S.S.M. And L.U.N.C.

[jwhitlock]

The articles provided show stats for homosexuals but they do not identify data for homosexuals desiring to enter marriages.

We're talking about attitudes within the gay community, and that attitude certainly certainly sees total fidelity as optional. I have some additional articles on the subject, but none of them are appropriate (because of content) for linking here. However, here's a quote from one of the articles (you can Google "same sex marriage and monogamy" and run through the links) I found:

"Though I reached out to equal numbers of lesbian and gay couples, nearly all of those willing to speak to me about their sex lives were men. Of the gay men I interviewed, all of them considered non-monogamy and monogamy equally valid relationship constructs, no matter which one they followed."

The attitude towards gay relationships carries over into gay marriage.

[wenglund]

Getting back to my criticism of the CBO analysis, there is evidence that I am also not alone in believing that CBO estimates of the number of homosexual couple that are likely to marry if SSM is legalized (600,000) is way off.

According to this news organization:

"[Among] marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and reciprocal-beneficiary relationships…the most recent U.S. Census data reveal that, in the last 15 years, only 150,000 same-sex couples have elected to take advantage of them – equivalent to around one in five of the self-identified same-sex couples in the United States….in the first four years when gay marriage was an option in trailblazing Massachusetts, there were an average of only about 3,000 per year, and that number included many who came from out of state.

"This dearth of early adopters is not peculiar to America. Research conducted in 2004 by Gunnar Anderson, a professor of demography at Sweden’s Stockholm University…looked at legal partnerships in both Norway and Sweden and found that in Norway, which legalized civil unions in 1993, only 1,300 homosexual couples registered in the first eight years, compared with 190,000 heterosexual marriages; in Sweden, between initial passage in 1995 and a review in 2002, 1,526 legal partnerships were registered, compared with 280,000 heterosexual marriages. In the Netherlands, gay marriage is actually declining in popularity: 2,500 gay couples married in 2001 – the year it was legalized – and that number dropped to 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005. In 2009, the last year for which figures are available, less than 2 percent of marriages in the Netherlands were between same-sex couples."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Now, I don't wish to suggest that everything the CBO presents is flawed. In fact, they did a study in 2009 (see also HERE), 5 years after the previous study in question, that I find little or no problems with, in which they estimated the cost of extending federal benefits to same-sex spouses (domestic partners) of federal employees, amounting to nearly a billion dollars over nine years.

Keep in mind that this large figure doesn't include the cost of providing federal benefits to spouses of state employees or employees working in the private sector.

Also keep in mind that this more recent CBO study only speaks to federal benefits. It doesn't factor in a variety of other financial costs to the government, at various levels, that I will be examining as the thread progresses.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

Now, I don't wish to suggest that everything the CBO presents is flawed. In fact, they did a study in 2009 (see also HERE), 5 years after the previous study in question, that I find little or no problems with, in which they estimated the cost of extending federal benefits to same-sex spouses (domestic partners) of federal employees, amounting to nearly a billion dollars over nine years.

Keep in mind that this large figure doesn't include the cost of providing federal benefits to spouses of state employees or employees working in the private sector.

Also keep in mind that this more recent CBO study only speaks to federal benefits. It doesn't factor in a variety of other financial costs to the government, at various levels, that I will be examining as the thread progresses.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I was looking at your links to the Gay Manifesto, and included in those demands were quite a few for handouts (aka entitlements) from the federal government, specifically designed to remedy all their claims of victimization over the years. It's actually quite breathtaking the way it takes entitlement to a new level.

[rockpond]

Be forewarned that rockpond has a habit of tossing out CFRs, often for things that weren't said, and on the rare occasion where he gets it right, and even though the evidence will be shown over and over and over again to him every which way from Sunday with all the dots connected multiple times, he will invariably deny that the evidence has been presented. It's his way of making a pretense at having a serious and open discussion, while really being disingenuously dismissive. So, learn from my repeated mistake and don't get stuck in his tar pit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's alright, Wade. I know you love me for sticking with you through all 15 pages of your thread as you diligently tried to make a coherent case before it got shut down by the moderators.

