Defining Marriage Once And For All Is An Important Part of Our Democracy

As Found On: http://www.youtube.com/user/mm2kids

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-issues-s...

Declaration of the Family - http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

The churches official news press release about Proposition 8 and it's continued support to protect marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman.

Voters in California, once again, are being overturned by a judge. An appeal is sure to follow. Neither on any side will be happy no matter HOW it settles but will it ever settle?

As latter-day Saints and followers of Jesus Christ, I would continue to admonish you to treat this subject with respect and support whatever side of the issue that you choose to; but that you do so with respect one towards another. This was the message approved by the quorum of the 12 Apostles.

The debate is far from over.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life?GT1=43001

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints very nicely we have always taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. However, I have seen some other so-called "Christians" that truly do not show the same unconditional love as what we are taught at least in my own experience and from what I have seen when it comes to some other differences including homosexuality. That said, the argument that just because we love all unconditionally means we must accept their lifestyle is invalid.

By the very definition of the word "unconditionally" it means that we choose to accept them as brothers and sisters and fellow human beings despite philosophical, religious, political, personal differences.

I find it interesting they called it a "Gay Marriage Ban" while the correct word usage is California voted to clearly define what marriage is. Saying "Gay Marriage is Banned" is a play on words that folks on their side hope will somehow leave folks feeling like, "Well I don't want to ban anything..." but that's no the issue. Voters in California, once again, are being overturned by a judge who is deciding to give voters "The Middle Finger" in hopes that the voice of one man/woman can somehow speak for the 26 million California Citizens who all spent money on voting for this issue. An appeal is sure to follow. Neither on any side will be happy no matter how it settles but will it ever settle?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Proposition
• California
• Catholic
• Church
• Jesus
• Christ
• Latter-Day
• Saints
• LDS
• Family
• Traditional
• Man
• Woman
• Children
• Truth
• Seeker
• Light
• Respect
• Agree
• To
• Disagree

[soquirules]

i find the claim that gay marriage being legal in california will result in young people adopting a "confused" identity as "dictated by the state" faulty, at best. there was no such thing as gay marriage before, yet that didn't stop people from identifying as homosexuals.

legal gay marriage will result in: straight people continuing to be straight and getting married, gay people continuing to be gay WITH THE OPTION of getting married.

[pangeanet]

@soquirules you left out the biggest one of all....it will change the legal definition of marriage.

Yes this will create a situation in which teaching it will be mandated by the state and you can't say this isn't really what you want not just acceptance but to alter the definition of a word. Homosexuality has no way to procreate so the best way is to recruit. Best way to recruit is to indoctrinate children in public classrooms to children as young as eight. This is not about legal rights.

[pangeanet]

@soquirules not only that it will open up the doors to reverse discrimination forcing the will of the minority on the majority. Simply because any individual simply does not agree with the same sex lifestyle or a church continues to teach what has always been true that God does not condone same sex marriage. They will be sued for hate-speech by the extremists and no longer able to preach anything that doesn't endorse them. This goes against everything in the first amendment of the Constitution

[pangeanet]

This is very pure and well-done in its presentation. It is not about anything but standing up for our beliefs it should not be about the majority conforming to the minority where does it stop? Do we change the definition of everything to change to every single minority groups agenda?

[AdAequitas]

That said, the argument that just because we love all unconditionally means we must accept their lifestyle is invalid. By the very definition of the word "unconditionally" it means that we choose to accept them as brothers and sisters and fellow human beings despite philosophical, religious, political, personal differences.

[Trillidotia]

This is so ridiculous. Marriage is not taught in schools.

Do these people think that legal commitments between two gay people is worse than no legal commitment? That we should be in favor of casual relationships only? It doesn't make any sense!

[pangeanet]

@fearlessleader20101 so it is alright for you to have your own personal views but not for AdAequitas? If you are an American you should be ashamed every single one of us has our first amendment rights which include freedom of religion and freedom of speech. You would be the same as those who caused those to leave England originally due to religious persecution? It is true that history does repeat itself.

[skipskops]

@omiolo Since WHEN did you have to be married to have kids? Marriage is NOT essential for survival, what on earth are you on about? You must be a Christian, because surely no-one can be such a total idiot. Other than of course a totally deluded individual brain washed by mummy and daddys church. This is the problem with America, you have too many Christians, too many lies, and you're behind in the times.

Thank god for Europe....

[pangeanet]

@fearlessleader20101 They've already done that why not keep marriage out as well. Only teach biological functions of sex as you would expect in Biology and Physiology and not allow government to force lifestyle or teach lifestyle in the classroom. If is acceptable to not teach religion why allow the government to teach what marriage is? I say keep them both out of the classroom, sounds good to me.

[omiolo]

@badhousekeeper marriage has ALWAYS been defined between man and woman. Why should a small minority come along and REDEFINE something so central to the survival of society?

[pangeanet]

@badhousekeeper actually regardless of your religous beliefs marriage is between a man and a woman if for no other natural and basic reason than procreation of the species, it was as nature intended even should you so choose to view it through the so-called "scientific' view. We would have all died out thousands of years ago if this was not a basic truism. I love our system also yet it is not without it's flaws. Would you trust one man to decide your future? I would not and could not do that.