Welcome to the 13th century, NC!

[Master Dan]

The LDS Church official position is to be neutral on any or all politics go to http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng to read however they do get concerned about preservation of the family but in fact official church policy and at local levels it is always stressed to not be negative judgemental or hateful to any other church or people including lgbt as a policy or for its members to say or do hatefull things to others.

IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANY CHURCH GET IT FROM A MEMBER
Political Neutrality
The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.
The Church does not:

• Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
• Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
• Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

The Church does:

• Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
• Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
• Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.

Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
In the United States, where nearly half of the world’s Latter-day Saints live, it is customary for the Church at each national election to issue a letter to be read to all congregations encouraging its members to vote, but emphasizing the Church’s neutrality in partisan political matters.
Relationships With Government
Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.
Modern scriptural references to the role of government: Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134
Political Party Participation of Presiding Church Officers
In addition, the First Presidency letter issued on 16 June 2011 is a re-statement and further clarification of the Church’s position on political neutrality at the start of another political season. It applies to all full-time General Authorities, general auxiliary leaders, mission presidents and temple presidents. The policy is not directed to full-time Church employees.
"General Authorities and general officers of the Church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns, including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions.
"Since they are not full-time officers of the Church, Area Seventies, stake presidents and bishops are free to contribute, serve on campaign committees and otherwise support candidates of their choice with the understanding they:

• Are acting solely as individual citizens in the democratic process and that they do not imply, or allow others to infer, that their actions or support in any way represent the church.
• Will not use Church stationery, Church-generated address lists or email systems or Church buildings for political promotional purposes.
• Will not engage in fundraising or other types of campaigning focused on fellow Church members under their ecclesiastical supervision."

 

[ballen0351]

So, if we all voted to force anyone over 40% body fat to quit their jobs and move into a... let's call it a "camp," you'd be okay with it? I mean, if we had enough votes. If the people of Washington State were 90% in favor of sending fat people to labor camp, you think that's cool? No problem? Fat people should have run a better PR campaign?

I wouldnt be ok or think its cool but it is what it is. If you got enough people to go along withbit it could happen. If you got enough people you could bring back slavery if they really wanted to. When you allow people to have to power to shape there own govt thats what happens. 90% of the time you will get good and fair laws the other 10% you get things like the patroit act, TSA screeners, gay marriage laws. Im not really sure why you dont get that. The people are free to vote for whatever they want and if you get enough votes bad things can happen. We could elect the next Hitler or Stalin here if they got enough votes. You all act schocked that peopke would vote this way. We have voted for things like this since the start of our history. Over time they work themselves out in the end.

There is no scenario where state endorsed (and legally enforced) discrimination is good. It's draconian. We've done it before and it's a shameful chapter in our Country's history. We did it to the Japanese citizens during WWII and it was shameful. And we have obviously learned nothing from it.

That was the very incident that pops in to my head which is why people never shock me with the things we do in this country. You all blame rwligion or uneducation or whatever you want but in the end it comes down to people dont care about other people. They look out for me myself and I and if they are not gay they dont care. Look no farther then basic self defense class for woman when they teach dont yell help people will ignore you yell fire and people will come to see the fire thwn the crowd will hopefully run off the attacker. People just dont care.

On the subject of weed, there is a movement to make it legal, and that will pass or it won't. But there is no movement to prohibit people who listen to Reggae music and have dreadlocks from voting, driving on public streets or enjoying any of the basic government services that we take for granted. It would, IMO, be absurd to think that we would single out people with dreadlocks for some specific, state enforced discrimination.

Do you see the distinction?

I see the distinction i never said there wasnt one. I said people will vote for what they want no matter how i feel 3 states away.

 

[oftheherd1]

This is also why civil rights should not be subject to the whim of the majority. We had it wrong with slavery and interracial marriage. We've got it wrong here as well.

To the whim of which minority should it be left? And which majority had it wrong regarding slavery?

 

[Steve]

I wouldnt be ok or think its cool but it is what it is. If you got enough people to go along withbit it could happen. If you got enough people you could bring back slavery if they really wanted to. When you allow people to have to power to shape there own govt thats what happens. 90% of the time you will get good and fair laws the other 10% you get things like the patroit act, TSA screeners, gay marriage laws. Im not really sure why you dont get that. The people are free to vote for whatever they want and if you get enough votes bad things can happen. We could elect the next Hitler or Stalin here if they got enough votes. You all act schocked that peopke would vote this way. We have voted for things like this since the start of our history. Over time they work themselves out in the end.

