Added: Nov 18, 2008
From: ScuseMeJudge
Duration: 4:6
Many of us know the challenges and struggles of many people, many exceptional and good people who are attracted to the same gender. Such people should understand that Propostion 8 is not an assault upon them, but it is a measure seeking to keep the tyranny of the state off of free speech and off of the way we raise our children to our set of belief systems. False and rediculous are the arguments some are framing over this issue, as the Gay LDS man saying the Utah State Constitution change in 2004 defining marriage as between a man and a woman to be a "weapon" against him. What a shameful, dishonest framing of an argument. Without this protection in law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, we shall have the state coming in with brutal force upon religion and those with religious conviciton in short order. We've seen this already in many countries, even in Canada.This is not "anti-gay" as some would seek to get sympathy as if victims. This is pro-family, defending the freedom of speech and religious expression.Scripture speaks of times when anti-Christ's came among the people and spewed their anti-Christ doctrine of "thou shalt not judge me" for "there is no sin" and "there is not God." Such persons were crying for "toleranace" but were the most intolerant of any in their society, and soon illustrated themselves as such, as they began to presecute and murder those who did not believe according to their way. One group were the "order of the Nehors" and their Leader, Nehor, slew an old man with a sword in wrath, not having tolerance for the old, God fearing man. Nehor would not tolerate that old man's freedom of speech. Hypocrisy is often rampant with this "tolerance" cult in secularized America, for they do not tolerate religion, nor the opinions of religious people.The cult of intolerance runs rampant. Just today, a sign by my front door favoring Prop 8 was shredded and crammed into the mail slot. Again, there is a cry for "tolerance" but it is clear those crying for tolerance will give others none, and vandalize property in fiery objection. They are living out the anti-Christ doctrines mentioned in scripture. That spirit as it grows begins to murder, become it's own version of a militant Klu-Klux-Klan. This I believe we shall see in passage of time as militant homosexuals begin to show zero tolerance for anyone who will not give blessing to them in their lifestyle. I think they should be left to do as they please, and have a "live and let live" stance, but they are pushing into the arena now getting the state to enforce their tyranny.LDS people have temples that are sacred to them, where they perform marriages. Without this prop passing, they will be hit with lawsuits by gay couples demanding to be married within such temples, for they only want a "legal" marriage, and how can the church deny them of such? The courts will rule in their favor, and then the church would be persecuted and prosecuted as it was in the 19th century by the Federal Government, intent on destroying the church as an institution, seizing property, assets jailing leaders, etc.The honest gay person can see the viciousness of where this leads, and must concede the churches have no alternative but to emphatically support the proposition for their protection. To those who would say Judges would never rule, forcing a church to marry in it's sacred efifices those it wishes to reject, are smoking weed, and should consult some of the links on this page citing the criminal rulings of judges in California over the last few years:http://www.awakeandarise.org/article/marriage.htm
Channel: News
Tags: california church constitution election freedom gay god homosexual lds marriage mormon prop proposition religion speech
Rating: 3.95 (42 ratings) Views: 1588' favoriteCount='23 Comments: 25
divinegoddessartemis Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - 1:00 watch his head shaking and forced smiles. Looks like he does not quite believe this message of *tolerance* he is spewing.
dansemacabre17 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - It's wrong to encourage discrimination!
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - It's wrong, in many cases, to not discriminate. For example, passing a law to pay me like a firefighter, when I don't even work for the government would be wrong. You SHOULD discriminate between me and firefighters. Similarly, marriage (traditional definition) is necessary for civilizatoin to even exist. If the institution of domestic partnership vanished, society would suffer no consequence. Asserting they are the same asserts that civilization is irrelevant.
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Fact is, non-biological parents are proven to be more likely to abandon children or abuse them. So your facts are BS. I thought you far lefties were all into the evolution thing. What hte hell are you thinking? You don't believe evolutionary instincts would give more motivation to protect and take care of your biological offspring?
peekayb Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - A fairly good red herring argument, which of course is an example of an illogical argument. Discriminate has basically two meanings. You use the first meaning to create the red herring--draw someone away from the definition actually being discussed. Discrimination in a civil rights sense is acting on a derogatory prejudice. It is to discriminate against a person or group based on an arbitrary trait or supposed trait.
peekayb Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Evolution is based on reproduction--or the ability to reproduce. No species relies on marriage for that reproduction. So marriage is not necessary for civilization. Gay partnership may, however, depend on our concept of a civil society--civilization--a community. That implies that we care for all young, our disabled,etc, and as we develop as a society, we care for the minority in our group. We are, as a civilized, loving society, capable of caring for people different from ourselves. Please.
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Since we're discriminating against a THING, gay UNIONS, and not gay PEOPLE, I have to disagree. Gay unions do not have a mother and father. They do not have biological parents in the home. They don't have natural reproduction. So that thing is inferior to marriage. GOOD discrimination.
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - "marriage is not necessary for civilization"Not according to the California Supreme Court.Also, we are very civilized. WE compromoised and gave gay couples, despite their inferior union, the same rights as the superior marriage. But your entitlement issues and big, whiny baby attitudes have led you to believe you're like Black people, just because you're not allowed to redefine an important culturally sensitive word for EVERYONE.
