Why Am I Against Gay Marriage?

[Bat-Man]

Hey Bat,

I understand the ideal you're trying to underscore, I really do. In fact we both believe in that ideal. However, ideals do not always match reality. And when choosing between Meth addicts or a Responsible Gay couple, I'm going with the Gay couple every time. If you made a different choice, I'd be disappointed.

I'd choose neither one, Lamanite, and it's not because I believe people need to be "ideal" parents to be "good" parents.

All it takes is love... true love... rather than what passes for love, sometimes.

Consider the phrase: Friends don't let friends drive drunk.

What do you think that means?

Do you think friends would let each other do meth?... or be gay?

They wouldn't... FYI... not true friends, who truly love each other.

When you love someone... truly love someone... you do what you can to do what is best for them. It's not about getting what you want out of the relationship, or giving someone else whatever they want just because they want it. It's about doing what is best for that other person that you love.

To be gay is to be stupid, just as to be on meth or any other kind of drug is to be stupid.

... and friends don't let friends be stupid or do stupid things when they truly love them.

... including something so stupid as to allow people who are gay to be parents.

Giving in to what people want when it isn't good for them isn't what true love is all about.

Do you know what I mean now?

You sound to me as if you don't know what love... true love... really is, as I do.

... but don't lose heart, because there is someone who can show you, if you want Him to.

PS I'm not a huge Foreigner fan, but I like that song. I made a 5 disk compilation of Rock Ballads that I sometimes break out when I'm in that mood.

I'm not a huge fan of Foreigner, either, and I haven't heard that song in ages.

I just like that song, mainly because I think of God when I think of it and how God has shown me how to love.

[semlogo]

Actually, it is an evolutionary dead-end in most cases--short of artificial insemination and/or surrogate mothers.

So is the South, but we don't forbid them from marrying.

Ba-doom.

Kidding, kidding!

[MormonMason]

"XY females often do not know that they are XY until they are unable to conceive a child and are tested by karyotyping. In the past, female olympic athletes were tested for XX or XY and some were traumatized by the XY determination. It is therefore possible to be an XY female and not know it. An example is Alice from Holland, shown below. At 17 she went to the doctor to find out why she hadnâ??t had a period. With internal exam, internal imaging and a karyotype, Alice was informed that she was an XY female with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. "

Source

So Alice is a boy, huh? After being raised as a girl, having a female body, and having absolutely no idea she was any different from any other girl until the age of 17, she's still a boy by virtue of her Y chromosome.

I wonder--would you apply the same black and white reasoning to yourself? What would you think if you went in to see the doctor for a routine exame, only to have him tell you that in spite of your beard, male pattern baldness, hairy back, and male genitals, you are actually a girl. Would you look forward to the day when you could have your "mutation" fixed, and be restored to your true feminine form?

It's easy to glibly write off biological variation as minor deviations from a platonic form, but the reality is that there is no platonic form. A modern understanding of evolution makes it undeniably clear that every organism is unique--the first and last of its kind. Categorization into distinct species (and genders) is only a simplified abstraction of biological reality--not an accurate depiction of reality itself.

If there were no other historical, archeological, or scriptural problems with the Mormon religion (and there are plenty), the notion that gender is an essential and eternal attribute of humankind would be enough to debunk Mormonism.

Sad to say it but, yes, "Alice" is a boy with a physiological/genetic problem. Had it not been for Androgen Insensitivity Sydrome "Alice would have been a boy in every respect. Unfortunately, it is a lot easier to make these and other kinds of boys with birth defects and other problems into "girls" than to treat them properly and make them what their genetic code says they should be.

This is a genetic error, plain and simple. I mean, after all is said and done, it is a syndrome!

Humans came into this world as male and female, by evolution or otherwise and/or both, and gender is all-important to the perpetuation of the species. I know some speculate that thousands or millions of years from now there will be no males in the human species, but speculation it remains. I want to see good evidence, not speculation based on a few genetic anomalies.

