Mormons’ Distaste for Donald Trump Puts Utah Up for Grabs

[nylife11023]

Could you actually be dumber than a bag of hammers. It's the politicians who make laws, one way or the other, making it a legal issue.

Give your friggin head a shake and see if things clear up for you.

Please don't feed the troll.

 

[AgentOrange]

Winter and Robert think gay marriage is sharia law - this how the Republican Party ended up with Donald Trump.

 

[Winter_123]

Winter and Robert think gay marriage is sharia law - this how the Republican Party ended up with Donald Trump.

You are going to have to do better than that to try to recover from your previous less-than-smart post. Wow. You need more education. Perhaps you should just listen and print off posts for a while until you are ready to participate.

 

[DHK]

Marriage isn't a political issue, it's a legal issue.

Yes and no.

With California Proposition 8 and other state measures, Christians were defending the definition of marriage - to be one man and one woman. Based on scriptures, Christians and Mormons felt duty bound to help our society take a stand for a moral issue regarding the definition of marriage.

If we remove religious connotations, marriage is simply a living contract, with various rights enforced by federal and state laws. I truly cannot think of any logical, lawful reason why two people of the same sex cannot be in a consensual relationship. Civil unions were one step, but most people won't take the "Separate but equal" stance under the law, plus there were lots of contractual things on a federal level that required it to be ruled by SCOTUS.

As long as religious freedoms are honored and respected (which are discriminatory in nature - due to worthiness and gender in most cases), I'm quite fine with this. In fact, other than bathrooms, I think the LGBTQ community has been rather quiet. I don't know if it's "over" or not, but it appears that the LGBTQ community has gotten what they wanted.


One thing I learned out of all of this... is that you cannot legislate morality through the ballot box. Jesus Christ did not teach us to overthrow Caesar in order to establish Christianity. Of the pattern of how Christ taught, he sent the Seventy out two-by-two to teach. Conversion to morality and the gospel is done individually and that, in turn, helps to transform a society.

It's the same thing with abortion. I don't like abortion, but you don't make it illegal to get abortions. (I am all for ending federal funding for them though.) Otherwise desperate women can put themselves into harm's way by seeking alternative means of having the abortion and put their own lives at risk. The best way to avoid abortions (other than not having sex in the first place), is to teach the woman of other means where she can have the baby and put their priority on the baby, and not herself.

The United States Constitution was meant for a moral people.

This was given at a BYU address back in 1978 and is practically prophetic about these days:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng

We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

M. J. Sobran wrote recently:

“The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …

“What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61.)

Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable. Its paid ministry would be numerous beyond belief. Its Caesars would be insufferably condescending. Its majorities—when faced with clear alternatives—will make the Barabbas choice, as did a mob centuries ago when Pilate confronted them with the need to decide.

Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. M. J. Sobran also said, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59).

 

[AgentOrange]

Yes and no.

With California Proposition 8 and other state measures, Christians were defending the definition of marriage - to be one man and one woman. Based on scriptures, Christians and Mormons felt duty bound to help our society take a stand for a moral issue regarding the definition of marriage.

If we remove religious connotations, marriage is simply a living contract, with various rights enforced by federal and state laws. I truly cannot think of any logical, lawful reason why two people of the same sex cannot be in a consensual relationship. Civil unions were one step, but most people won't take the "Separate but equal" stance under the law, plus there were lots of contractual things on a federal level that required it to be ruled by SCOTUS.

As long as religious freedoms are honored and respected (which are discriminatory in nature - due to worthiness and gender in most cases), I'm quite fine with this. In fact, other than bathrooms, I think the LGBTQ community has been rather quiet. I don't know if it's "over" or not, but it appears that the LGBTQ community has gotten what they wanted.


One thing I learned out of all of this... is that you cannot legislate morality through the ballot box. Jesus Christ did not teach us to overthrow Caesar in order to establish Christianity. Of the pattern of how Christ taught, he sent the Seventy out two-by-two to teach. Conversion to morality and the gospel is done individually and that, in turn, helps to transform a society.