Chilsuhn Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - The funny part is namordecai, it isn't just far lefties that understand evolution. All it takes is an education. Try some.Nowhere did I state non-biological parents are better.I am saying they certainly can be just as equally capable of parenting and give the same exact kind of love needed to raise a healthy human. One nice thing about children raised with queer parents is they are less likely to be brainwashed with the bigotry and intolerance you preach. May God protect our society from LDS
peekayb Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Odd, you would call my logical argument a whiny attitude. Interesting tactic that I don't usually deal with in person. Could you cite the court case in the Cal Supreme Court, I can't seem to find your reference. Can you explain your judgment of inferior and superior? What logic are you using?
peekayb Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Discrimination is not restricted to individuals. Discrimination can be classified as personal or institutional--against individuals because of a group they belong to, or against the group itself. Being against the union of people within a group is relying on the prejudice that they are "inferior",as you have clearly titled the basis of your prejudice against the unions that such people form. I know little of gay couples w/children, but many seem to have one biological parent in the home.
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Darwinism, which I've studied more than you, is comparable in strength to Intelligent Design, when it comes to explaining the variety of species. ID is much stronger with regard to the origin of life. Darwinism with regard to adaptive mutations is N/A. SOME microevolutionary changes can be observed, however. So it's not worthless. Also, prove I'm a bigot. Don't use your empty, worthless name calling here. And the LDS Church is awesome. The people, as a whole, and leadership amaze me. U kno zilch
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - You are a whiner. You think you're entitled, not to tolerance but to preferential treatment. Maynard v. Hill (1888) 125 U.S. 190, 211 has a few things to say. There are other rulings also that cover EXACTLY what I've been saying. Marriage is NECESSARY and invaluable to society, so it DESERVES preferential treatment. Gay unions must be tolerated, it seems but have strangely gotten all the rights of marriage. To call them the same takes away preference of real marriage. So YOU are taking from US.
peekayb Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Very interesting that you quote a case that involves legislative divorce, the definition and obligations of contract which would allow divorce and was also used to reinvent state miscegenation laws after the 14th amendment. From the case: (Marriage) is . . .a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life. If marriage is a basic building block to happiness & society, why restrict it?
peekayb Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - California decisions have described marriage as the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime. Numerous international human rights treaties recognize the rightto marry and to found a family as a basic human right. I have read more on your position and the assumptions of corruption to marriage--a tenuous premise at best. There are more people that fully accept homosexuality than there are actual homosexuals.
expectationsnegate Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - I have read many of your posts and see that we simply speak a different language, quite literally. Our definitions of civil rights issues and discourse, what constitutes the natural, our boundaries of the physical and metaphysical, what it means to be a Christian and how we form logical arguments are incompatible. People in our respective positions are at an impasse.
peekayb Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - True enough.
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - You restrict it to maintain its strength and purpose for existing. For example, we restrict who can be a firefighter as a paraplegic would not work out too well. Another example of good discrimination. Fortunately, paraplegics aren't dumb enough to try to pass legislation to allow them to become firefighters.
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - It's very simple; change the language and you get: thoughts-->feelings-->actions-->environment-->thoughts-->feelings... et cetera ad infinitum. Your opinion is irrelevant, especially since the vast majority of the U.S. insists that marriage maintain its definition so as to reinforce the beneficial behavior associated with it. If you had your own country, you could try radical social experiments on IT instead.
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Funny. I've always been able to define terms and discuss premises. THat's probably because I think things through very well and don't normally accept beliefs whose premises aren't well thought out. Einstein once said, if you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it. I am going to assume he was referring to situations like this.
flpete Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - this person states "vigorously promotes our beliefs" no you do not. you have freedom of speech like everyone but to push your beliefs unto others is wrong. keep it in your church, no where else.
expectationsnegate Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Well, you do a poor job on this issue. You are very emotional and use many poor definitions and ad hominid attacks.You must be tired of this discussion, though.I doubt Einstein's grandmother understood the general theory of relativity and my grandmother refused to understand when I dated a Japanese man. Prejudice perhaps?You can read the premise of Justice as fairness in John Rawls book, the Theory of Justice. You can look up "discrimination" in the OED and court cases--Bakke v. UCDavis?
namordecai Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - I took a philosophy of ethics class in college. I'm fine with my definition of justice. Why would I trust a lawyer, whose job it is to see things only one way and from one side? WHY? How about YOU study the philosophy of ethics, which is not adversarial and doesn't engender an adversarial approach? Also, it's ad hominem, not ad hominid. I will grant I toss in an occasional ad hominem attack, but that's not the crux of my argument. In fact, I do a fairly good job on this issue.
fanagot Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Wrongful behaviour is this bigotry being spouted and promoted by men who think they're following the Truth while denying the rights to another group of people. Let the people vote on on the legality of the Mormon sect, then they'll see what they are doing to other people.
Chilsuhn Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - You act as though a child brough up in a house with two loving gay parents somehow hurts the child. Valid studies have PROVEN this is not the case. A dear brother of mine, very straight, was brought up by two loving fathers and his mother and step dad in another house. He graduated top of his class and lives a very productive successful life with his wife and children. I grew up around more than one mormon family that put on airs that things were ok when abuse and adultry was running rampant.