Would I want to be corrected in the event that something like that happened to me? Absolutely! But, your analogy does not apply to me as I have reproduced--several times--and I do possess at least one 'Y' sex chromosome. One can check one's own DNA compliment at the chromosomal level. One just needs a microscope capable of x1200 power or better, a few cells, and the proper stains.

[MormonMason]

Now I feel betrayed. You led me to believe that it was a done deal, glutamates are definitely responsible for "the gay." I willingly offered myself as a sacrifice on the alter of science, requiring only some free pizza in return (I might settle for a cheeseburger, though), and now you're telling me I might not even get that?

Hrmph. Thanks but no thanks, science.

I did not lead you to believe anything. You led yourself there. I have disclaimers inherent in several of my posts above. Unsuitability confirmed.

[semlogo]

I did not lead you to believe anything. You led yourself there. I have disclaimers inherent in several of my posts above. Unsuitability confirmed.

Too late, I've signed up with a study trying to prove that excess sleep causes metrosexuality. I get a nice comfy bed and all the warm milk I can drink. Sorry.

[Lamanite]

To be gay is to be stupid, just as to be on meth or any other kind of drug is to be stupid.

We dramatically disagree on some fundamentals of this issue.

From Elder Stephen L. Richards:

"

I interpret the Gospel in terms of life. It was brought to Humanity; it is our duty to bring humanity to the Gospel. Election not compulsion is the genious [sic] of Christian Philosophy. Ridicule and ostracism often lead to compulsion. I deplore their existence. I fear arrogant dogmatism. It is a tyrant guilty of more havoc to human kind than the despot ruling over many kingdoms. I have pity for the disobedient, not hatred. They deprive themselves of blessings. The disobedient punish themselves. "

To be gay is not "stupid". It is what some are, whether by nature or nurture. And they will be held accountable for living up to the light and knowledge they possess. Engaging in homosexual behaviors is a sin, and yet does not justify a label like "stupid". It's that type of Ridicule Elder Richards "deplores".

I made a distinction between Meth addicts and Homosexuals hoping you would see the stark contrast. Alas, it seems it was lost on you because you ended up lumping them into the same group as equally unfit parents. What if you were a social worker and you had to decide between the two couples? If you still choose neither; I may conclude you are naive, obtuse, or both.

My tone probably seems aggressive. It's not. It's meant to be direct and clear. Also, please don't make assumptions about how deeply I may or may not have loved. It is an attack on me and my wife and my children; and that sir is VERY unsettling to me.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Bat-Man]

To be gay is not "stupid".

When I use the word "stupid" I mean it in the sense of being the opposite of "intelligent".

... with intelligence understood as light and truth.

People who do anything that isn't intelligent do so because they lack light and truth.

... and, yes, I do feel pity for people who do things which are stupid.

It is what some are, whether by nature or nurture.

I understand that a person can have "gay" tendencies, by nature or by nurture, but at that point a person chooses to either act on those "gay" tendencies or not act on them, and to give in to them is to give in to stupidity... even if the reason they are giving into those "gay" tendencies is because they simply don't know any better.

Such people do merit our pity, and our feeling of pity for them should motivate us to do whatever we can to help them, but if they choose to act on those "gay" tendencies regardless of intelligent counsel we give them then they are choosing to be stupid and thereby they deserve their reward for being so stupid... which is to remain in their stupidity to whatever extent they are stupid.

And they will be held accountable for living up to the light and knowledge they possess.

Right, and rather than being judged for being stupid, and thereby being ashamed, I'd rather try to help them get themselves out of the mess they are getting into when they willingly choose to remain stupid.

Engaging in homosexual behaviors is a sin, and yet does not justify a label like "stupid".

Stupid is as stupid does, as my friend Forrest Gump is fond of saying.

... and engaging in any behavior which is contrary to intelligence, or light and truth, such as having sexual relations with someone of the same gender, is a perfect example of what it means to be stupid.

It's that type of Ridicule Elder Richards "deplores".

If people don't want to be called "stupid" they should not do "stupid" things.

