African-American families have fared badly from the deterioration of the family & morals in society. I'm sorry the NAACP has chosen not to stand strong against further decline in traditional values. Clergy are influential people in the African-American community, & I'm grateful to those who have not gone along with Pres. Obama's alap at the face of traditional Judaeo-Christian morality & those who support it.
Posts: 12822 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, this has to do with the politics of black support, has a lot less to do with the NAACP as it is experienced by the local chapters. I'm quite sure that Democrats reached out to ask them to support it because Obama said he does. NAACP isn't monolithic though, and I doubt it will change more than a few minds about the issue.
Posts: 2176 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's yet another cop out to paint this as a civil rights issue in the minds of voters. Now what are those opposed to same-sex marriage supposed to do to counter their arguments about being denied their civil rights if the NAACP is backing the LGBT movement?
Such a clever move this is.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's yet another cop out to paint this as a civil rights issue in the minds of voters."
What a sad day for the distinguished history of the civil rights movement when a major organization that has fought in the trenches for true civil rights lets itself be manipulated this way.
Helaman 5:2. Yup. And Mosiah 29:26-27. And before them, Isaiah 5:20.
Sodom was spared for a time by the prayers of Abraham for the righteous. May God protect America, because so much of America has become like Sodom & so much of the rest of it is losing the will to protect itself.
Posts: 12822 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Hardly any truer words had ever been uttered except for by Christ Himself when warning against false prophets.
The push to legalize same-sex marriage, and attempt to erode the religious freedoms for all opposed is just one of the many trials here in the last days where we all have to call upon the Lord, and learn to exercise the spirit of discernment to be able to call something out for what it truly is... even if others don't like it.
Fortunately, the majority of the people I know who endorse same-sex marriage do it more so out of ignorance than out of outright wickedness. Even as the movement becomes more an more concerted, there are still many wonderful people out there who are willing to stand up for what they believe in. But one really has to wonder how much longer we can go before it becomes a matter of openly rebelling against God. Not just with same-sex marriage, but with anything. That is why we must speak out, lest we fall victim to that too.
Ultimately, the issue of same-sex marriage is but a side-effect of the deterioration that has been going on for decades. We can't fix what has already happened, but we can defend what we still got left, even if others are ready to throw it away. We're not quite off the cliff yet.
posted
I think the most effective counterpunch we can give is "Why do you want to prop up fatherlessness and motherlessness?" It cuts to the heart of the matter. Marriage is tied to children, and this hurts the institution. People fall for the soundbite "How will gay marriage hurt your marriage?" This counterpunch answers them.
Posts: 5046 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
"How will gay 'marriage' hurt your marriage?" is not about your marriage, my marriage, or Person X's marriage individually.
It is about harming the social fabric & the communities we all live in as we continue to encourage lifestyle arrangements that violate children's right to be raised by a father & mother who are committed to each other & their offspring.
This is a totally secular, pragmatic, non-religious, denominationally neutral position that anyone of any religion or no religion, married or unmarried, parent or not, who has common sense, can get behind.
posted
Except then they start countering: "What, are you saying that gay people can't make good parents? You think they can't love a child? What about single moms?" etc. etc. and then the whole civil rights charade starts over again.
The unfortunate thing is that when one appeals to common sense, they may find that it's really not all that common. But then again, maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
quote: But one really has to wonder how much longer we can go before it becomes a matter of openly rebelling against God. Not just with same-sex marriage, but with anything.
Bingo. Over the past couple of decades we have seen the emergence of a fence-sitting philosophizing -- of saying, "I'm personally against it, but I beleive in others' right to do it." But now we are arriving at a point where the fence-sitters are being forced to choose a side.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
That's why you have to say exactly what I said. You respond, "Yes they are great parents. But why do you want to promote fatherlessness and motherlessness?"