It's the same thing with abortion. I don't like abortion, but you don't make it illegal to get abortions. (I am all for ending federal funding for them though.) Otherwise desperate women can put themselves into harm's way by seeking alternative means of having the abortion and put their own lives at risk. The best way to avoid abortions (other than not having sex in the first place), is to teach the woman of other means where she can have the baby and put their priority on the baby, and not herself.

The United States Constitution was meant for a moral people.

This was given at a BYU address back in 1978 and is practically prophetic about these days:
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-more-determined-discipleship?lang=eng

Prop 8 was overturned by the Supreme Court because marriage is a legal issue. Same thing with abortion. Politicians raise it every election year but the issue is really a matter for the courts.

----------

You are going to have to do better than that to try to recover from your previous less-than-smart post. Wow. You need more education. Perhaps you should just listen and print off posts for a while until you are ready to participate.

Winter I am right. I don't know how else to say it to you. Go read the Hobbes decision and the Love case. You're just some guy holding court in your head. I you think you're right but you're not.

 

[Winter_123]

Winter I am right. I don't know how else to say it to you. Go read the Hobbes decision and the Love case. You're just some guy holding court in your head. I you think you're right but you're not.

No. My assertion is that whatever people believe to be "established" is only a point in time. This is a fact. Even your assumption that decisions must be reached based on constitution, statute, or case law is not as established as you think. You could have some clown president implement change just based on some executive order he pulled out of his arse.


Your assertion that there can never be polygamy because of "established" law, customs or whatever is crapola. When progressives and hip multicultural types get on some trip anything is possible. And there are nuts on the supreme court waiting to be be nutty if a case arises.

 

[AgentOrange]

No. My assertion is that whatever people believe to be "established" is only a point in time. This is a fact. Even your assumption that decisions must be reached based on constitution, statute, or case law is not as established as you think. You could have some clown president implement change just based on some executive order he pulled out of his arse.


Your assertion that there can never be polygamy because of "established" law, customs or whatever is crapola. When progressives and hip multicultural types get on some trip anything is possible. And there are nuts on the supreme court waiting to be be nutty if a case arises.

Nope. The established law or legal standard, for the beagles, applies to the extension of marriage rights to gay couples. You really should read the scotus decisions before you discuss any further.

 

[Winter_123]

Nope. The established law or legal standard, for the beagles, applies to the extension of marriage rights to gay couples. You really should read the scotus decisions before you discuss any further.

Fail.

It is a given that when major changes occur such as abortion rights so called or gay marriage rights so-called that some judges (usually due to political and societal changes - a factor that you reject) go back and re-interpret so-called established law. A hundred years ago "established law and custom" said for thousands of years that both were a no-no.

When political and societal pressures reach a certain critical mass, suddenly "established law" actually said something different all these years. You are kind of slow on this point.

I will leave it there, as the discussion is getting boring and you can't fix kool-aid.

 

[AgentOrange]

Fail.

It is a given that when major changes occur such as abortion rights so called or gay marriage rights so-called that some judges (usually due to political and societal changes - a factor that you reject) go back and re-interpret so-called established law. A hundred years ago "established law and custom" said for thousands of years that both were a no-no.

When political and societal pressures reach a certain critical mass, suddenly "established law" actually said something different all these years. You are kind of slow on this point.

I will leave it there, as the discussion is getting boring and you can't fix kool-aid.

No. The joining of two people in a marriage is established law. This law was extended to interracial couples, then to same sex couple because it doesn't upset the apple cart of laws rights and protections associated with marriage.

Polygamy does upset many laws rights and protections associated with marriage.

And you're right this conversation is boring because in no way does same sex marriage lead to sharia law or polygamy. This is some right wing nonsense, as usual.

 

[Winter_123]

And you're right this conversation is boring because in no way does same sex marriage lead to sharia law or polygamy. .

I have no idea which of your several arses you pulled that out of. If you are arguing against that then you are winning some argument that only exists due to some kool aid driven thought. Put the shiite down. Gawd. Really pathetic.