I'm just calling them as I see them.

People who do stupid things are merely being labeled by what they are doing.

If they did something intelligent, I would consider them to be intelligent in that regard, but to engage in same sex sexual relations is about as stupid as a person can get.

I made a distinction between Meth addicts and Homosexuals hoping you would see the stark contrast. Alas, it seems it was lost on you because you ended up lumping them into the same group as equally unfit parents.

Would you like to try again?

What if you were a social worker and you had to decide between the two couples? If you still choose neither; I may conclude you are naive, obtuse, or both.

You can conclude whatever you wish, but your conclusion will either be a stupid conclusion or an intelligent conclusion and I will label it as I see fit.

My tone probably seems aggressive. It's not.

You are being aggressive, Lamanite, and being aggressive is not a bad thing.

I am very passionate about my own beliefs, too, but I hold no malice against you, personally.

... and I don't hold any malice against stupid people, either. I truly want to help them.

It's meant to be direct and clear.

That's fine. I hope you also understand what I am saying to you.

Also, please don't make assumptions about how deeply I may or may not have loved. It is an attack on me and my wife and my children; and that sir is VERY unsettling to me.

I said "as I do". I didn't mean that you don't know anything at all about love.

Our goal should be to try to do what is best for each other, even if that means telling people when they are wrong or acting stupid. Acting as if everything is fine whatever people do, even when people do evil (stupid) things, is not the way to truly show love to someone.

[Lamanite]

When I use the word "stupid" I mean it in the sense of being the opposite of "intelligent".

... with intelligence understood as light and truth.

People who do anything that isn't intelligent do so because they lack light and truth.

... and, yes, I do feel pity for people who do things which are stupid.

I understand that a person can have "gay" tendencies, by nature or by nurture, but at that point a person chooses to either act on those "gay" tendencies or not act on them, and to give in to them is to give in to stupidity... even if the reason they are giving into those "gay" tendencies is because they simply don't know any better.

Such people do merit our pity, and our feeling of pity for them should motivate us to do whatever we can to help them, but if they choose to act on those "gay" tendencies regardless of intelligenct counsel we give them they are then choosing to be stupid and thereby they deserve their reward for being so stupid... which is to remain in their stupidity.

Right, and rather than being judged for being stupid, and thereby being ashamed, I'd rather try to help them get themselves out of the mess they are getting into when they willingly choose to remain stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does, as my friend Forrest Gump is fond of saying.

... and engaging in any behavior which is contrary to intelligence, or light and truth, such as having sexual relations with someone of the same gender, is a perfect example of what it means to be stupid.

If people don't want to be called "stupid" they should not do "stupid" things.

I'm just calling them as I see them.

People who do stupid things are merely being labeled by what they are doing.

If they did something intelligent, I would consider them to be intelligent in that regard, but to engage in same sex sexual relations is about as stupid as a person can get.

Would you like to try again?

You can conclude whatever you wish, but your conclusion will either be a stupid conclusion or an intelligent conclusion and I will label it as I see fit.

You are being agressive, Lamanite, and being aggressive is not a bad thing.

I am very passionate about my own beliefs, too, but I hold no malice against you, personally.

... and I don't hold any malice against stupid people, either. I truly want to help them.

That's fine. I hope you also understand what I am saying to you.

I said "as I do". I didn't mean that you don't know anything at all about love.

Our goal should be to try to do what is best for each other, even if that means telling people when they are wrong or acting stupid. Acting as if everything is fine whatever people do, even when people do evil (stupid) things, is not the way to truly show love to someone.

We disagreed and nobody died. If you ask me we should both be Secretary of State and Defense.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Bat-Man]

We disagreed and nobody died. If you ask me we should both be Secretary of State and Defense.

Big UP!

Lamanite

That would be stupid, too. I would vote for one of us for that job, though.

[semlogo]

When I use the word "stupid" I mean it in the sense of being the opposite of "intelligent".

... with intelligence understood as light and truth.

