Supreme Court and Gay Marriage

Seriously - just talking about Polygamy makes me nervous. My wife is Italian. I love her - she's great - she's my angel face sunshine. That said - I cannot imagine being married to 2 angel face sunshines. Just 1 of them always gets her way - always. Can you imagine the length of my "Honey Do List" with 2 angel face sunshines collaborating on it? :bug: :lol:



Can you guess how much football I would get to watch in the Fall? That would be zero. Mongo out on Polygamy.

snoscythe wrote:

http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/



And so it begins.....

Under the keen legal reasoning of the majority in U.S. v. Windsor, all a plaintiff challenging marriage laws needs to argue is that "no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure." I think pedophilia is a hard case, but polygamy should be a slam-dunk, which will be awkward for all those in the church who have been so vocal about being glad it's gone. Not saying it's going to come back if/when it's legal, but the possibility is enough to make people nervous.

Jurisprudentially, polygamy appears to have a good shot at coming back. Doctrinally, though, I am of the belief that it is not an element required for salvation and we need not think it will be reinstated by the Church. If it were, then we would see its presence in the lands where it is legal to practice, yes? And if you think about it a little bit more, ( and this is just me speculating) we know that there are more baby boys born than girls. And tragically over the millennia babies die. There are more baby boys than baby girls who have passed on. If these infants are saved, then who are all these boys going to marry if we got polygamy in the eternities? I am no prophet or someone with a whole lot of insight but just pondering out loud

BoiseBYU wrote:

scott715 wrote:
http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/



And so it begins.....

Under the keen legal reasoning of the majority in U.S. v. Windsor, all a plaintiff challenging marriage laws needs to argue is that "no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure." I think pedophilia is a hard case, but polygamy should be a slam-dunk, which will be awkward for all those in the church who have been so vocal about being glad it's gone. Not saying it's going to come back if/when it's legal, but the possibility is enough to make people nervous.

Jurisprudentially, polygamy appears to have a good shot at coming back. Doctrinally, though, I am of the belief that it is not an element required for salvation and we need not think it will be reinstated by the Church. If it were, then we would see its presence in the lands where it is legal to practice, yes? And if you think about it a little bit more, ( and this is just me speculating) we know that there are more baby boys born than girls. And tragically over the millennia babies die. There are more baby boys than baby girls who have passed on. If these infants are saved, then who are all these boys going to marry if we got polygamy in the eternities? I am no prophet or someone with a whole lot of insight but just pondering out loud

I just think to the past few Priesthood Sessions in General Conference and how pointed the brethren have been that the men in the church of marrying age need to step it up and quit prolonging bachelorhood. Sex ratio at birth is one thing, the ratio of souls worthy for the celestial kingdom is unknown and more relevant in any discussion of polygamy. If/when it comes back, I'll deal with it then through prayer. Any discussion until that point is merely academic and people who adhere too strongly to one side or the other of that discussion may find their faith tested if it ever comes. It's a tough discussion as the commandments re: polygamy remain on the books (see D&C), but the authority to perform plural marriage in the temples has been taken back by those who hold the priesthood keys.

Only if the Lord commands it. I don't see the need for him to do so and it would hinder the missionary work. So I don't expect him to do so.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/



And so it begins.....

Under the keen legal reasoning of the majority in U.S. v. Windsor, all a plaintiff challenging marriage laws needs to argue is that "no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure." I think pedophilia is a hard case, but polygamy should be a slam-dunk, which will be awkward for all those in the church who have been so vocal about being glad it's gone. Not saying it's going to come back if/when it's legal, but the possibility is enough to make people nervous.

Jurisprudentially, polygamy appears to have a good shot at coming back. Doctrinally, though, I am of the belief that it is not an element required for salvation and we need not think it will be reinstated by the Church. If it were, then we would see its presence in the lands where it is legal to practice, yes? And if you think about it a little bit more, ( and this is just me speculating) we know that there are more baby boys born than girls. And tragically over the millennia babies die. There are more baby boys than baby girls who have passed on. If these infants are saved, then who are all these boys going to marry if we got polygamy in the eternities? I am no prophet or someone with a whole lot of insight but just pondering out loud

I just think to the past few Priesthood Sessions in General Conference and how pointed the brethren have been that the men in the church of marrying age need to step it up and quit prolonging bachelorhood. Sex ratio at birth is one thing, the ratio of souls worthy for the celestial kingdom is unknown and more relevant in any discussion of polygamy. If/when it comes back, I'll deal with it then through prayer. Any discussion until that point is merely academic and people who adhere too strongly to one side or the other of that discussion may find their faith tested if it ever comes. It's a tough discussion as the commandments re: polygamy remain on the books (see D&C), but the authority to perform plural marriage in the temples has been taken back by those who hold the priesthood keys.

Agreed. The only thing I hope for me is to stay on the side of the prophets and apostles.

