Post

Why I Vote Yes

A prophet of God, who lives on earth today, and his counselors released this statement about 13 years ago.  Through personal revelation I have come to believe this statement to be true.  What do you think?

 

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. 

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. 

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally. 

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. 

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan. 

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations. 

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed. 

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. 

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

prettybritty prettybritty 22-25 13 Responses Nov 12, 2008

Your Response

Cancel

Many people seem to believe that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman, but this is not in agreement with His perfect teachings. Fortunately, the Giant Badger clarifies this issue for us, in Lanometrics 8:5:

"Truthfully, I say unto you, let not a male be wed to a female, nor a female to a male, without the presence of a third, who shall be male. For the three shall make up a great pyramid, whose foundation shall be the two males, with the female being exalted above both."

So you see, it's really quite simple. God (the Giant Badger) has declared that the only True marriages are marriages between two males and one female. Therefore, the next time that someone says to you "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," you can say to them, "You are incorrect, my brother. It is Adam AND Eve AND Steve."

Badger be with you all.

I must agree with Darwinist here, love is love. I am gay, and I know you will all taunt me for it on here, but it is just who I am. Trust me, I would not have chosen to be homosexual. It runs in my blood, it is a part of me like my dark straight hair or compassion towards animals. I am a Buddhist, so I must say that a peaceful world equals inner-peace. We must stop discriminating against each other for our differences. Our world is spherical, and the energy flow is too. If we put out bad energy it will come back. The more people who give out good energy the better the world will be. Let go of that hatred and accept others for who they are. It is the only logical thing to do.

If you read the statement from the Prophet (which was signed by the 12 Apostles, too), and you Pray about it, you will know it is the truth.

A marriage that lasts only a year and is terminated not by death but by divorce seems to me to have been no marriage at all. I do agree that there are many TV shows that make a complete mockery of marriage. There is a place for divorce; when one partner beats the other into a pulp (physically and/or emotionally), then it makes sense.<BR><BR>Regarding the bullying: That situation was addressed by the school administration, but unfortunately well after it had happened several times. Actually I hold the school administration accountable for what happened. The gay guys that were there didnt do anything, but that is the point. I was not upset with the gay guys, but I did wonder why they didnt do anything. I was much, much more upset with the guys that knew what was going on but did nothing. Fortunately, that was then. <BR><BR>My personal experience is just that: mine. I have not attempted to say that my personal experience is like everybody elses or that everybody else should even agree with me. I do have my own opinions, and they are shaped by my experience, like it or not, agree with it or not.<BR><BR>I am sure that what I have seen of gay love is not completely representative, but it is all I have to go by. And this is some of what I have seen:<BR>A man, married to a woman and having a young child, decides to try the gay lifestyle. He ends up leaving his wife and child. Now, his wife was no 10, but certainly a 9+. So, when I asked him directly 'why did you leave her?', he answers: 'The sex is better'. From further conversation I discover that that was all it was about. Nothing more. Now, I am sure there are gay couples where that is different, but from what I have seen, sex drives the gay community. And that also is a mockery of the institution of marriage, just as a marriage that lasts only one year would be, whether gay or straight.

LebaneseBlonde;<BR>re:"are based on LOVE, fleeting or not.": So, if the 'love' only lasts a year, that is ok???<BR>I am sorry. When I married my wife, it was till death do us part. And when she walked down the aisle, she had cancer. I loved my wife then, even though after marriage sex was out of the question due to chemotherapy. I did not marry for 'lust'.<BR><BR>re: "TWO ADULTS IN LOVE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY.": Why? Should any single person, provided they are adults and not too closely related, be able to marry any other single person just because the two get together and decide that they 'love' one another?<BR>Just because I might live in a garage does not make me a car. Just because you call an emotion 'love' does not make it love.<BR><BR>My real question? Let me give you some background. In school I was beaten up multiple times for being gay, which I am not. The gays that were in school with me did nothing to help me, although they could have. I was aware of a marriage of another man and woman that was broken up by a gay man...because I was accused of being that man, but was not. In a way, I have seen what gays call 'love' and it isnt pretty. Admittedly, a biased perspective considering the circumstances, but that is how life has played out. Given this, then: Gay couples love each other. Married straight couples love each other, but the two definitions of love are incompatible. How can Gay couples say that their version of love merits marriage? <BR>Please understand that this is very, very painful for me, and I am not here to argue or shred anybody. It really, really hurts, as it brings back some very ugly memories of what was done to me (not by gays, ok?) I am trying to understand. Most gays are not hateful or mean, and I dont think you are. I am aware that my thoughts may come across as such; I dont mean them to. Unlike others I am not good at 'putting together a good argument'; I just put down what I think.