People who do anything that isn't intelligent do so because they lack light and truth.

... and, yes, I do feel pity for people who do things which are stupid.

I understand that a person can have "gay" tendencies, by nature or by nurture, but at that point a person chooses to either act on those "gay" tendencies or not act on them, and to give in to them is to give in to stupidity... even if the reason they are giving into those "gay" tendencies is because they simply don't know any better.

Such people do merit our pity, and our feeling of pity for them should motivate us to do whatever we can to help them, but if they choose to act on those "gay" tendencies regardless of intelligent counsel we give them then they are choosing to be stupid and thereby they deserve their reward for being so stupid... which is to remain in their stupidity to whatever extent they are stupid.

Right, and rather than being judged for being stupid, and thereby being ashamed, I'd rather try to help them get themselves out of the mess they are getting into when they willingly choose to remain stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does, as my friend Forrest Gump is fond of saying.

... and engaging in any behavior which is contrary to intelligence, or light and truth, such as having sexual relations with someone of the same gender, is a perfect example of what it means to be stupid.

If people don't want to be called "stupid" they should not do "stupid" things.

I'm just calling them as I see them.

People who do stupid things are merely being labeled by what they are doing.

If they did something intelligent, I would consider them to be intelligent in that regard, but to engage in same sex sexual relations is about as stupid as a person can get.

Would you like to try again?

You can conclude whatever you wish, but your conclusion will either be a stupid conclusion or an intelligent conclusion and I will label it as I see fit.

You are being aggressive, Lamanite, and being aggressive is not a bad thing.

I am very passionate about my own beliefs, too, but I hold no malice against you, personally.

... and I don't hold any malice against stupid people, either. I truly want to help them.

That's fine. I hope you also understand what I am saying to you.

I said "as I do". I didn't mean that you don't know anything at all about love.

Our goal should be to try to do what is best for each other, even if that means telling people when they are wrong or acting stupid. Acting as if everything is fine whatever people do, even when people do evil (stupid) things, is not the way to truly show love to someone.

Still pontificating from up there on your Rameumptom, I see. If only everyone were as intelligent and righteous as you.

[Honorentheos]

Honorentheos:

Thank you for the citations to the reasononline article and the Florida case. I will read them and perhaps we can discuss them at a later date.

I do not know how to create the multiple quote boxes in the reply, so that I can better reference my response. How do you create them within a reply?

I do it the old school way, but there is a little box with a talking bubble in the toolbar above this editing box. It should say, "Wrap in quotes" if you roll over it. If you highlight what you want to mark as quoted and hit the button, it does it for you. The old school way is to manually type the quote and /quote between tag brackets. If you play with it you'll probably be able to figure the whole thing out pretty easily. Just remember it is like Excel - you have to close every tag you open or the whole thing falls apart. This board is nice in that it lets you know if there is an error before you can post it or preview your post.

I'm still waiting for an response to my question: "Honorentheos, please explain how you determined your moral basis, indeed "the truth", you seem to be alleging: love is the best reason to marry. How did you determine this to be true? From what cosmic source arises this absolute?" I know that you reference the reasononline article. But I would like to hear your response.

I don't consider what I know to be truth, nor is my morality based on an absolute. It is, however, based on the best information I have available to me as interpreted by my experience, knowledge base, and probably more than I realize the silent machinations of my limbic brain.

Pretty much like everyone else, there is nothing really cosmic about it. I tried to answer as honestly as possible without derailing the thread into what will become an impossible debate. When I said it is very complex, that about sums up what can be said about it without committing to a long, and unlikely-to-be-satisfying-for-anyone detour. I did read the talk your first thread linked to. I suspect I could guess how this will go. But if you can tolerate me answering these posts over the snails pace of a post a day or so, I guess you can consider this the first pawn being pushed forward and we'll let the board play out from here.

You ask: "how do you feel preventing same-sex couples from marrying is protecting individuals? IS the way the author uses society dangerously close to the communist collective he previously decries?"