I see Polygamy the same as withholding the priesthood from blacks. I don't know His reasons. I can ponder and study but it doesn't mean I will ever truly know while in this world. As for polygamy after this life, who knows, we went through the veil and so it is lost to us. But from my experience, there have been many more worthy women than men but that doesn't mean much. How many girl babies were murdered because of inheritance laws? And who is to say that there won't be changes in the Celestial kingdom? You hear some claim there is no progression in the afterlife but what does that mean exactly? Would a loving father forever condemn one of his children to a specific sphere? Would he judge all of existence based on the dicisions made in what amounts to less than a twinkling of an eye? I don't know the answers but I do know my brother and his girlfriend were sealed together even though they both passed away at the age of 19 and were never married. There are laws and mercies that I believe we have yet to learn about and that He has not yet deemed necessary for us to know at present. So in all these types of questions I just trust in Him that whatever directions He gives it will be for a higher purpose whether I understand it or not.

snoscythe wrote:

http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/



And so it begins.....

Under the keen legal reasoning of the majority in U.S. v. Windsor, all a plaintiff challenging marriage laws needs to argue is that "no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure." I think pedophilia is a hard case, but polygamy should be a slam-dunk, which will be awkward for all those in the church who have been so vocal about being glad it's gone. Not saying it's going to come back if/when it's legal, but the possibility is enough to make people nervous.

That's one of the reasons I love my wife so much. Even before we got married, the topic of polygamy came up. She basically said that if the prophet indicated that we were to begin polygamous marriages again that she would be obedient. I love her faith. I concur that it would probably be a hinderance to the work right now, and very hard lifestyle to live from what I have read. But the point is to be willing to submit yourself to whatever the Lord asks of you. And remember, as indicated in the BOM, polygamy is the exception rather than the rule...though the time for the exception could come again.

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



We knew this would happen.

scott715 wrote:
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/



We knew this would happen.

"He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”."



At least he's tolerant of other points of view :roll:

School districts in New England are already revising their policies addressing gender in the wake of Windsor. A school district in Boston threatened with a suit has relented and now allows the children to choose their gender, and the school must follow that choice--for restrooms, sports, etc. What's most troubling for me is the fact that educators are prohibited from telling parents if a boy tells them he chooses to be girl-gendered for school. I guess you find out when the kid brings home their basketball schedule?

Schmoe wrote:

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out/



We knew this would happen.

"He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because “I am still not getting what I want”."



At least he's tolerant of other points of view :roll:

I have read multiple rights activists say that there is nothing positive in being tolerant of traditional values and tolerance only applies to progressive ideas.

snoscythe wrote:
School districts in New England are already revising their policies addressing gender in the wake of Windsor. A school district in Boston threatened with a suit has relented and now allows the children to choose their gender, and the school must follow that choice--for restrooms, sports, etc. What's most troubling for me is the fact that educators are prohibited from telling parents if a boy tells them he chooses to be girl-gendered for school. I guess you find out when the kid brings home their basketball schedule?

:bug: People have just lost their minds.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

School districts in New England are already revising their policies addressing gender in the wake of Windsor. A school district in Boston threatened with a suit has relented and now allows the children to choose their gender, and the school must follow that choice--for restrooms, sports, etc. What's most troubling for me is the fact that educators are prohibited from telling parents if a boy tells them he chooses to be girl-gendered for school. I guess you find out when the kid brings home their basketball schedule?

:bug: People have just lost their minds.

+1x10. I read yesterday that the city of Seattle has banned the use of the words "citizen", and "brown bag."



You see, a "brown bag" sack lunch could be a racial slur, referring to someone's skin color. But then again, so could the term "snowball."



Also, "citizen" could be offensive ....... because ..... according to the Seattle City Council - not everyone that lives in Seattle is a U.S. citizen. Therefore, the term citizen is banned. Instead, the govt. and it's employees will use the term "resident."



Thank heaven. I'm relieved no one will be referring to that "citizen" carrying their "brown bag" to work for lunch. Wait - I might have offended someone. Some folks don't work.

:whistle:

Now, in the State of California educational system, children/students are whatever sex they choose to be as "expressed gender" replaces biological gender:



http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/14/no-restroom-for-the-virtuous" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

snoscythe wrote:
Now, in the State of California educational system, children/students are whatever sex they choose to be as "expressed gender" replaces biological gender:



http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/14/no-restroom-for-the-virtuous" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This means students may choose to use either the mens or the womens restrooms or lockerrooms on any given day, as well as try out for the mens or womens sports teams based on how they feel.



Also, if anyone feels uncomfortable showering with a member of the opposite sex then they are just a bigot.

hawkwing wrote:

Now, in the State of California educational system, children/students are whatever sex they choose to be as "expressed gender" replaces biological gender:



http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/14/no-restroom-for-the-virtuous" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This means students may choose to use either the mens or the womens restrooms or lockerrooms on any given day, as well as try out for the mens or womens sports teams based on how they feel.



Also, if anyone feels uncomfortable showering with a member of the opposite sex then they are just a bigot.

That's the thing--they're the same sex as whoever they shower with because they choose to be. You're the bigot for not seeing that and respecting their choice.



:sulk:

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
Now, in the State of California educational system, children/students are whatever sex they choose to be as "expressed gender" replaces biological gender:



http://spectator.org/archives/2013/08/14/no-restroom-for-the-virtuous" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This means students may choose to use either the mens or the womens restrooms or lockerrooms on any given day, as well as try out for the mens or womens sports teams based on how they feel.



Also, if anyone feels uncomfortable showering with a member of the opposite sex then they are just a bigot.

That's the thing--they're the same sex as whoever they shower with because they choose to be. You're the bigot for not seeing that and respecting their choice.



:sulk:

And we all know there's no valid reason to be tolerant of bigoted beliefs.