[rockpond]

We're talking about attitudes within the gay community, and that attitude certainly certainly sees total fidelity as optional. I have some additional articles on the subject, but none of them are appropriate (because of content) for linking here. However, here's a quote from one of the articles (you can Google "same sex marriage and monogamy" and run through the links) I found:

"Though I reached out to equal numbers of lesbian and gay couples, nearly all of those willing to speak to me about their sex lives were men. Of the gay men I interviewed, all of them considered non-monogamy and monogamy equally valid relationship constructs, no matter which one they followed."

The attitude towards gay relationships carries over into gay marriage.

I wonder where homosexuals might have been expected to learn about our understanding of marital fidelity. Church would have been a great place but we didn't really welcome them there. So it doesn't surprise me if they have developed different moral systems than us.

Even if it were determined that 100% of homosexuals were depraved souls (which certainly isn't true) than I would still support marriage equality. Why? Because I believe that the best thing to do is to love them, to accept them, and to not marginalize them.

I want to pull them in, embrace them, let them get married, have them move into the house next door, let our kids play together, share a pew on Sunday, and counsel together about how we can have more love in our homes. Gee, maybe we could all learn from one another.

[wenglund]

I was looking at your links to the Gay Manifesto, and included in those demands were quite a few for handouts (aka entitlements) from the federal government, specifically designed to remedy all their claims of victimization over the years. It's actually quite breathtaking the way it takes entitlement to a new level.

You noticed that too?

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that something with the title of "Manifesto" would include socialist rhetoric with lots of talk about government handouts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It's alright, Wade. I know you love me for sticking with you through all 15 pages of your thread as you diligently tried to make a coherent case before it got shut down by the moderators.

I do love you...and I will just leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 29, 2013 by wenglund

[california boy]

You noticed that too?

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that something with the title of "Manifesto" would include socialist rhetoric with lots of talk about government handouts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you and Whit really believe that all gays support this "manifesto" you talk about or even know about it?

If I found some radical "manifesto" written by some Mormon somewhere, would you be comfortable with anti Mormons using that document to show what Mormons believe?? Or would you view this "manifesto" reference as simply being anti Mormon propaganda?

The whole basis for this thread of yours is that marriage should be witheld from those that want to be immoral in a marriage relationship. When you only target gays in your quest, it comes off as just being anti gay. Now if your thread was a discussion on how marriage across the board should be protected from those that commit adultery within a marriage, then it would be a more honest thread. Do you want to change the discussion to include all marriages or do you want to continue to only attack gay marriage?

[Calm]

LUPC.

Law of unintentional political correctness?

[rockpond]

Law of unintentional political correctness?

Ha. I guess there's that too.

[wenglund]

Do you and Whit really believe that all gays support this "manifesto" you talk about or even know about it?

No. However, I do believe that the majority of homosexuals, whether they know about it or not, are sympathetic to the agenda.

And, whether they believe in it or know about it or not, it is interesting to note just how many of the planks of the Manifestos have been achieved since the 70s and 80s, not coincidentally, but by careful planning and adept implementation.

In other words, the point isn't how many gays may knowingly support the manifestos, but that the manifestos are being successfully carried out. Gay activists have been successful in changing society to suit their purposes, and they are continuing their quest to degrade and destroy the traditional family, and they will also be successful there as long as as the proliferating sheeple continue to buy the propaganda and follow the shepherd of pop culture.

The whole basis for this thread of yours is that marriage should be witheld from those that want to be immoral in a marriage relationship.

No. That is not the basis of the thread. If you would read the OP more carefully, and with a modicum of comprehension, you will see that I am not presenting an argument for or against SSM in general, or immoral homosexuals in particular who may want to get married. I have conceded the debate to the immoralists. Rather, as explicitly stated in the OP, and clearly indicated in the subject title of the thread, I am simply examining the potential negative consequences of nationalizing SSM so that people can prepare themselves for what may happen.

When you only target gays in your quest, it comes off as just being anti gay. Now if your thread was a discussion on how marriage across the board should be protected from those that commit adultery within a marriage, then it would be a more honest thread. Do you want to change the discussion to include all marriages or do you want to continue to only attack gay marriage?