I'm not sure that I have ever said "preventing same-sex couples from marrying is protecting individuals." I will have to think whether I agree with that statement.

It wasn't stated in those terms. But your author set up the premise at the beginning of his talk as to what formed the basis for government. And then he proceeded to describe where he felt government had a moral obligation based on these premises. His first defense of pro-life involvement of government was founded on this role of protecting the individual (as opposed to the individual existing to protect society). He then, however, strayed from it in suggesting why SSM was wrong. He wasn't very consistent when he began to suggest that, if an individual happens to be homosexual, that individual should not be protected by government but rather isolated by it from a certain classification in society. I assumed you had taken on the mantel of his perspective so I thought I would bring this up.

Anyway, it's a bad argument in that he argues against himself.

I have said that SSM damages the institution of marriage, because SS unions are not marriage. We would have to do one of two things: 1) either redefine marriage as something other than what humanity has considered it for thousands (perhaps tens of thousands of years) or 2) call SS unions what they are: something other than marriage.

Please read the reasononline article and then we can discuss this.

As for the "communist collective," please explain what you mean. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Mr. George did talk about the totalitarian state and the worth of individuals.

Nuance. Nuance. Nuance.

You write: "I find your credit in this case to be suspect in that you can not discuss this issue from your position without the implication of God if your basis for opposing SSM is on moral grounds. Perhaps if you can show how your views are not underwritten by a belief in God I may be persuaded to agree." I can not prove a negative. You seem to believe that my views imply God. Please quote something that I have said that supports your assertion. Also, please quote something that I have said that displays the "moral grounds" on which I base my opposing SSM.

Do you have moral grounds for opposing SSM?

I would accept you demonstrating that your feelings regarding SSM are based on non-religious sources of morality. Is it based on your experience? If it is based primarily on the talk you linked to, then I would argue that your author has used a deistic source for his morality. You don't have to cry out "In the Name of God..." for it to be so.

So, simply put, demonstrate the rational for why a SSM is worth the exclusion of a segment of society that otherwise seems in every way to be as deserving as those who already have access to a privilege if you would rather not call it a right.

Saying, "You're gay and we don't let gays marry because you're not like us" is not much different than your statement above. Isn't that prejudice? Can you defend this in other ways other than, It just ain't right?

You state that my argument is "denying the rights to marriage." Since when did marriage (as recognized by the state) become a "right"? Is this so-called "right" created by a handful of judicial activists sitting on the bench, against the express democratic process repeated more than once (indeed approximately 30 times throughout the United States)?

You state: "it is my belief that the opposition to SSM in the United States is predominately founded on prejudice, and this is fueled by religion rather than evidence." I ask you, can any argument against SSM be founded on something other than prejudice? Do you believe it is possible that a rationale argument can be made against SSM? (If your answer is "no", than I believe we may as well cease our discussion because you have predetermined --may I even say in an act of prejudice --that opposing points of view to be only irrational.)

There is nothing to say one can not be formulated. I would like to see it. Trust me, I am not excluding your views just because. I have been on your side of the fence and went through a similar discussion on my own to get where I am. And it wasn't prejudice born of viciousness that I suffered from. It was prejudice born of ignorance. I haven't seen a coherent argument against SSM to this point and have been involved in many, many discussions on the issue.

You state: "Overcoming long-standing prejudice in the public discourse takes time and effort." Do you see any "long-standing prejudice" in my arguments? If so, what?

You choose toggle off rather than toggle on. Nothing could be more snorgal than that.

You state: "We all have ample opportunity to act as bullies." This is exactly what I see the SSM activists as doing. Hence the blacklisting. Hence, the bigoted protesting at LDS temples. Hence, the vandalism. Hence, the SSM activists who intentionally seek out businesses and church in order to sue them. (E.g. instead of the Mass. SSM couple going to many other adoption services to adopt a child and who would serve the SSM couple, they seek out a Catholic service and bring a lawsuit against it. Another example, instead of going to dating services that intentionally seek out SS clients, a SSM activist goes to e-harmony and sues them just because they doen't serve the SSM community.) When will this bullying end? In my previous post I asked if you would state when this bullying would end. You did not reply. I'm waiting for your response.