That was the very incident that pops in to my head which is why people never shock me with the things we do in this country. You all blame rwligion or uneducation or whatever you want but in the end it comes down to people dont care about other people. They look out for me myself and I and if they are not gay they dont care. Look no farther then basic self defense class for woman when they teach dont yell help people will ignore you yell fire and people will come to see the fire thwn the crowd will hopefully run off the attacker. People just dont care.



I see the distinction i never said there wasnt one. I said people will vote for what they want no matter how i feel 3 states away.

I'm not blaming anyone, just for the record. I know that this comment might not have been directed at me, but it's important to me that this be clear.

But just so I understand. Are you saying that you agree with me? Because that's the way your post reads to me. It sounds like you're essentially throwing up your hands and saying, "It's not right, but... what're you gonna do?"

If so, I'd recommend that we start by thinking on a macro level, educating each other on subjects about which we are knowledgable, and hopefully helping to keep each other from making bad decisions. While I'm still staunchly in support of reasonable regulation of guns in our country, how I define "reasonable" has been tempered significantly by the discussions I've had with informed people on this forum. IN other words, my position on gun control has evolved as I have learned more about the issues at hand.

I would hope that if (or when) the time comes for you to vote on "gay marriage" that you will at least consider the larger implications and vote accordingly, realizing that you aren't JUST voting against gay marriage. You are voting FOR state endorsed discrimination.

 

[ballen0351]

I'm not blaming anyone. But just so I understand. Are you saying that you agree with me? Because that's the way your post reads to me. It sounds like you're essentially throwing up your hands and saying, "It's not right, but... what're you gonna do?"

I never disagreed with you. I said its the people of NC choice to run there state how they want. You in Washington and myself in MD have nobsay in the affairs of the state of NC their state their rules. If the people decided that cops were no longer allowed to be married and theybhad enough votes to pass it id have 4 choices move, deal with it, stop being a cop or fight to get it changed. Same choices the pro gay marriage people have.

 

[billc]

Here is a list of observations on gays in America...

They can live with whoever they want, same sex or different. Check.

They can have sex with whoever they want, same sex, different sex, one or more of each. Check.

They can buy or sell their property to whoever they want. Check.

They can leave their property to whoever they want. Check.

They can live wherever they want. Check. ( if someone denies them an apartment then you run into the argument of private property rights, libetarians could speak up here.)

They can visit in hospitals. Check ( not always the case but now is because people are becoming accustomed to same sex relationships)

They can eat wherever they want, even lunch counters. Check.

If they are attacked by a criminal they can declare special status under hate crime laws. Check.

They are shown, positively, on every television show or movie they are in, and are on almost every show now made. Check.

They can create offspring through advanced medical procedures with same sex partners or a combination of same sex and different sex assistants. Check.

They can adopt offspring in this country or in foreign countries and in some cases recieve preferential treatment. Check.

Same sex couples make more income on average than different sex married couples. Check.

(unfortunately, since they do make so much more money, they are targeted by every add agency and marketing firm so that would be one disadvantage to being gay in american.)

They can hold high and low public office and will one day be the president (if he isn't one already...). Check.

They can run businesses, own businesses, sell business to whoever they want whenever they want. Check.

They can own property, sell property. Check.

They can vote in every election, every where in the country for whoever they want without poll taxes, reading tests or violent intimidation. Check.

Soooo. If this is the state of being gay in America today, it would hardly be the same as African Americans who were owned by Democrats, murdered by democrats and prohibited from owning property, voting and all the things that make up real discrimination.

Now, if religous beliefs are not always understood by people not of that faith, for instance the reverence shown to a huge meat animal that was killed and skinned without permission, but should be respected, why are christians exempt from this. For example, you can lawyer up the bible all you want and say Paul said this, Jesus did or didn't do that, but in the end it is the individual's faith that should be respected? Shouldn't it? After all, the faith of christians today does not condone selling daughters into slavery, owning slaves, killing homosexuals or killing non believers. Hmmmm...there seems to be another religion that has a very vocal minority that actually does all of those things....but I can't seem to remember which religion that would be....and if I did remember the name I would probably be called something with "phobe," at the end of it. Since christians hold in their faith that "marriage," is between a man and a woman, you can disagree with that, but since it is "faith," on their part, and the check list above indicates that they really aren't hurting anyone, shouldn't that also be respected? Even if you don't agree with it. I mean, if you get teary eyed over the death of a big meat animal because of its religous/faith/spiritual aspect, don't you owe christians a little respect as well?

