BYU student gives her reason for voting Obama.

[George Alabaster]

As sad as it may be, Hannah the Mormon who is voting for Obama evidently has missed seminary, regular scripture study and the official stance of the LDS Church on gay marriage. The Lord has specifically said in the scriptures that homosexuality is an abomination and it was punishable by DEATH. The Lord's law supercedes man's law. Example: it is not against the law to commit adultery however it is against God's law and was punishable by death!

God doesn't change HIS laws to fit the times and seasons of man. Neither does he 'excuse Himself' for those laws. It is up to man to conform and obey God's laws. Therein lies the problem. I know for the liberals out there this is terribly unfair! Well, get used to it.
When you (those who support homosexuality and other perverted lifestyes) meet with God at the Judgement Bar, feel free to argue your way out of that one. Betcha the Lord isn't gonna change His views or His laws no matter how 'UNFAIR' it seems. Meanwhile Hanna, keep drinking the Obama kool-aid @-) and you and/or your children will be in shackles with the Constitution completely gone before you know it. Honestly if you are attending BYU and still have those idealogical views I doubt there is any hope for you.

blondenblueeyed,

God gives us the freedom to sin. Would you go against God's will and take away that freedom? I thought this forum was against big government nanny state regulation. What is more intrusive than the government telling you whom you can marry? They can deal with the consequences in the afterlife.

It seems to me you are the ones who want to throw away the Constitution. After all, we have the Bible, why duplicate things unnecessarily?

George

[shadow]

God gives us the freedom to sin. Would you go against God's will and take away that freedom?
George

God doesn't give permission to sin, he doesn't give a right to sin only a choice to sin yet He encourages us, even commands us NOT to sin. God doesn't recognize gay marriage so why should the state? Why go against God's will and legalize it when clearly He doesn't? The law in most states right now doesn't stop the sin of homosexuality however a law recognizing it is simply the state saying screw God's laws, we validate gay marriage. The state has no right to validate a sin.

[George Alabaster]

God doesn't give permission to sin, he doesn't give a right to sin only a choice to sin yet He encourages us, even commands us NOT to sin. God doesn't recognize gay marriage so why should the state? Why go against God's will and legalize it when clearly He doesn't? The law in most states right now doesn't stop the sin of homosexuality however a law recognizing it is simply the state saying screw God's laws, we validate gay marriage. The state has no right to validate a sin.

shadow,
Because the state has nothing to do with any particular religion. And marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. The proof of this last statement is that if you want a divorce, you go to a lawyer, not a priest (although some may do that too as is their right). I know we might like the state to reflect our religious ideals, but that wouldn't be fair to everyone that embraces a different religion or none at all. The USA was established to ensure religious freedom, many people lose sight of that. If the state allows gay marriage, there will not be MORE sinning going on, it's just that the existing sinners will get reasonable rights from the secular government, just like us heterosexuals enjoy.

George

[Zkulptor]

The only agenda that gays have in my experience is to be treated fairly.

George

Riiight.... #-o

[Zkulptor]

If the state allows gay marriage, there will not be MORE sinning going on, it's just that the existing sinners will get reasonable rights from the secular government, just like us heterosexuals enjoy.

George

Whoa!!!, so now man revokes what God has established just because man passes a law? So automatically it stops being a sin because it is legal by Government standards? nope sorry.

[Fiannan]

...Okay just for the sake of argument let's say Bill wanted to marry these gals -- all of them! Are we hating men and women with high libido by saying they have to choose which to marry?

Fiannan,
Historically, we Mormons would allow that! But I don't think polygamy is even in the national spotlight. If it were, I would be willing to consider their arguments. I do think it gets into some tricky legal questions about estate planning and custody. If I were fundamentally opposed to polygamy, then yes, I do think that would mean I hate polygamists.

George

Sound stance.

Now as for somewhat contradictory stances -- she is libertarian in her view of allowing anyone to marry, but she is totalitarian in regards to the whole issue of big government (health care, etc.). This is as big a problem with the left as it is with the right. Right wing people want less government unless someone wants to do something they consider sinful while left wingers want everyone to do as they will but that the government can take the fruit of someone else's labor and give it to someone who did not work.

I doubt we will ever get past the contradictions. However, we should never loose sight of what the founders of this nation had the wisdom to try to limit -- power! The Bill of Rights and division of government was made to check the fact that power-hungry people will try to get power and use it to dominate others. Heck, the D & C makes it clear that even men with the priesthood will be tempted to use their power to dominate those under them so how can we trust those in government who are basically narcissists without a true personality except the persona they use to compel us to love them?

[Fiannan]

If the state allows gay marriage, there will not be MORE sinning going on, it's just that the existing sinners will get reasonable rights from the secular government, just like us heterosexuals enjoy.