Posts: 5046 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've felt these past two weeks that the "gay agenda" has won. Why do I feel this way? We have two ten year old girls at school who in the past two weeks have decided that they are girlfriends, and not of the bff variety. They are very demonstrative in their affection for each other. And not a single child has teased them about it, or said slurs toward them, or seemed in any way bothered by it. If the youngest generation sees no problem with homosexuality, and this is a pretty conservative bible-belt southern state, then to me they've won.
Posts: 2712 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And not a single child has teased them about it, or said slurs toward them, or seemed in any way bothered by it. If the youngest generation sees no problem with homosexuality, and this is a pretty conservative bible-belt southern state, then to me they've won.
You really think that is a bad thing? If no one teases them, makes slurs or bothers them, then what? You want 10-year-olds to be harassed? If they are left alone to make their own decisions about their lives without the right or left egging them on, and creating more drama, maybe they will use their own intelligence to decide what they believe. Seems like that is the privilege that God gave us. Why can't people do it very well?
Posts: 332 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yikes! 10 year olds making such a grown up decision? Childhood "loves"are sure different from when I was 10- back then a tug on a pigtail signal led interest...and then he carried your books! Ten years old are still playing with Barbies in my mind. Sad that our kids are so highly stimulated these days. So much information, much too young.
Although I absolutely despise bullying, I hope these young children are getting due counsel from adults who care for them. A growing thing without support and attention will not grow into a prize specimen.
Love is genderless and boundless. I have come to understand that part. But, the same gender construct is against nature and continuation of the species on the earthly side, and against the Plan of Salvation and Celestialization where the mom-pop-child construct is the centerpoint and considered a most sacred divine mandate.
Finally, when did schools lift the rule against public displays of affection??
Posts: 5468 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mombob - I guess I didn't make myself clear. In the "old" days, slurs and teasing would have indicated a dislike or abhorance or disdain for an action. If there are no slurs or teasing, then it appears that it is totally accepted. I'm not saying slurs and teasing are good. I was trying to say that the lack of them indicated a change of attitude toward the actions.
Jana and Log - We still counsel and enforce against public displays of affection, as far as kissing and full-body hugs and similar actions. Usually that isn't a big deal in elementary school and a word or two is all it takes. That's all it's taken here. But until they were counseled, there was an abnormal amount of it within a short period of time. Abnormal when conpared to other girl/girl and boy/girl interactions.
As far as abuse, yes that is always considered, and part of the counseling. But unless a child indicates that something abusive is going on, we really have nothing to go with. And that hasn't happened here. We're watching and listening to the girls very closely to try and determine if that is the case here.
As far as career-ending potential, not reporting possible abuse is far more career-ending than not enforcing "public displays of affection" rules. Of which, in elementary school, there actually aren't any beyond what I said above. Children are naturally affectionate and will hug and hold hands at this age (overall elementary age). It was the quickness and the extreme-ness of it that caught the teacher's attention. It was the lack of response by the other kids that also caught mine and made me think about how our young children's attitudes have been shaped.
Posts: 2712 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You really think that is a bad thing? If no one teases them, makes slurs or bothers them, then what? You want 10-year-olds to be harassed? If they are left alone to make their own decisions about their lives without the right or left egging them on, and creating more drama, maybe they will use their own intelligence to decide what they believe. Seems like that is the privilege that God gave us. Why can't people do it very well?
I don't think that was really Sparky's point. Of course it's a good thing they're not being harassed about it. The point was that this thing has become so prevalent in our society that even children are acting it out as if it's not a big deal, that it's perfectly okay. And why? Because they see adults doing it.
It goes to show, as Sparky clarified, how our children's attitudes are being shaped. Part of it can be hailed as progress in that we're starting to know better than to just outright shun people who are different. But the gay rights' movement, IMO, goes way beyond that, especially where it tries to target young and impressionable children. The whole thing just smacks of political indoctrination when it tries to compare itself to the Civil Rights movement if you ask me.
posted
Sparky was not advocating anyone harass these poor misguided children.
Whether PDAs are directed toward opposite or same sex, they are innappropriate at age 10 & inappropriate in school. But we certainly don't want to see anyone, regardless of age or sex, bullied or ridiculed.