That was a remarkably silly thing to say. The topic of SSM is, by definition, focused on same-sex relationships (i.e. gays) and same-sex marriage. It wouldn't make sense to target various heterosexual groups, or heterosexual marriage, since that would be irrelevant to the topic. So, if targeting gays is allegedly anti-gay, then by your "reasoning," the topic of SSM would be anti-gay. For that matter, gay-centric organizations and publication would, by your "reasoning," be anti-gay. How ridiculous is that?

But, I understand why you don't want to bring homosexuality and SSM entirely out into the light of day. Doing so would counter the positive image that gay activists have carefully grooming for years, and it may negatively impact the agenda going forward. So, it is expected that people like you would try to wrongfully label the disturbing illuminations as "anti-gay." Such a label, along with "homophobe," has been fallaciously wielded as a means of dismissing and silencing critics for years. And, it might work among the pop culture sheeple, but not with intelligent and informed people participating in this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 29, 2013 by wenglund

[USU78]

I wonder where homosexuals might have been expected to learn about our understanding of marital fidelity. Church would have been a great place but we didn't really welcome them there. So it doesn't surprise me if they have developed different moral systems than us.

This is absolutely absurd. Are you honestly hoping for somebody to swallow the notion that somebody can stay inside an institution for his first, say, 16 years of life and have absorbed nothing? Are you honestly hoping for somebody to swallow the notion that no self-identifying homosexual ever saw a movie or a TV movie-of-the-week where marriage vows were made? Or where the evils of adultery were the subject or figured largely in the story line?

What a maroon.

[wenglund]

b. Impact on state budgets, private businesses, and state economies.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned the gay-friendly Williams Institute of UCLA. This institute has undertaken economic analyses of the impact of legalizing SSM on various states. They concluded that in the first three years after SSM was legalized in Massachusetts, the state's economy experienced an estimated boost of $111 million dollars (see HERE). They have since estimated that New York would get a boost of $259mil (see HERE and HERE), Washington state would get a boost of $88mil (see HERE and HERE), Delaware $7mil (see HERE and HERE), Colorado $5mil (see HERE), Vermont $31mil (see HERE), Maine $60mil (see HERE), Minnesota $45mil (see HERE), Illinois $103mil (see HERE), and Wash. D.C. $52mil (see HERE)

Once again I will graciously let the supporters of SSM bask for awhile in the glow of this seemingly favorable news.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

This is absolutely absurd. Are you honestly hoping for somebody to swallow the notion that somebody can stay inside an institution for his first, say, 16 years of life and have absorbed nothing?

Certainly not. I've spoken with some of the gay young men in my ward who left the church. They absorbed plenty. Unfortunately, what they seemed to absorb is that they didn't have a place in "God's plan of happiness". They absorbed that they had to choose happiness or God. They absorbed that they were some kind of "mistake" and damaged goods. They absorbed that they didn't fit in to our faith community and they sought that inclusion elsewhere.

Are you honestly hoping for somebody to swallow the notion that no self-identifying homosexual ever saw a movie or a TV movie-of-the-week where marriage vows were made? Or where the evils of adultery were the subject or figured largely in the story line?

Do you have kids? Do you rely on TV movies to teach them morality?

There's a reason we go to church every week. There's a reason we have youth activities, firesides, and conferences. If you want to really build that moral compass it takes consistent, on-going effort.

What a maroon.

Wow.

[USU78]

Certainly not. I've spoken with some of the gay young men in my ward who left the church. They absorbed plenty. Unfortunately, what they seemed to absorb is that they didn't have a place in "God's plan of happiness". They absorbed that they had to choose happiness or God. They absorbed that they were some kind of "mistake" and damaged goods. They absorbed that they didn't fit in to our faith community and they sought that inclusion elsewhere.

Self serving tripe and, moreover, a deflection. You had claimed the alleycat morals of those responding in such overwhelming numbers to sociologists were absorbed because they had nothing in the Church or the Family to counter those voices. I pointed out they have plenty of opportunity to absorb good as well as evil. If they choose evil they do it knowing what the good is. Whether that good is monogamy or fidelity or something else, when they eschew that good they do so fully cognizant that it is the good they reject in favor of evil.

Whinery ill becomes adults, BTW.

Do you have kids? Do you rely on TV movies to teach them morality?

Irrelevant. You claimed they didn't learn because they weren't exposed to monogamy and fidelity and such things. I was mocking that assertion.