George

Whoa!!!, so now man revokes what God has established just because man passes a law? So automatically it stops being a sin because it is legal by Government standards? nope sorry.

I think what he means is that with or without laws gay people will still be doing gay things, just that if the law lets them marry they will have equal rights in regards to the law.

My only problem with this is that it mainstreams homosexuality even more than has already been done. I think we need to have a basic idea of what marriage really is all about, the creation of stability in regards to reproduction...yes, that is what it really boils down to. Biologically one can make a very good case for polygamy on these grounds and, in a way, one could even make a case for lesbian marriage but even then the lesbians need a man to get things going. Correct me if I am wrong but don't lesbian couples have the same rights in the USA in regards to any children they conceive together as long as they fill out a contract?

[shadow]

shadow,
Because the state has nothing to do with any particular religion. And marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. The proof of this last statement is that if you want a divorce, you go to a lawyer, not a priest (although some may do that too as is their right). I know we might like the state to reflect our religious ideals, but that wouldn't be fair to everyone that embraces a different religion or none at all. The USA was established to ensure religious freedom, many people lose sight of that. If the state allows gay marriage, there will not be MORE sinning going on, it's just that the existing sinners will get reasonable rights from the secular government, just like us heterosexuals enjoy.

George

Laws need to encourage morality as per my quote from Elder Faust above, no matter the religion.
The Constitution is for a righteous people, not an unrighteous people. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't take the sin away, I agree, but what it does do is validate it in the minds of society so the sin becomes blurred and accepted. In God's eyes it will always be sin, but society may not be steered in God's direction. Legalizing the sin only separates us further from God. Yes, some sins are unfortunately already legal but that doesn't mean we should legalize everything.

[George Alabaster]

Sound stance.

Now as for somewhat contradictory stances -- she is libertarian in her view of allowing anyone to marry, but she is totalitarian in regards to the whole issue of big government (health care, etc.). This is as big a problem with the left as it is with the right. Right wing people want less government unless someone wants to do something they consider sinful while left wingers want everyone to do as they will but that the government can take the fruit of someone else's labor and give it to someone who did not work.

I doubt we will ever get past the contradictions. However, we should never loose sight of what the founders of this nation had the wisdom to try to limit -- power! The Bill of Rights and division of government was made to check the fact that power-hungry people will try to get power and use it to dominate others. Heck, the D & C makes it clear that even men with the priesthood will be tempted to use their power to dominate those under them so how can we trust those in government who are basically narcissists without a true personality except the persona they use to compel us to love them?

Fiannan,

Not everyone agrees with the concept of sin, but there is no one who will not need health care at some point in their lives.

George

[jonesde]

If the state allows gay marriage, there will not be MORE sinning going on, it's just that the existing sinners will get reasonable rights from the secular government, just like us heterosexuals enjoy.

George

Whoa!!!, so now man revokes what God has established just because man passes a law? So automatically it stops being a sin because it is legal by Government standards? nope sorry.

Not that I agree with everything George A. has to say, but where did he say ANYTHING about "it stops being a sin"? In fact, he very clearly acknowledge that it IS a sin.

I don't know if you confused this intentionally or on accident, but where I come from we call that a straw man argument, and it is a pernicious form of dishonesty.

[jonesde]

shadow,
Because the state has nothing to do with any particular religion. And marriage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. The proof of this last statement is that if you want a divorce, you go to a lawyer, not a priest (although some may do that too as is their right). I know we might like the state to reflect our religious ideals, but that wouldn't be fair to everyone that embraces a different religion or none at all. The USA was established to ensure religious freedom, many people lose sight of that. If the state allows gay marriage, there will not be MORE sinning going on, it's just that the existing sinners will get reasonable rights from the secular government, just like us heterosexuals enjoy.

George

Laws need to encourage morality as per my quote from Elder Faust above, no matter the religion.
The Constitution is for a righteous people, not an unrighteous people. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't take the sin away, I agree, but what it does do is validate it in the minds of society so the sin becomes blurred and accepted. In God's eyes it will always be sin, but society may not be steered in God's direction. Legalizing the sin only separates us further from God. Yes, some sins are unfortunately already legal but that doesn't mean we should legalize everything.

President Faust said NO such thing. I think you're referring to this quote: "adults need to understand, and our children should be taught, that private choices are not private; they all have public consequences."

That says the actions have public consequences, it does NOT say that all private choices justify violence against other people, and I doubt President Faust would appreciate it being used to justify the sin of aggressive force.

[shadow]

That says the actions have public consequences, it does NOT say that all private choices justify violence against other people, and I doubt President Faust would appreciate it being used to justify the sin of aggressive force.