Sparky's point was that same-sex relationships have become so commonly accepted that two young children can act out in this way & no other kids their age see anything unusual about it. Kids have always emulated adult behavior, with boy-girl "post office" or "spin the bottle" games. Kids who do this are usually too young for any kind of "romantic" attachment but are just doing what they see normal adults do. With the current climate in which many people accept homosexuality as totally normal & natural, it isn't surprising to find kids acting out "romantic" same-sex activity in the same way.
As Isaiah said, woe be to those who call evil good, & good evil. Not just because they are deceiving themselves, but because they are leading future generations of hitherto innocent children down the same destructive path.
Posts: 12822 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the gay rights' movement, IMO, goes way beyond that, especially where it tries to target young and impressionable children.
Yeah, because no other adults, anywhere in the history of the world, have ever tried to influence the attitudes of the youth, except for them gays.
Posts: 8601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The whole thing just smacks of political indoctrination when it tries to compare itself to the Civil Rights movement if you ask me."
Indeed.
Any comparison to the true civil rights movement is a dishonor to Martin Luther King, Viola Liuzzo, Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, Medgar Evers, & the 4 young girls murdered in a Birmingham church in 1963.
Americans risked their lives, & some gave their lives, because they or other Americans were denied the basic citizenship right to vote, or the right to attend any public school or sit in any seat in the bus.
Gay-rights advocates aren't trying to gain the right to vote. What they want is to coerce the American people & force every social, political, & religious institution to not merely tolerate, not just accept, but approve of homosexuality.
Any equating of these two movements is manipulative, exploitive, & totally counterfeit. And it's a crying shame to see the NAACP let itself be used by activists for something that has nothing to do with civil rights.Posts: 12822 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yeah, because no other adults, anywhere in the history of the world, have ever tried to influence the attitudes of the youth, except for them gays."
Of course they have. But if, for instance, you recruit kids into a political movement, the damage isn't permanent (or needn't be if they come to their senses). The effects are not eternal. Their identity as a son or daughter of God has not been questioned. Young people have left the gangsta life or other destructive environments & turned their lives around.
Gender is at the very core of each human's identity. The matter of people born hermaphroditic is a straw-man because they are an extreme exception. For every young person who decides that God made a mistake, wants to pursue same-sex partnerships, change their gender, or otherwise tamper with nature, a mortal is rejecting both God & nature & a soul is put at risk. Even joining the Republican or Democratic party doesn't do that, although it comes close.
quote:For every young person who decides that God made a mistake, wants to pursue same-sex partnerships, change their gender, or otherwise tamper with nature, a mortal is rejecting both God & nature & a soul is put at risk.
Hmmmm I don't know. I don't think that the "gay agenda" is designed to force or even encourage these kinds of choices.
For the most part, "the gay agenda" just seems like a push to make it okay for people to make these decisions without discrimination in the society at large.
I am not exactly certain what our reaction to this "agenda" should be, outside of striving to have strong families and marriages and to be an example of the proper way to conduct oneself throughout life.
On the one hand, when people take a course of action which is in disagreement with the commandments, that is a tragic occurence, no matter what that action is.
But are we therefore required to believe and act as if all gays must be forced back into their metaphorical closet, and the door nailed shut, for the good of society?
And if we feel we are required to believe the above, how do we reconcile that with church teachings which have approved of civil unions, and non-discrimination rights for gays in terms of employment and housing?
Posts: 8601 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no problem with the Church advocating non-discrimination laws & such protection for same-sex partners. That's a separate issue from the ones we've been talkimg about.
If people of the same sex want to live together under the notion of being "married," they have a right to do that. Discrimination should be illegal & good people would not support it.
But people of faith & people who support families & children also have a responsibility to promote wholesome, natural, normal lifestyles & environments that benefit traditional families & especially children. And that means we cannot "approve" of the fiction about "marriage" being any combination of consenting adults who happen to love each other & decide to share their lives.
Posts: 12822 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When did "social stigma" become "bullying" and "hate?"