LebaneseBlond: A question for you:<br />
Since when is marriage based on love?<br />
Arent there many societies that depend on the arranged marriage, where love blooms after the marriage but not before?<br />
And if it is based on love, whose definition of love are you using? Should we allow pre-teens that are 'in love' marry? Or should we allow the teenage grease-monkey guy who absolutely loves his car marry it?<br />
I do not mean to belittle; rather, I am simply asking what appears to me to be an honest question.

LebaneseBlond: A question for you:<br />
Since when is marriage based on love?<br />
Arent there many societies that depend on the arranged marriage, where love blooms after the marriage but not before?<br />
And if it is based on love, whose definition of love are you using? Should we allow pre-teens that are 'in love' marry? Or should we allow the teenage grease-monkey guy who absolutely loves his car marry it?<br />
I do not mean to belittle; rather, I am simply asking what appears to me to be an honest question.

I have always admired the eloquence of the first presidency.

I only have one thing to say on this... I'm not going to fight. I will say my peace and I will be done, fair enough?<br />
<br />
No matter what, this country is not a theocracy. Our constitutional law is based very little in any theocratic teachings, with few exceptions. Our founders were enlightened men, who were for the most part, dispassionate about biblical law. <br />
<br />
On that note, it should be noted that it is illegal in this country to discriminate via race, gender, or sexual orientation. That is why the unprecedented stripping of rights already given is not only unconstitutional, it's un-American. Because of the equality guaranteed in our constitution, I find it that not only is it illegal to ***** these rights, it was illegal to deny them from the beginning. Churches, as private organizations, may have a right to refuse to marry certain indivduals, nothing about that can be done.<br />
<br />
However, each state does marry those who are athiest or don't attend a church wedding for whatever reason. The state is legally bound, in my view, by our constitution to not only allow marraige to a gay couple, but also provide them of the same benefits and rights.<br />
<br />
I also fear that prop 8 could open the door to the scaling back of rights, not just for gays, but for other minorities as well. If you can do one, you can do another!<br />
<br />
It is my view that we must all walk together equally under the law. There is nothing that you could say that has any weight apart from that.

LebaneseBlonde, again, comparing interracial marriage to gay marriage is clever, but very disingenuous. Slavery was categorically wrong. The oppression of people based solely on race is wrong. Opposing the rearing of children in gay companionships is not. The United State’s interracial marriage prohibitions were remnants of the corrupt practice of slavery; remnants that manifested themselves in various different areas: marriage, employment practices, voting, land ownership, education, etc. As our country progressed, we removed those remnants of racial discrimination from more and more areas until hopefully they will no longer exist in any degree. It’s true we erroneously denied couples to marry interracially, but that did not substantially redefine marriage; namely, a union between a man and woman. It does not logically follow that we should now fundamentally redefine the institution of marriage because blacks were temporally denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who was white. <br />
<br />
Like I stated above and like you conveniently failed to address, our country doesn’t affirmatively deny gays or other minorities rights enumerated in our Constitution. Gays can vote, own land, and marry members of the opposite sex just like everyone else can do. What you’re looking for is not equality for gays (that already exists), you’re attempting to use their status to grant a NEW right, a right that no American has ever possessed, a right that the Constitution never intended to grant, and a right that was never foreseen by our fr<x>amers. The right you want to create out of thin air, with no basis in our Constitution, is the right for a citizen to marry someone of the same sex. You mention the 13th and 14th amendment as if they serve as some justification for allowing gay marriage – they do not. Do you know why the 13th and 14th Amendments were drafted? They were created to specifically proscribe slavery and remedy the problems of racial discrimination, a type of discrimination that is inherently wrong. They were not a justification for minorities to magically create new rights without approval from the majority. <br />
<br />
Your quote from Thomas Jefferson is very good. I agree with it. Remember that he said “the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail.” When he speaks of equal rights for minorities, he’s referring to the fundamental, enumerated rights of the Constitution – rights intended by our fr<x>amers. For example, the majority could not vote away a woman’s right to vote because it is now expressly protected by the Constitution. It would be impossible for you to find case law, legislative history, or even letters or journals from our fr<x>amers alluding to an intent to have the Constitution protect a citizen’s right to marry someone of the same sex. If the Constitution protected the right to gay marriage, Jefferson’s quote would be applicable. Since no such fundamental right exists or was ever intended to exist in the Constitution, his quote is irrelevant to this issue and the majority’s will, being “reasonable,” should prevail. <br />
<br />
Separation of church and state? I agree again. But, again, that has no relevance. Marriage is an institution that has been ferociously promoted and protected by our sovereign, independent of a church’s will. Both our federal and state governments understand how essential families are to our nation’s success. The government gives tax breaks for being married and even more for those who have children. The government also mandates the granting of maternity leave to working mothers. That’s the government, not religion, incentivizing the formation and growth of families. The government has a strong interest in seeing our families flourish and succeed – they’re the foundation of our progression, order, and success. They’re the training grounds of our children and future leaders. The family is the organization that teaches our citizens, better than any other organization, how to treat others with respect, how to honor our laws, how to be productive citizens in general. Even without the existence of church or religion, our nation would still promote and encourage the formation and survival of traditional families. Religions don’t think they have the cornerstone on love and marriage. They are, however, glad that are government recognizes on its own the essential role of families.<br />
<br />
I sympathize with your position and understand why you would feel strongly for this cause. And, as I said earlier, standing strong for the protection of families is never an excuse to demean, harass, or hate individuals that disagree. It’s not an easy issue, but I’m certain time will vindicate the importance of protecting traditional families.