There's your dumb strawman argument. Nobody advocated violence.

[jonesde]

That says the actions have public consequences, it does NOT say that all private choices justify violence against other people, and I doubt President Faust would appreciate it being used to justify the sin of aggressive force.

There's your dumb strawman argument. Nobody advocated violence.

Sure you did, maybe you just didn't realize it. What do you think law is? Or, when government performs violent acts does that not count?

[shadow]

That says the actions have public consequences, it does NOT say that all private choices justify violence against other people, and I doubt President Faust would appreciate it being used to justify the sin of aggressive force.

There's your dumb strawman argument. Nobody advocated violence.

Sure you did, maybe you just didn't realize it. What do you think law is? Or, when government performs violent acts does that not count?

You need help my friend! So you advocate no laws since the enforcement of any law could result in violence?


Here's what Elder Faust said-
"We need to love our children enough to teach them that laws, policies, and public programs with a moral and ethical basis are necessary for the preservation of a peaceful, productive, compassionate, and happy society. Without the qualities and characteristics of integrity, honesty, commitment, loyalty, respect for others, fidelity, and virtue, a free and open society cannot endure." -James E. Faust

[George Alabaster]

Not that I agree with everything George A. has to say, but where did he say ANYTHING about "it stops being a sin"? In fact, he very clearly acknowledge that it IS a sin.

I don't know if you confused this intentionally or on accident, but where I come from we call that a straw man argument, and it is a pernicious form of dishonesty.

jonesde,

Thank you for your support.
Blasphemy is also a sin, should we outlaw free speech? Worshiping a god other than God is a sin, should we make Hinduism illegal? Coveting your neighbor's wife is a sin, should adultery be illegal? Just some thoughts on the subject.

George

[jonesde]

There's your dumb strawman argument. Nobody advocated violence.

Sure you did, maybe you just didn't realize it. What do you think law is? Or, when government performs violent acts does that not count?

You need help my friend! So you advocate no laws since the enforcement of any law could result in violence?


Here's what Elder Faust said-
"We need to love our children enough to teach them that laws, policies, and public programs with a moral and ethical basis are necessary for the preservation of a peaceful, productive, compassionate, and happy society. Without the qualities and characteristics of integrity, honesty, commitment, loyalty, respect for others, fidelity, and virtue, a free and open society cannot endure." -James E. Faust

I think we need laws to counter aggression against people and property. Those should be enforced on others regardless of their consent.

Everything else should be done within voluntary covenant societies, just like the people of Israel and the Nephites at various points in the Book of Mormon... yes they had strict laws about morality, but people entered into them voluntarily.

This is the basis of morals and ethics. Violence without cause is immoral, and I think that is what Elder Faust is referring to.

[jonesde]

Not that I agree with everything George A. has to say, but where did he say ANYTHING about "it stops being a sin"? In fact, he very clearly acknowledge that it IS a sin.

I don't know if you confused this intentionally or on accident, but where I come from we call that a straw man argument, and it is a pernicious form of dishonesty.

jonesde,

Thank you for your support.
Blasphemy is also a sin, should we outlaw free speech? Worshiping a god other than God is a sin, should we make Hinduism illegal? Coveting your neighbor's wife is a sin, should adultery be illegal? Just some thoughts on the subject.

George

Yes, if we made every sin against the law then EVERYONE would be in jail. Why? Because we are all sinners. Only those who are prideful and hypocritical enough to believe they have no sin would support justify violence against others just because it is a sin (ie even though it does not involve aggression that only force can counter).

This just goes back to the mote and the beam teaching of Christ. It's sad that people try to use the sins of others to justify their own violent sins. IMO this is the great abomination of our day, not homosexuality but aggression. Yes, homosexuality is a sin as is any sexuality outside of marriage, but compared to the more universal embrace of aggression it has a minor effect on our society.

[shadow]

I think we need laws to counter aggression against people and property. Those should be enforced on others regardless of their consent.

Everything else should be done within voluntary covenant societies, just like the people of Israel and the Nephites at various points in the Book of Mormon... yes they had strict laws about morality, but people entered into them voluntarily.

This is the basis of morals and ethics. Violence without cause is immoral, and I think that is what Elder Faust is referring to.

What Elder Faust said is that just because a person decides to so something immoral on his or her own doesn't mean that others are not affected- "private choices are not private; they all have public consequences." So just because two gay people decide to be a couple in the privacy of their own home (let alone married with the permission of the state) doesn't mean that society isn't affected. See?
And because there is a moral law in most states that say same sex couples aren't recognized as being married the only violence is when same sex couples or those who support them fight the government or those who support those laws. Do you remember why the San Diego Temple had to be shut down a few yrs ago?? Think long and hard about who the violent people were! Clue: It wasn't the government or the state Yes, it was the pro gay marriage folks! They were the violent ones.

