our laws pertaining to murder & theft... those
are also laws rooted in the judeo-christian tradition. We can't have our
laws have any roots in religion.
I also want someone to answer this question...Currently the law does
not allow people who are closely related to get married to each other because of
the potential for birth defects. If same gender marriage is legalized, what is
the rational reason two brothers cannot get married? Having a brother provides
none of the legal protections having a spouse does. If we are going to disregard
biology in marriage law, how can we rationally put any restrictions on it? If I
want to marry my dad or my brother or my uncle, who is that hurting? If biology
is no longer an issue, aren't other restrictions rather arbitrary?
"...because they deny protections and resources to children of homosexual
parents, Dale said."Homosexuals can't have children
together!This whole gay marriage movement is mind boggling to me...I
feel like all these federal judges need to sit down & get the birds &
the bees talk they must of missed when they were kids. The law is
the same for everyone. Anyone can marry anyone else who is, not closely related,
not legally married to another, of legal age, & of opposite gender. How can you remove one requirement while still arguing the others should