Now if all of that check list above is correct or in the process of being correct, is the lack of the term "marriage," really the same as the way African slaves were treated by the Europeans and Africans who sent them to this country? I mean look at that list. It hardly says that gays are being shipped off to socialist gulags like they actually do in, say, cuba. ( You can imagine the socialist gulag of your choice either the German model or the marxist model, whichever your heated imaginings lean you toward.)

Now as Ballen has pointed out, people can vote for whatever they want for whatever reason they choose, one person, one vote? Perhaps some people feel that tampering with the basic building blocks of society, "the family," as they see it, should be done with great care and great caution and vote that way. Perhaps they "think," that social change like that should not be done lightly, especially when they "think," there might be harm done to the society. Perhaps the fact that hollywood, the land of drug addicts, sex addicts, broken families, destroyed lives and pedophiles and people who ignore pedophiles (think roman polanski, or the guy who did Clown house or the guy from Ferris Buellers day off...) are some of the biggest supporters of gay marriage gives some people, of a religious bent, pause. I mean, who doesn't think that Lindsey Lohan isn't the wisest person in the world to make society shifting decisions.

Soooo...I guess that might put things into perspective. As a side note, I do think sadly about the death of the big meat animal. I don't like it when people don't respect the religious/spiritual/faith beliefs of other people.

I stand ready to take fire.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So, a gay couple can adopt a child? My wife and I can.

When 1 gay partner dies, who gets the house? If I die, my wife gets the house.

When 1 gay partner is in the hospital, can their partner visit them? My wife can visit me.


"Well, it depends on..." doesn't cut it here. See, that little word "married" gives my wife and I somewhere around 1,000 rights and privileges denied by discriminatory laws to those in a same-sex relationship.

These include tax benefits, social security benefits, visitation, property, and more.

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...ts-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples


You tell me this discrimination and inequality is correct.
I'll tell you to try it for yourself and see how it tastes.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...well, I'm all for civil unions and right now a legal will will take care of the rest. Adoption, seems to happen a lot. Visiting in the hospital, not the same issue it used to be because same sex couples are more common and are flexing their desires more. Still, hardly call it discrimination on the same level as that experienced by African Americans in democrat controlled states.

 

[billc]

Here is some info. on gay adoption...

http://adoption.about.com/od/adopting/tp/gayadoptionbasics.htm

 

[ballen0351]

So, a gay couple can adopt a child? My wife and I can.

They can in some states not in others.

When 1 gay partner dies, who gets the house? If I die, my wife gets the house.

They can leave their house to anyone they want. Yu dont need to be married to buy a house together. When my wofe and i bought our first house we were not married.

When 1 gay partner is in the hospital, can their partner visit them? My wife can visit me.

Sure they can why cant they?

"Well, it depends on..." doesn't cut it here. See, that little word "married" gives my wife and I somewhere around 1,000 rights and privileges denied by discriminatory laws to those in a same-sex relationship.

These include tax benefits, social security benefits, visitation, property, and more.

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/...ts-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples


You tell me this discrimination and inequality is correct.
I'll tell you to try it for yourself and see how it tastes.

Does not matter if its discrimination its what people voted for. Like it or not its the law in NC. I dont like alot of laws but they are laws none the less.

 

[Steve]

Couple of things. First, if I get married in Washington, I am conferred all of the rights and benefits of that marriage in all 50 states. If I'm gay and get married in Washington, it's hit and miss elsewhere.

Gay partners can be barred by "next of kin" from visiting at the hospital. If my gay son is dying in the hospital and i've never approved of his "lifestyle," I can shut his partner out completely. I couldn't, however, shut his wife out. She'd be his next of kin.

Tell yourselves whatever you need to in order to sleep well at night, but that doesn't make it true.

 

[MSTCNC]

you tell me this discrimination and inequality is correct.
I'll tell you to try it for yourself and see how it tastes.

100% agreed!!!

 

[granfire]

They can in some states not in others.


They can leave their house to anyone they want. Yu dont need to be married to buy a house together. When my wofe and i bought our first house we were not married.

Sure they can why cant they?

Does not matter if its discrimination its what people voted for. Like it or not its the law in NC. I dont like alot of laws but they are laws none the less.

Well, when the answer is 'it depends' you know the rest.

In some states, not in others - discrimination.
Well, not to go into the finer parts of enheritence and stuff, should you die without a will your wife will get all. Without a will, just because.
If one partner in a gay union dies, his/her stuff does not automatically go to the partner, but to the family, blood, kin etc.
You know, when you had the house before you got married, never changed the name on the deed. you croak and she gets it. Just because of that one signature. No extra steps required.