There's a reason we go to church every week. There's a reason we have youth activities, firesides, and conferences. If you want to really build that moral compass it takes consistent, on-going effort.

Not really, though it helps maintain it in the face of the brutality of evil coming from the voices in homophilia.

Wow.

Wow indeed. Now he claims not to know anything about Bugs Bunny.

Sheesh.

[rockpond]

Self serving tripe and, moreover, a deflection. You had claimed the alleycat morals of those responding in such overwhelming numbers to sociologists were absorbed because they had nothing in the Church or the Family to counter those voices. I pointed out they have plenty of opportunity to absorb good as well as evil. If they choose evil they do it knowing what the good is. Whether that good is monogamy or fidelity or something else, when they eschew that good they do so fully cognizant that it is the good they reject in favor of evil.

Whinery ill becomes adults, BTW.

Irrelevant. You claimed they didn't learn because they weren't exposed to monogamy and fidelity and such things. I was mocking that assertion.

Not really, though it helps maintain it in the face of the brutality of evil coming from the voices in homophilia.

Wow indeed. Now he claims not to know anything about Bugs Bunny.

Sheesh.

If you go back and read my words you'll note that I suggested that church would have been a good place to "learn about our understanding of marital fidelity". I never claimed that they weren't exposed to the idea. Exposure and learning are very different.

If you are wondering why some (or even many) homosexuals might reject the moral system we hold dear, you could consider how you might react if you felt completed rejected by the very institution that put forth such a moral system.

It's interesting that you write "the brutality of evil coming from the voices in homophilia" on a thread that seems devoted to broad-brush disparaging of homosexuals. The brutality on this thread isn't coming from the voice of homophilia.

And no, sorry, I am not familiar with Bugs Bunny-isms.

[USU78]

If you go back and read my words you'll note that I suggested that church would have been a good place to "learn about our understanding of marital fidelity". I never claimed that they weren't exposed to the idea. Exposure and learning are very different.

Now you're claiming it's the Church's and the Family's responsibility not only to teach, but ensure that the unwilling really learns what's being taught? How is that supposed to work compliant with section 121's injunctions on respect for the freedom of others?

If you are wondering why some (or even many) homosexuals might reject the moral system we hold dear, you could consider how you might react if you felt completed rejected by the very institution that put forth such a moral system.

So . . . what to say to somebody who both tells me the Family and the Church as institutions don't teach moral lessons well, yet in the next breath says the lessons are understood just fine, but rejected? What compulsion was brought to bear, exactly, to "compel" the straying pup to reject and leave? Wouldn't compulsion involve some kind of force? What force is there, exactly, bring brought to bear? What freedom has been infringed?

Be honest. Nobody's compelling anybody, unless it's a seducer or rapist stealing the freedom of innocence. "Have some medeira, m'dear!"

It's interesting that you write "the brutality of evil coming from the voices in homophilia" on a thread that seems devoted to broad-brush disparaging of homosexuals. The brutality on this thread isn't coming from the voice of homophilia.

Nope. All of the deaths. All of the broken-up families. All of the wasted lives. They're the fault of somebody else . . . just like the failure to learn clear moral lessons is somebody else's fault . . . just like the rejection of those clear moral lessons is somebody else's fault.

Sorry. As a confirmed Mormon and a Kantian, I embrace the categorical imperative and embrace the ennobling notion of free will. What somebody else does with that free will is his own affair.

And no, sorry, I am not familiar with Bugs Bunny-isms.

Whenever Marvin the Martian or Elmer Fudd demonstrates his foolishness, Bugs gestures over his shoulder at the poor impotent nimrod and says, "What a maroon."

It's not exactly meant unkindly, but is rather an aside to the audience to underscore the foolishness just demonstrated.

[rockpond]

Now you're claiming it's the Church's and the Family's responsibility not only to teach, but ensure that the unwilling really learns what's being taught? How is that supposed to work compliant with section 121's injunctions on respect for the freedom of others?

To be clear, I was referring to churches in a general sense. Not just our (LDS) church. And I didn't say that they had to ensure that anything was taught or learned. The concept I was trying to communicate is that churches/faith communities tend to be where we teach the importance and value of such things as the law of chastity and marital fidelity. However, when an individual feels rejected or even that they just don't have a place within that church or community, it seems likely to me (and has shown true in my personal interactions) that those individuals are then unlikely to internalize the teachings as true and/or valuable.