Anything else?

[shadow]

Blasphemy is also a sin, should we outlaw free speech? Worshiping a god other than God is a sin, should we make Hinduism illegal? Coveting your neighbor's wife is a sin, should adultery be illegal? Just some thoughts on the subject.

George

Should we encourage blasphemy by offering a tax break to whoever swears?
Just a thought on the subject.

[jonesde]

I think we need laws to counter aggression against people and property. Those should be enforced on others regardless of their consent.

Everything else should be done within voluntary covenant societies, just like the people of Israel and the Nephites at various points in the Book of Mormon... yes they had strict laws about morality, but people entered into them voluntarily.

This is the basis of morals and ethics. Violence without cause is immoral, and I think that is what Elder Faust is referring to.

What Elder Faust said is that just because a person decides to so something immoral on his or her own doesn't mean that others are not affected- "private choices are not private; they all have public consequences." So just because two gay people decide to be a couple in the privacy of their own home (let alone married with the permission of the state) doesn't mean that society isn't affected. See?
And because there is a moral law in most states that say same sex couples aren't recognized as being married the only violence is when same sex couples or those who support them fight the government or those who support those laws. Do you remember why the San Diego Temple had to be shut down a few yrs ago?? Think long and hard about who the violent people were! Clue: It wasn't the government or the state Yes, it was the pro gay marriage folks! They were the violent ones.

Anything else?

Was that action bad because the people were gay, or because they were violating private property rights?

I already made it clear that I don't think government should be involved in marriage in the first place. Contract law could probably do a better job of protecting children than current corrupted marriage laws anyway.

As for the violence side of things, you were referring more generally to law and sin so I was commenting on that. I didn't mean to imply that you in any way said that homosexuality should be against the law. Or, is that what you were saying?

[George Alabaster]

Should we encourage blasphemy by offering a tax break to whoever swears?
Just a thought on the subject.

shadow,
It would have to involve interstate commerce somehow. But if religious speech was being sold as media without tax, then I would suggest we should extend the same break to, for instance, Louis C.K.. )

George

[shadow]

Was that action bad because the people were gay, or because they were violating private property rights?
They were violating property rights. jones is the one who brought violence into the equation. I was simply making the point that it was the pro gay people who were violent, not the state. His point was proven wrong.

"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." -Found in the Bible (proverbs 14:34)

"A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education."
Theodore Roosevelt

[Fiannan]

[blondenblueeyed]

As sad as it may be, Hannah the Mormon who is voting for Obama evidently has missed seminary, regular scripture study and the official stance of the LDS Church on gay marriage. The Lord has specifically said in the scriptures that homosexuality is an abomination and it was punishable by DEATH. The Lord's law supercedes man's law. Example: it is not against the law to commit adultery however it is against God's law and was punishable by death!

God doesn't change HIS laws to fit the times and seasons of man. Neither does he 'excuse Himself' for those laws. It is up to man to conform and obey God's laws. Therein lies the problem. I know for the liberals out there this is terribly unfair! Well, get used to it.
When you (those who support homosexuality and other perverted lifestyes) meet with God at the Judgement Bar, feel free to argue your way out of that one. Betcha the Lord isn't gonna change His views or His laws no matter how 'UNFAIR' it seems. Meanwhile Hanna, keep drinking the Obama kool-aid @-) and you and/or your children will be in shackles with the Constitution completely gone before you know it. Honestly if you are attending BYU and still have those idealogical views I doubt there is any hope for you.

George, I said nothing about taking away freedom to choose...free agency. You are hyperventilating for nothing. If Hannah wants to embrace the concept of homosexuality in marriage that is her perogative. That choice unfortunately has consequences...consequences for the rest of the Americans in this country like electing a liberal and Marxist for a president. And I might add a president among other things who believes in late term abortion and IF the baby happens to survive the abortion Obama wholeheartedly believes in simply allowing that baby to DIE! That is yet a discussion for another day.

There is a reason the LDS Church was involved in Proposition 8 in California regarding two sodomites getting married (sorry but let's call a spade a spade). The reason MORALITY. Hannah seemed to have missed that point when she made her video. She is NOT in line with the LDS Gospel Doctrine on the subject, nor is she in agreement with the Lord's law on the matter. She can think, feel, act, any way she wants...but it doesn't mean her actions or thoughts are either appropriate or in agreement with the Lord. Betcha she will leave the LDS faith because of it too. I give her 2 years at the most. There again is will be HER choice.

[karend77]

While the BYU coed gives her misguided reasons for Obama, here is an interesting video on why women not voting for obama (sorry dont know how to do other than by a link)

http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/ ... eakup.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;