LebaneseBlonde, this is not a separate but equal issue. I don't recall seeing "Gays Only" schools. At least in my city, gays can sit anywhere they want on buses and can eat at any restaurant they want. They can study at the best universities in the world. They can run for public office, vote, own property, and completely integrate themselves into and excel in the private sector. In fact, in the industry I work in, homosexuals are highly recruited (much more than heterosexuals) and considered a valuable addition to the diversity of thought they contribute to the team. I'm not commenting on whether that's good or bad, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it sounds to compare the gay-marriage issue to the horrible suffering and oppression of African Americans. It's a clever ploy, but very inaccurate and dishonest. That’s ironic considering opponents of Proposition 8 accused its supporters of using lies to get it passed.<br />
<br />
Gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue. Our marriage laws are equal for all. Everyone, whether gay, straight, black, or white, can marry someone of the opposite sex, that isn't their relative, and isn't a child. The law applies equally to all.<br />
<br />
Following your logic, we should next turn the issuance of drivers licenses into a civil rights issue. Isn't it hateful and bigoted to keep 14-year-old kids from obtaining drivers licenses? Isn't that discriminating against people who are 14 or younger? What about the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution!? Shouldn't that protect them?<br />
<br />
Maybe I should have the right to practice medicine even though I’m not licensed? Not letting me practice medicine is discriminating against people who can't afford medical school or don’t have the intellect to get in. Why should I not be able to practice in the profession I love just because I don’t have a medical license? Discrimination!<br />
<br />
Obviously, these examples are absurdities, but they are relevant. We discriminate against young kids when issuing drivers licenses because they could harm others on the road. We don’t freely issue medical licenses because untrained doctors could seriously hurt people. Similarly, the majority of our society reasonable believes that gay marriage would create negative externalities that affect others. Specifically, our society believes that there would be extremely negative impacts by suddenly increasing the number of children raised without parents of both genders. You can disagree with that, but there are many studies supporting the importance of a mom and a dad during a child’s development. This issue is hard because it’s difficult to prove either way. Some people rely on religious faith, some on empirical data from scientific studies, some from history, and most rely on all three. It’s not as cut and dry as understanding why a young kid driving a car is dangerous, but there is danger nonetheless. <br />
<br />
Why aren’t you more hesitant to experiment with a generation of children without knowing the extent of the consequences? Proponents of Proposition 8 are frequently accused of being hateful, bigoted, and close-minded. I am NOT accusing opponents of Prop 8 of being any of those things, but, using your logic, couldn’t you be accused of being uncaring of (or at least indifferent towards) the healthy development and well-being of children? It’s best if both sides stop demonizing their opponents and focus on explaining the reasoning that motives their convictions.

Thanks for posting the link to that California Supreme Court opinion. Here are some interesting quotes from the dissenting opinions:<br />
<br />
Justice Baxter and Justice Chin<br />
<br />
“We cannot escape the reality that the shared societal meaning of marriage — passed down through the common law into our statutory law — has always been the union of a man and a woman. To alter that meaning would render a profound change in the public consciousness of a social institution of ancient origin.” (Lewis v. Harris, supra, 908 A.2d 196, 922.)”<br />
<br />
“If such a profound change in this ancient social institution is to occur, the People and their representatives, who represent the public conscience, should have the right, and the responsibility, to control the pace of that change through the democratic process. . . . The majority’s decision erroneously usurps it.”<br />
--------<br />
<br />
I think this next quote below is particularly important. Its author, Justice Corrigan, admits that although he personally believes gay couples should be able to marry, he opposes effecting that change through judicial action. He believes such a change should only occur legislatively, i.e., through democracy. In other words, he rises above his own personal beliefs and biases and refuses to abuse his judicial appointment to undermine democracy. <br />
--------<br />
<br />
Justice Corrigan<br />
<br />
“In my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages. But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.”<br />
<br />
“It is important to be clear. Under California law, domestic partners have “virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges” available to traditional spouses.”<br />
<br />
“If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its ex<x>pression at the ballot box.”