The bullying will end on a Thursday in December. It will be a cool, crisp day when the ducks have flown from Central Park for the winter.

Anyway, Mark, I suppose we both know that these discussions are more for the benefit of those who are reading and not participating. I could start listing out how the passing of Prop 8 is, in spirit, bullying on the part of those who oppose SSM for what appear to be irrational reasons. (See Batman's post. All I can say is I am glad he is not on my side.) Except that has been the point of every post I have made to this point. So...

But we both know the semblance of giving an answer and carrying on a conversation when one is actually avoiding dialogue usually leads quickly to some form of thread destruction. I'm hoping this one does not end in nuclear winter, but we'll have to see.

If you want to reduce my argument to fertility ritual, that's fine. I'm not prejudiced against pagans. Indeed I have adopted several of the pagan's seasonal rituals into my mythology: Christmas and Easter come to mind.

You seem to espouse "enlightened values." Do you celebrate Christmas and Easter? Do you consider these rituals "enlightened?"

I enjoy Christmas and Easter. My wife and I also have sex.

The answer to the question you were just about to ask is, "The later is not done in ritual fashion." Don't worry. Real emotion can help get rid of the monotony of sex if you suffer from ritualizing the act.

Getting back to the procreative act as essential to marriage -- well that is the very definition of marriage as I have explained in an earlier post. If we want to redefine "marriage" to exclude it as being essentially procreative, than I repeat, we shouldn't call it "marriage" any more. We should call it something else.

Again, fertility is not a requirement of marriage. A person does not have to submit to a fertility test in order to obtain a marriage license. And a person who is known to be infertile is not prohibited from marrying even with this knowledge. (one of my niece's had to have her ovaries removed at the beginning of puberty and told the obvious -she will not be the mother of her naturally born children - for example.)

And at this point, the argument makes sex a ritual through which one has to act out the procreative act in a specific way in order to be officially married under your definition. Is this the common understanding that one has of marriage in out society? Or is this a redefinition of it's own? I would say the later since I don't think many would support it, even those who oppose SSM.

You state: "the argument is one of marriage as ritual drama over values. I cannot support it." If marriage is not about ritual, why do you argue, then, that SS couples need to be allowed to participate in the ritual of marriage?

Quick break, we just began this section under the premise it is not about ritual in which case there is not ritual of marriage in which to participate. Consistency.

Carry on -

...If marriage is at essence values, why can not the SS couple begin to cohabitate and bask in their values? Why do they need the state to recognize their values through the ritual of marriage?

Because there is no good answer to the question at this point, "Why not allow them to do so?" What do you lose if this is the case? (Wow, we're back to the OP. Nice!)

[MormonMason]

... (one of my niece's had to have her ovaries removed at the beginning of puberty and told the obvious -she will not be the mother of her naturally born children - for example.)

Bummer. Did the doctors even offer the option to freeze slices of ovarian tissue? Or does she carry BRCA1 and/or BRCA2? You can answer this in a PM, if you wish.

[Honorentheos]

Bummer. Did the doctors even offer the option to freeze slices of ovarian tissue? Or does she carry BRCA1 and/or BRCA2? You can answer this in a PM, if you wish.

MormonMason -

I don't know. I received the initial news of this through a weird sort of serial messaging from my mother. The first I heard of it, it started as my mom mentioning something that the doctor wanted to look at more closely. She mentioned it kind of off-handedly, "keep them in your prayers" kind of thing. By the end of the week, it became an overnight stay at Primary Children's for exploritory surgery. Then being in a hospital for a period followed by a recovery period. Living in another state, I am very out-of-the loop when it comes to family news and get most of it from my mother. To be honest, my wife is more informed on the specifics. Because, honestly, I don't talk about female genitalia with my mother very well.