So . . . what to say to somebody who both tells me the Family and the Church as institutions don't teach moral lessons well, yet in the next breath says the lessons are understood just fine, but rejected? What compulsion was brought to bear, exactly, to "compel" the straying pup to reject and leave? Wouldn't compulsion involve some kind of force? What force is there, exactly, bring brought to bear? What freedom has been infringed?

Be honest. Nobody's compelling anybody, unless it's a seducer or rapist stealing the freedom of innocence. "Have some medeira, m'dear!"

I made no mention of anyone being compelled. Nor did I say that moral lessons weren't taught well.

Nope. All of the deaths. All of the broken-up families. All of the wasted lives. They're the fault of somebody else . . . just like the failure to learn clear moral lessons is somebody else's fault . . . just like the rejection of those clear moral lessons is somebody else's fault.

Hmmm... didn't say that either. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

Sorry. As a confirmed Mormon and a Kantian, I embrace the categorical imperative and embrace the ennobling notion of free will. What somebody else does with that free will is his own affair.

Agreed.

Whenever Marvin the Martian or Elmer Fudd demonstrates his foolishness, Bugs gestures over his shoulder at the poor impotent nimrod and says, "What a maroon."

It's not exactly meant unkindly, but is rather an aside to the audience to underscore the foolishness just demonstrated.

Got it. I just don't find that kind of name calling to be a productive means of dialogue. Thus my original response of "wow".

[california boy]

No. However, I do believe that the majority of homosexuals, whether they know about it or not, are sympathetic to the agenda.

And just how did you come to believe what the majority of homosexuals believe? Are you active in the gay community? How many gays do you interact with on a personal basis each week??? Just where are you getting this "wade" insight from?

Gay activists have been successful in changing society to suit their purposes, and they are continuing their quest to degrade and destroy the traditional family, and they will also be successful there as long as as the proliferating sheeple continue to buy the propaganda and follow the shepherd of pop culture.

Gay activists have been successful in changing public opinion by simply presenting their case. Gay activists believe they have the right to marry. They believe it is an American value not to discriminate. When the American people look at the arguments made for and against gay marriage, they have decided that they support those American values and there is not sufficient reason to discriminate against gays. Is all you have to do is read the reasons people have changed their minds about gay marriage.

You may be right. I really don't know. t might cost more to allow gays to marry. It also cost the government more to integrate the schools in this country. Sometimes that is the price most Americans are willing to pay for equality.

Now maybe you can point to where the entire gay community has "degraded and destroyed traditional family."

[california boy]

To be clear, I was referring to churches in a general sense. Not just our (LDS) church. And I didn't say that they had to ensure that anything was taught or learned. The concept I was trying to communicate is that churches/faith communities tend to be where we teach the importance and value of such things as the law of chastity and marital fidelity. However, when an individual feels rejected or even that they just don't have a place within that church or community, it seems likely to me (and has shown true in my personal interactions) that those individuals are then unlikely to internalize the teachings as true and/or valuable.

It is even a little more than what you are presenting. (I am speaking about churches in general.) Gay men are told that if they have sex with another man, then they are going to hell. The church never tells them that if you have sex with only one man and live in a monogamous married relationship then you can go to heaven. So from a gay man's perspective, what difference does it make if they are monogamous or have multiple partners. Either way they are going to hell.

[USU78]

[W]hat difference does it make if they are monogamous or have multiple partners. Either way they are going to hell.

Nonsense.

I have the free will to accept or reject one thing or many things. That I reject one thing doesn't mean I must reject many or all things. That's just the spoiled brat talking . . . taking his dolls and dishes and running "home" because he's got his nose out of joint.

I wonder if cb realizes that by making this assertion he confirms the high negatives worldwide. Moreover, he confirms the farce that is SSM: nobody wants it, they just hate it that somebody else has marriage.

Unless, of course, it's all about the money, as I suggested to him and Dan'l some 6 years ago on the predecessor board . . . when both of them swore that was not the case.

[rockpond]

Nonsense.

I have the free will to accept or reject one thing or many things. That I reject one thing doesn't mean I must reject many or all things. That's just the spoiled brat talking . . . taking his dolls and dishes and running "home" because he's got his nose out of joint.

