Keith Oberman's eloquent message to Mormons?

[_Droopy]

Wasn't that Lucifer's argument?

No. You're confusing freedom with licensure. True freedom exists only under conditions of lawful boundaries to freedom and a knowledge of the consequences of the use of freedom. Freedom is always limited by the consequences of its application. Once we have chosen, we cannot unchoose. God's granting of agency to us does not grant us a license to sin, destroy our souls, or the souls of others. It grants us the possibility of using our freedom in this way, conditioned and predicated upon the principle that freedom is inextricably linked with the effects of its use.

Satan's argument was to eliminate agency (a socialist plan of salvation). My argument is for agency and aginst sin; against an unlawful and destructive use of agency. I'm all for Gay marriage, and as long as Mr. Cruso and Mr. Friday are alone on their island to practice it, the consequences fall only upon them. The attempt to impose a culture wide redefinition of marriage, family, and gender by the force of law, however, is a use of agency by some that imposes a great a burden upon me, my children, and grandchildren, who will be faced with ever steeper and more imposing challenges to the appropriate use of their own agency because the social and cultural supports for those appropriate choices will have been essentially removed.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Satan's argument was to eliminate agency (a socialist plan of salvation).

Removing one's right to choose is the elimination of agency.

I'm all for Gay marriage, and as long as Mr. Cruso and Mr. Friday are alone on their island to practice it, the consequences fall only upon them.

Their marital bedroom is their "island," so stay out of it.

The attempt to impose a culture wide redefinition of marriage, family, and gender by the force of law, however, is a use of agency by some that imposes a great a burden upon me, my children, and grandchildren, who will be faced with ever steeper and more imposing challenges to the appropriate use of their own agency because the social and cultural supports for those appropriate choices will have been essentially removed.

But it was the "law" (i.e., the gov't) that decided to get involved in the marriage business and grant rights and benefits based on marital status. As long as the gov't does that, it CANNOT discriminate among groups of people (not unless they have a damn good reason). That's the constitutional form of gov't our Founding Fathers established.

[_Droopy]

Removing one's right to choose is the elimination of agency.

Its no such thing. Imposing clear restrictions on your ability to drink and drive, drop bowling balls of overpasses, commit armed robbery, produce and distribute pornography, produce and distribute child pornography, sell cocaine to minors, or anything else, creates only a formal legal framework. Your agency is still as intact and active as it was the day before the law was passed, and you may do as you please.

Even when you cannot do as you please regardless, your agency is still operative. You would do as you please if your could. That is agency, even if it cannot be actualized (which is one reason its so important we have it and be subject to alternative forces in mortality enticing us to one decision or another).

And, yet again, show me any such "right to choose" in the Constitution. I will not accept Loving v Virginia because I refuse to accept case law that cannot be supported by serious Constitutional law. I also do not support rights creation. Human beings cannot create "rights" for other human beings. They are unalienable, and preexist the state and the law itself, or they do not exist at all.

Their marital bedroom is their "island," so stay out of it.

Try to be serious Rollo. It will help the discussion immensely.

But it was the "law" (i.e., the gov't) that decided to get involved in the marriage business and grant rights and benefits based on marital status.

And for good reason: heterosexual marriage and family are the foundation of a free, civil society, and should be encouraged by the state at every turn. Homosexual marriage has no viable social purpose beyond the sexual liaison and psychological/emotional attachments of the people involved, and is void of procreational possibility. It is a sexual fetish raised to level of a deviant subculture having its own alien norms, values, and sexual mores, and none of them are compatible with the maintenance of a free, civil society because the moral norms of the homosexual culture are disastrously destructive to individual human beings, as any cursory examination of what the homosexual lifestyle is actually like for most homosexuals and the grossly disproportionate social pathology that exists in that culture.

Keep on teaching your Korihorist philosophy here Rollo, its fascinating to see the scriptures fulfilled.

[_Mister Scratch]

And for good reason: heterosexual marriage and family are the foundation of a free, civil society, and should be encouraged by the state at every turn.

This is nonsense, of course. I would be interested in hearing Droopy explain how the heterosexual 2nd, 3rd, or 4th heterosexual marriage of, say, a 78 year old man to a 75 year old woman is somehow the "foundation of a free, civil society."

Homosexual marriage has no viable social purpose beyond the sexual liaison and psychological/emotional attachments of the people involved, and is void of procreational possibility.

Procreation and marriage have nothing to do with each other---beyond "emotional attachments" and culturally imposed beliefs.

[_Brackite]

Here are the Los Angeles County's Election Results for Proposition 8, and for U.S. President:

Los Angeles County Results For Proposition 8:

Yes: --- 1,457,470 ---- 50.3%
No: ---- 1,441,158 ---- 49.7%

( Source And Link: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/19.htm )

U.S. President:
Los Angeles County Results:

Barack Obama (Democrat): --- 2,027,143 ---- 68.7%
John McCain (Rep): ------ 870,472 ---- 29.5%

( Source And Link: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/19.htm )

Even though that Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obam was able to Win huge, by more than 39 Percentage Points over Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, within Liberal Los Angeles County, Proposition 8 even still managed to Win barely, Within Liberal Los Angeles County, CA.

How does the Liberal Keith Olbermann explain that one?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Droppy,

And for good reason: heterosexual marriage and family are the foundation of a free, civil society, and should be encouraged by the state at every turn. Homosexual marriage has no viable social purpose beyond the sexual liaison and psychological/emotional attachments of the people involved, and is void of procreational possibility. It is a sexual fetish raised to level of a deviant subculture having its own alien norms, values, and sexual mores, and none of them are compatible with the maintenance of a free, civil society because the moral norms of the homosexual culture are disastrously destructive to individual human beings, as any cursory examination of what the homosexual lifestyle is actually like for most homosexuals and the grossly disproportionate social pathology that exists in that culture.