On the positive side, for a teen, she (my niece) is incredibly upbeat as a person and has not since shown signs of being depressed by it. She is one of those very talented people who also uses her talents. Which, for a teen, is surprisingly mature.

And unfortunately I am not a good enough Uncle to be able to have the kind of talk with her where she would let on if she is hiding any sadness or anything about it.

I've never been a big fan of the way the church throws around the "chosen generation" thing. But if it must be applied to this one, she may be one of those who actually earned the title.

[markwhannig]

there is a little box with a talking bubble in the toolbar above this editing box.

Honorentheos:

Thank you for explaining to me how to insert quotes.

The answer to the question you were just about to ask is, "The later is not done in ritual fashion." Don't worry. Real emotion can help get rid of the monotony of sex if you suffer from ritualizing the act.

The ritual of sex after marriage by no means diminished my enjoyment of the activity, and I hope my wife's enjoyment was maintained as well. However the honeymoon ended after some time and, like just about every couple I suppose, my wife and I have evolved in our marital relationship, to include the sexuality aspects. I know if we participate in a weekly dating ritual (meaning the ritual of arranging for babysitting for our kids, planning a place to go out to, and me giving my wife my undivided attention for the evening) then our sexual activity does increase in frequency, duration and intensity -- I knew there's a reason that both ecclesiastical and social science leaders recommend that married couples maintain a dating ritual.

Carry on -

Because there is no good answer to the question at this point, "Why not allow them to do so?" What do you lose if this is the case? (Wow, we're back to the OP. Nice!)

Honorentheos -- Last night I did read the Florida case and the reasononline Johnathaun Rauch article you referenced. Thank you for pointing those out to me: I learned a lot. I made some notes and do want to respond -- in fact I want to respond in some aggressive ways. I don't see myself moving to the same side of the fence as you on this issue any time soon, if at all -- but who knows. We have to draw the line somewhere when we define "marriage;" and I still want it drawn between homo- and hetrosexuality.

But further discussion at this point may be just more of the same back and forth -- I'm not sure if either of us would come up with any insight that we haven't already shared with each other. Therefore, I ask for your patience -- I've thought about SSM more in the past week than in my entire previous life. I want to take a break for awhile, and not discuss SSM. Can you bear with me on this and we can come back with you at a later date to respond to the essay and case?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[1TrueDisciple]

If you live in a state that defines marriage to include SSM, and you have a license whereby the state grants you authority to perform marriages (e.g. a LDS Bishop), you must follow that state's law. You can not discriminate.

So if a SSM couple approaches you, LDS Bishop, to perform their marriage, and you refuse, could they sue you for unlawful discrimination? Can they sue the Church?

The trick to surviving in such an environment is not to refuse the requested services, but to INSIST that the service be performed according to the marrying officials specifications. Then, make those specifications contain elements that make the gay/lesbian couples publicly uncomfortable, such as insisting on vows that contain the words "husband" and "wife" and making one of them choose who will be who (husband/wife) during the public performance of the ceremony. Also, insist that one of them wear a wedding gown while the other wears a tuxedo, and after the vows, introduce them as "husband and wife."

There are probably other things that heterosexual couples would accept that would ruin a SSM wedding, but these things would serve as a start.

By insisting on a traditional ceremony, an official could make the SSM candidates go elsewhere to find someone to officiate at their "marriage" ceremony.

Of course, if the gays/lesbians are willing to meet the restrictions and accept the public chuckles that result, the official will have to perform the ceremony or risk a law suit.

[J.S. Mill]

Are these LDS bishops currently required to marry a Catholic to an atheist, or a crackhead to an unrepentant adulterer? If all of these people are legally allowed to marry, why are we so scared that legalization of gay marriage will force bishops to marry gay couples?

[MormonMason]

Are these LDS bishops currently required to marry a Catholic to an atheist, or a crackhead to an unrepentant adulterer? If all of these people are legally allowed to marry, why are we so scared that legalization of gay marriage will force bishops to marry gay couples?