Well, in some places (most hospitals) ICU units restrict access to family members only: Spouse, kids, then the rest. No marriage license, no luck.
Also, your spouse gets to make all medical decisions for you should you be unable to.
No such luck for the gay pair, not without costly extra paperwork of living will and so forth.


And just because it has been voted on (I am sure there has to be some signing there off before it can go into affect) does not make it constitutional.
Like inter racial marriages were illegal in the south not too long ago. Matter of fact it was up for a vote in Alabama maybe ten years back. Interesting, because a) I have seen plenty of such marriages and their off spring b) it's obviously clearly discriminatory, thus unconstitutional to keep that law on the books, why even put it up for a vote?

And just moving is very impractical in many cases.

On the other hand, what do you do when you are in a 'civil union' and oopsie, the state votes on prohibiting such institution.
All over sudden you are stripped of whatever few rights you had.

I know you are not against the union/marriage thing itself, but maybe too much of the 'well, it's the law' persuasion?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If 2 gay people marry, how does that:
1- effect you?
2- change the value of your own marriage?
3- effect your relationship with your god(s)?


To me, the answer is it don't.

Hell, some guy rogering a canoe while calling himself the Queen of Sheba has zero effect on me and my wife.
Other than it might make us both giggle.

So, it's all fine.

Just like any 2 people who wish to commit to each other.

namaste.

 

[ballen0351]

If 2 gay people marry, how does that:
1- effect you?
2- change the value of your own marriage?
3- effect your relationship with your god(s)?


To me, the answer is it don't.

Hell, some guy rogering a canoe while calling himself the Queen of Sheba has zero effect on me and my wife.
Other than it might make us both giggle.

So, it's all fine.

Just like any 2 people who wish to commit to each other.

namaste.

It does not have to effect me or anyone else im still free to vote however i want for whatever i want. Just like the people in NC could have just as easily voted down the ban. They didnt. You can call it discrimination, homophobia, crazy, mean, uneducated it does not matter there is no IQ test to cast a vote. I can go in and draw pictures with my ballot if i want nothing you can do will changwe it. If its a bad law it will work its way thru the courts and get fixed.

 

[ballen0351]

So instead of crying about a law that does not effect you what are you going to do to fix this great social injustice?

 

[billc]

Well, for some people, their religious beliefs say that it isn't a good idea. Sooo...take it up with their version of God. Once he lets them know its okay, they will fall in line. So as to affecting them, yes it does, since it is part of their religious/faith/spiritual tradition and in truth, no real harm is done that can't be corrected by convincing more people to vote the other way or to get civil unions passed allowing all those things you want without going after some other persons, personal religious beliefs. Once again, that check list above (post #166) pretty much shows that discrimination isn't the same thing people here are trying to make it out to be. If African Americans in the democratic south could have had that list, the civil rights movement would have been a lot slower as well.

 

[billc]

I think this column really has the key to the whole thing...

http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2012/05/11/laughing-all-the-way-to-the-white-house/

Barack Obama is in favor of gay marriage. He’s in favor of it in the same way he supports closing Gitmo: It’s a nice thing to be in favor of, he’s just not going todo anything about it.
And that’s fine, really, in the case of gay marriage. His opinion of what to do about it (nearly) matches my own. Gay marriage is a totally new thing whose time may be coming, but let the states — let the people — come to grips with it at their own rates. Thirty years from now everyone, even folks in North Carolina, will wonder what all the fuss was about. And that’s as it should be.

 

[granfire]

It does not have to effect me or anyone else im still free to vote however i want for whatever i want. Just like the people in NC could have just as easily voted down the ban. They didnt. You can call it discrimination, homophobia, crazy, mean, uneducated it does not matter there is no IQ test to cast a vote. I can go in and draw pictures with my ballot if i want nothing you can do will changwe it. If its a bad law it will work its way thru the courts and get fixed.

Ah, sorry...not buying that.

It wasn't too long ago in terms of history, within the last 10-20 years, when the great state of Alabama let the public vote on whether or not to take the mixed marriage ban off the books. The public voted to not kick it.

Now.
According to your logic all interracial couples would now not be called married anymore.

You think that is gonna happen? Here or any place else?

Just because the people voted on it does not make it right. Or constitutional.

(and frankly I don't know why they spend the money to put it on the ballot...)

 

[Big Don]

If I, as a heterosexual, don't want my family involved as next of kin, I am free to get a power of attorney and let whoever I choose have that power.
This is true for close to 999 of those supposed 1000 rights that gays are said to be denied. Be responsible for your life.

In other words, if you did not care enough about your life to act with due diligence, you aren't oppressed, you are stupid and/or lazy.