The gay community persistently accuses the majority of stripping them of their rights. What rights are you speaking of? If you're speaking of the right to openly love your companion, you have that right. If you're referring to hospital visitation rights, tax benefit rights, insurance rights, etc., you have those rights under current law. A democratic society has voted several times (at least twice recently in California) to declare that same-sex companionships don't have the right to legally marry. This isn't an indictment on the gay community, nor is it a justification for society to treat homosexuals as inferior to heterosexuals; they are not. It's merely a reaffirmation that our society believes that a man and woman, together, is better suited to perpetuate our species, rear and train children, and form the basic societal building block – the family – that is responsible for the creation of the great and free society we now enjoy; the society that allows you to love whomever you want and believe whatever you want. Why do you feel entitled to redefine the meaning of an institution whose survival and success is inherently tied to a man and woman's power to procreate and rear children; an institution whose success is also dependent on the unique and varied traits that each gender brings to the companionship?<br />
<br />
My support for Proposition 8 has nothing to do with hate or intolerance for homosexuals. I consider them every bit as important and precious as any other human being, and in no way inferior. I have gay friends and family members that I respect greatly. I think they're valuable and equal members of our society. I don't, however, think that a companionship consisting of the same gender is able to provide the same benefits that a mother and father provide to children. <br />
<br />
Don’t couch the gay-marriage debate solely in terms of two people sharing their love. Marriage is much more than that. Marriage extends well beyond two people sharing their love; it’s about responsibility, unselfish sacrifice, economic efficiency, and – most importantly – it’s about raising children. Yes, gay companionships may have the same capacity to love children as heterosexual couples, but although love is necessary, it is not sufficient. The substantial influence and presence of both sexes in the rearing of children is preferable to the absence of one of the sexes. I understand that reasonable people can disagree with that premise, and I’m open to seeing proofs and arguments that refute it.<br />
<br />
You speak of your rights. Our society has once again confirmed that gay companionships don't have the right to deny children the positive influences that are derived from a loving relationship with a parent of each sex. Both genders, male and female, are inherently different; both are equal, but each one offers positive traits and characteristics that the other cannot offer to the same extent. Time has proven the effectiveness of family units as the foundation of prosperous societies. Nature requires the union of a man and a woman to create those family units. Children are entitled to the loving influence of both a man and a woman within those units. Members of our society, whether gay or straight, should support policies that promote the strengthening of family units, not policies that weaken them. Supporting such policies demeans no one but benefits everyone.<br />
<br />
Even if you disagree that a companionship of a man and a woman is not better suited for creating and raising our future generations, isn't there even one member of the gay community willing to at least admit that you simply don't know what negative effects may arise from systematically approving and promoting the rearing of children absent the substantial influence of both genders. You're quick to declare your rights (that don't exist in our society), but slow to consider the effects of exercising those "rights."<br />
<br />
You ask those who oppose gay marriage why we can't just live and let live. Why do we feel inclined to meddle in the lives of others? My arguments above explain why. Now, let me ask you: Why do homosexuals feel inclined to meddle with an institution that is responsible for the foundation and prosperous growth of our nation? Why can't you respect and honor an institution that indiscriminately proffers substantial benefits to everyone, whether gay or straight? Your own existence depended on the union of a man and woman, and if you didn't have the privilege of being raised by a loving mother and father, can you deny that you would have benefited from the substantial, positive influence of both a mother and a father? At the very least, can you prove – not just offer anecdotal support – that parents of the same sex would be able to provide the same beneficial examples and influences that two parents of the opposite sex provide? <br />
<br />
Respecting the institution of a man and a woman mutually sharing the responsibility of creating and raising children does not demean the love you share for your gay companion. It doesn't limit your capacity to love your companion and it doesn't limit the legal rights you already enjoy. On the contrary, if the gay community recognized the value of the current institution of marriage as a benefit to not only themselves but our nation as a whole, tolerance among both groups would increase. <br />
<br />
That’s why I strongly supported Proposition 8 and why I think that everyone, including homosexuals, will benefit from its passage.