Our Constitutional freedoms are not meant to free us from all the consequences of our actions, but only free us from unjust consequences. If people are doing something immoral, a just consequence is for society to voice to them that they are doing something immoral, even if that immoral action has somehow become legal.
Have we arrived at a point where even the "bearing down in pure testimony" is deemed bullying and illegal?
Posts: 305 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
kazbert, the trouble is, the line between immoral & perfectly normal & acceptable has become so thin, if people express the view that a certain thing is immoral, someone else will step up to accuse them of hate speech or intolerance.
This goes back to what Sparky was saying. Once upon a time, there was no question that certain things were not right. period. The kids might have been told that boys kiss girls but not in school, please. Now, we have to tiptoe around & tell these poor little kids that they are perfectly normal & it's just wonderful that they accept themselves for who they are, & similar feel-good stuff, but pretty please, with maple syrup on it, limit your PDAs because of the fragile sensitivies of people around you.
Posts: 12822 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Pastor McKissic. I don't know how much worldly education or how many advanced degrees you have, but you are a man of vision & wisdom.
Posts: 12822 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I called it political indoctrination in reference to trying to compare their plight for same-sex marriage to the Civil Rights movement when there's hardly much comparison at all. It is one thing to teach children to be kind towards people with whom you may not agree with on fundamental issues. It's another to manipulate the facts, or attempt to rewrite history so as to gain political recruits.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
What the President of the US says and does has more influence on our society than one or two organizations. Just look at the change in culture that occurred after a past President's behavior became public knowledge. While entertainment has been conditioning us, and organizations such as the NAACP are voicing support there have always been other facets in society that have expressed concern but when the President says it is okay, it is right, then the whole ballgame changes.
Posts: 5045 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On his other thread, Roper talked about how it's easy for folks to be discouraged about the growing amount of duress being placed on folks to approve same-sex "marriage." So the Deseret News tells us not to be discouraged.
I can't find the link at the moment, but I think Colin Powell has become the latest prominent American to cave in to political correctness & fall for the "gay marriage" fiction. Right on the heels of Obama & the NAACP, it's clear what's going on. It's election season, opinion polls are close, & African-Americans are one of the population groups that have most firmly opposed the redefinition of marriage.
As I've said before... Mosiah 29:26-27.
Posts: 12822 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article brought up an interesting point:
quote: Frankly, more troubling to us than how the president sees the future of marriage is how the judiciary considers the issue. As we have seen in California, unelected judges are playing decisive roles as they assess whether clear majority support for traditional conjugal marriage somehow runs afoul of constitutional protections.
I've often wondered what the check would be against judges who gain too much power. Judges are fallible humans just like anyone else, and are certainly subject to bias, politics, and popularity. What's stopping them from ruling whatever the heck they want from the bench? With the way things are going, what could prevent them from ruling that churches cannot discriminate against homosexuals because its unconstitutional? Maybe that's an extreme example, but you know what I mean. Where do we draw the line between a judiciary that maintains constitutional integrity versus a judiciary that imposes an oppressive governmental regime against the will of the people?
At any rate, it's relieving to see President Obama still hold respect for those who may disagree on this issue. Too often we let this turn into an "us vs. them" mentality, where the other side are all bad guys.
posted
I don't know about supreme court judges, but the local judges have to pass a re-election vote periodically. In reality, it limits how long a local judge can be in office, since over time they lose popularity. Judges pretty much often make enemies, but rarely make friends. It comes with the job. Eventually they'll make enough enemies that they will fail the ratifying vote.
Posts: 460 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never heard of a judge being removed from office through the method of losing his or her retention election. David Young was retained in Utah, even after a "don't retain" election, feauturing ads and the whole shebang was run against him.
It is a possibility, but it is exremely rare. As is probably appropriate.
Supreme court justices can be removed from office via the impeachment/conviction process. But really, if Bill Clinton cannot be removed, is the removal of a justice very likely?
That is why it is extremely important who we elect as presidents, governors, and mayors who appoint these people.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