What nonsense Droopy... seriously. You keep repeating this mantra (homosexuals are evil and destroying society, yada, yada, yada), but have yet to demonstrate how a gay or lesbian couple is actually harming anyone.

My lesbian neighbors have a lovely family; three children, two of whom were adopted from a horrible orphanage in Siberia. These fabulous women are providing a beautiful home and lots and lots of love for these darling children, who otherwise would be eating a piece of bread and water three times a day, without anyone who cared about them.

They aren't hurting ANYONE. They are making an incredible contribution to our world. No one in my neighborhood has suddenly turned homosexual. No one has stopped going to church because of this family. No one has all of a sudden adopted "alien norms, values, and sexual mores."

I mean really... your assertion is silliness.

This couple is not part of some "deviant subculture" that is destroying our community. Rather, they are part of our neighborhood, participate in our parties, hang out at the pool. They are a lot of fun and no one cares about what they do in the bedroom, just like we don't care about what YOU do in your bedroom.

You seem to have some convoluted, made up, idea of what homosexuality is, as if an adult couple's private sexual behavior is going to destroy humanity and make humankind turn evil... or something. (sigh)

The reality is YOUR private sexual choices do not impact anyone but your partner (and you). We don't care about your sexual behavior so why do you care about the sexual behavior of others who may not share your particular choices?

I'm pretty sure if everyone discussed all their private sexual behavior in the open, there would be all sorts of things with which some are uncomfortable... so what? No one cares.

I do not get the obsession with what a couple does in their bedroom and why some people think whatever it is is going to destroy the world.

And, there are a lot of couples who cannot procreate. So? Who cares? There are couples who can't or don't have sex. So?

A family is more than the sex life of a couple. A family is about love, concern, support, providing the necessities of life, taking care of each other, and being there for one another.

In civilized society we don't define a heterosexual couple by what they do in their bedroom, we don't even ask. So why the obsession with a homosexual couple? Why does anyone care?


~td~

One more thing... I do understand that some think those with SSA are going to Hell (or some lower Kingdom), but that is an individual consequence and has nothing to do with humanity.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Removing one's right to choose is the elimination of agency.

Its no such thing. Imposing clear restrictions on your ability to drink and drive, drop bowling balls of overpasses, commit armed robbery, produce and distribute pornography, produce and distribute child pornography, sell cocaine to minors, or anything else, creates only a formal legal framework. Your agency is still as intact and active as it was the day before the law was passed, and you may do as you please.

Not one these constitutes a fundamental freedom like the right to marry. Keep trying ....

I will not accept Loving v Virginia because I refuse to accept case law that cannot be supported by serious Constitutional law.

Then you reject the very system set up by the Founding Fathers in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, you anarchist.

I also do not support rights creation. Human beings cannot create "rights" for other human beings. They are unalienable, and preexist the state and the law itself, or they do not exist at all.

And equal protection under law is one of those inalienable rights -- in fact, the FIRST inalienable right quoted in the Declaration of Independence is that "all men are created equal." Yet you deny that very right to those you hate and fear. Again, it is clear you reject the very system set up by the Founding Fathers.

And for good reason: heterosexual marriage and family are the foundation of a free, civil society, and should be encouraged by the state at every turn.

If you are an example of the kind of heterosexual who is "the foundation of a free, civil society," then I fear greatly for our country. There can be no "free, civil society" so long as bigotry is allowed to rule. And that's the very reason we have equal protection under law. To overcome folks just like you.

Homosexual marriage has no viable social purpose beyond the sexual liaison and psychological/emotional attachments of the people involved, and is void of procreational possibility.

Plenty of heterosexual unions/marriages are devoid "of procreational possibility," and offer nothing more than "sexual liaison and psychological/emotional attachments of the people involved." These marriages are sanctioned by the gov't, just as homosexual marriages should be.

It is a sexual fetish raised to level of a deviant subculture having its own alien norms, values, and sexual mores, and none of them are compatible with the maintenance of a free, civil society because the moral norms of the homosexual culture are disastrously destructive to individual human beings, as any cursory examination of what the homosexual lifestyle is actually like for most homosexuals and the grossly disproportionate social pathology that exists in that culture.

There can be only one response to this diatribe: You're an idiot.

Keep on teaching your Korihorist philosophy here Rollo, its fascinating to see the scriptures fulfilled.

Keep on following Lucifer's plan, Loran -- definitely a sign we are in the end of days.

[_Brackite]

...

[_Danna]

Ray posted this back on page 1. I think some of the points made in this letter are relevant to LDS attempts to dictate the behaviour of non-mormon homosexuals.

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by "wise men" whom God raised up for this "very purpose," and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended "for the rights and protection" of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is "not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church's deep and historic concern with man's free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223]join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God....

"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state."

President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224]chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

The position taken here by the FP is that discrimination within the context of religion should not impact on civil rights.

So why take a different stance on SSM? Mormons have every right to marry who they want in the temple. It is their little club, they get to make the rules. If anybody doesn't like it, they can vote with their feet.

The effort to manipulate public opinion in order to impose their discrimination on non-members is crazy on the face of it. For all droopy's arguments, they are irrelevant to wider society. Afterall, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

[_Brackite]

Number of Votes that Senator Barack Obama got, Within the State of California:

7,612,126.


Number of Votes that No On Proposition 8 got, within California:

5,914,646.


Number of Votes that Yes On Proposition 8 got, within California:

6,430,105.


Number of approximate Mormons (LDS Members), Within the State of California:

749,490.



Sources and Links:


http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/59.htm

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/ma ... 000008.htm

And:

http://www.newsroom.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom ... california