It is because they are so vocal about the issue and have been sueing various companies with great energy to force them to include them even when some businesses refuse them services. Whatever happened to the "We reserve the right to refuse serviec to anyone" clauses at places of business?!? And, then, there is the matter of boycotts and violence, vandalism and terrorism coming from a number of their group.

Why should we believe that they will not break their other promises and then turn around and try to sue the Church to force them to perform "gay temple marriages" with such shining examples of decorum among them? There is no room for trust that they will not start doing just the opposite of what they promise they will not do in light of what they are doing now.

[CMZ]

Are these LDS bishops currently required to marry a Catholic to an atheist, or a crackhead to an unrepentant adulterer? If all of these people are legally allowed to marry, why are we so scared that legalization of gay marriage will force bishops to marry gay couples?

We don't know exactly what could in reality happen but we do know the gay agenda is pushing for quite a bit and whenever a concession is made (such as domestic partnership rights) they quiet down briefly then go back on the warpath claiming that it's still not good enough.

[semlogo]

We don't know exactly what could in reality happen but we do know the gay agenda is pushing for quite a bit and whenever a concession is made (such as domestic partnership rights) they quiet down briefly then go back on the warpath claiming that it's still not good enough.

There's only so far they can go, at least in the US. They can force businesses to cater to them, but churches are protected under the 1st Amendment.

[J.S. Mill]

There's only so far they can go, at least in the US. They can force businesses to cater to them, but churches are protected under the 1st Amendment.

Exactly. You guys who think that people with "the gay agenda" will successfully be able to force religions to perform same-sex marriages are paranoid and ignorant of constitutional law.

[Grothar]

No, no we're not ignorant of constitutional law.

We're just afraid of those people who believe in a "living constitution" as we are ignorant of constitutional law according to them.

The question becomes, what happens when two constitutional rights clash? Which one takes precedence over the other? It seems that freedom of religion has been taking a backseat to other freedoms more and more recently. I would not be surprised to find it losing the clash with freedom of conscience

And the aliens told me to disregard the paranoid comment

[semlogo]

No, no we're not ignorant of constitutional law.

We're just afraid of those people who believe in a "living constitution" as we are ignorant of constitutional law according to them.

The question becomes, what happens when two constitutional rights clash? Which one takes precedence over the other? It seems that freedom of religion has been taking a backseat to other freedoms more and more recently. I would not be surprised to find it losing the clash with freedom of conscience

And the aliens told me to disregard the paranoid comment

I don't think freedom of religion has even been chipped away at. Religions are free to basically do whatever they want within their own spheres. You could easily start a religion where no women or no Asians are allowed, and no one could do anything about it.

Business and government are another matter.

[markwhannig]

Exactly. You guys who think that people with "the gay agenda" will successfully be able to force religions to perform same-sex marriages are paranoid and ignorant of constitutional law.

J.S. Mill:

Are you learned about constitutional law?

If so, how did you obtain your constitutional law education? Did you go to law school? If so, where?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[markwhannig]

Are these LDS bishops currently required to marry a Catholic to an atheist, or a crackhead to an unrepentant adulterer? If all of these people are legally allowed to marry, why are we so scared that legalization of gay marriage will force bishops to marry gay couples?

J.S. Mill:

Do you believe SSM advocates have an agenda beyond the mere right to engage in SSM marriage? Why or why not?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[J.S. Mill]

J.S. Mill:

Are you learned about constitutional law?

I'd argue that I understand the salient history and theory of constitutional law better than the people in this thread who are worried that gays will be successful in foisting gay marriage on religious groups. I'm not sure if that's enough to call me learned in constitutional law, however.

If so, how did you obtain your constitutional law education? Did you go to law school? If so, where?

I confess that I have not graduated from law school (I'm applying right now, actually). My constitutional law education consists of some undergraduate courses on the Constitution and the philosophy of law (I have a B.A. in Political Theory from UCLA, if you must know). I also read the court cases relevant to this topic, and discuss them with my friends who do have law degrees.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them.