Do you disagree with what CB has said that (generally speaking) churches teach that it is a grave sin for a man to have sex with one man or to have sex with multiple men?

I wonder if cb realizes that by making this assertion he confirms the high negatives worldwide. Moreover, he confirms the farce that is SSM: nobody wants it, they just hate it that somebody else has marriage.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion based on what CB has said.

I'm also not sure why you seem to feel a need or justification to talk in such absolutes: "nobody wants it". I'm sure that there are some who want it and some who don't.

[wenglund]

b. Impact on state budgets, private businesses, and state economies.

Earlier in the thread I mentioned the Williams Institute of UCLA...

...Once again I will graciously let the supporters of SSM bask for awhile in the glow of this seemingly favorable news.

Let's now look critically at the Williams Institute ( a so-called gay and lesbian think tank) analyses, using their study of Massachusetts as a prime example (since SSM has been legal in that state longer than other states).

There are several flaws in the study that should immediately jump out to the critical mind. First, and foremost, It should be obvious that the $111mil boost to Massachusetts' economy figure that is most often quoted in the press, conveniently only considers one side of the ledger--i.e. estimated gross revenues and not estimated costs. Now, if a private corporation were to try and solicit investors using this misleading strategy, and only used gross sales to pitch their company, they would rightly be accused of fraud--particularly those companies whose costs far exceed their gross sales. The same is true for agenda-driven and agenda-funded studies operating under the guise of scholastic legitimacy.

Second, the study conveniently uses a cumulative total over 5 years, rather than a per-year calculation or average yearly calculation.

Third, the study assumes that all the same-sex marriages would have a wedding, and that the average wedding would cost $7,400.00, and that the entire $7,400.00 would go to boosting the economy. Whereas, it should be remembered that Massachusetts had civil unions before SSM was legalized. What are the chances that those couples who were legally united under civil unions, and may likely have had a ceremony to celebrate that union, would once again get formally married to the average tune of S7,400.00, rather than pay a few bucks down at the court house, particularly if SSM is legalized in all states and thus eliminating some of the need to publicly celebrate for publicity sake and to advance the cause?

Fourth, factored into the calculations are things like increased tourism due to people coming from out-of-state to get married or to participate in the weddings, as well as the supposed draw of being a gay-friendly state. And, while this may have been a factor with the first one or two states that legalized SSM, it would become moot were SSM to be legalized nationwide.

So, if the costs to state governments and private business are factored in, and the revenues are reasonably adjusted, it is difficult to say what the net result might be to the economy per year or over the long haul.

However, if we use figures purported by gay activists, where it is estimated that gay couples allegedly lose as much as $500K in benefits and privileges over the course of their relationships by not being married (see HERE and HERE), and if we use the CBO's estimates of 650,000 couples will get married if SSM is legalized nation wide, the total cost to the government and private business would be $325 billion over the life of those relationships.

It is difficult to say what that would amount to per year, but if estimate using a liberal average duration of 7 years for homosexual couples (see HERE), it would still amount to about $46 billion per year.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 29, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

And just how did you come to believe what the majority of homosexuals believe? Are you active in the gay community? How many gays do you interact with on a personal basis each week??? Just where are you getting this "wade" insight from?

See the various and numerous gay-friendly articles and studies I and others have cited throughout this thread. As I stated earlier, don't take may word for it. Read what homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers have to say about their own community and agenda and strategies. I am not so much giving "Wade insights" here. Rather, I am passing along what is being said by gay activists. I am getting my insights from actively reading and studying and carefully analyzing what all parties have to say. You should give it a try some time.

But, I get your penchant for mockingly dismissing opposing views. As indicated earlier, the last thing you may want is the full light of day being shined on the subject matter. Instead, you likely prefer that the carefully cultivated positive image of homosexuality and SSM be preserved. Doing so fits perfectly the propaganda strategy outlined in one of the gay links I posted earlier.

And, while that may work for you, I prefer the full light of day--even if it turns out that I may be wrong (fat chance of that). I like to make fully informed decisions with reasonable foresight about the potential consequences. That is what this thread is about. So, if the full light of day is bothersome to you, there is no one forcing you to participate or un-bury your head.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 29, 2013 by wenglund