Prop 8 as discussed in BYU's "Daily Universe"

[toon]

What is more embarrassing to BYU ... the letter, or the censorship of the letter?

Removing Boy George records from the bookstore.

[Lars Umlaut]

For your consideration:

Interview with BYU student Cary Crall - ByCommonConsent.com

Everyone Should Know the Story of Cary Crall - ReligionDispatches.org

(Tip of the hat to 'The Mormon Report' at MDB)

[JackNimble]

When it was confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is true, I felt a certain way... I felt the same way when this was confirmed to me. Plus, it meets the standard as outlined in Moroni 7:16-17.

What if I *am* right and the Brethren *are* wrong? Is that possible? We know the Brethren are fallible, it's possible that's been confirmed to me, isn't it? And if so, does that mean I should not voice my opinion?

H.

So are you disbelieving when we think of the words of the Prophet Joseph when he said that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as the prophet, or that you don't believe the prophet was acting as the prophet? If the latter, do you have evidence to support this notion?

[Calm]

Similarly, the defense was unable to find a single expert witness willing to testify that state-recognized homosexual marriage would lead to forcing religious adoption agencies to allow homosexual parents to adopt children or that children would be required to learn about homosexual marriage in school.

Interesting examples since similar events as these have already occurred.

[Mordecai]

Actually, the General Authorities support of prop. 8 strengthened my testimony, because after time, some study and thought, it became obvious that "gay marriage" represents one of the more dangerous political dogmas in history, i.e. that biological parenthood is irrelevant.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

and

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

I agree with Pedro that this is a good video as well:

[elguanteloko]

Actually, the General Authorities support of prop. 8 strengthened my testimony, because after time, some study and thought, it became obvious that "gay marriage" represents one of the more dangerous political dogmas in history, i.e. that biological parenthood is irrelevant.

http://www.weeklysta...03/660zypwj.asp

and

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04G01

I agree with Pedro that this is a good video as well:

<youtube vid>

...yea, they have so tough, those Scandinavians:

"In turning away from marriage, Scandinavians have done little to harm their quality of life. Norway ranked first and Sweden second in the United Nations' quality-of-life survey for 2004, which rates per capital income, education levels, health care and life expectancy in measuring a nation's well-being. The USA came in eighth."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-15-marriage_x.htm

[Zeta-Flux]

Mordecai,

I think that's the issue. People who are for gay marriage do not view bearing children as being part of marriage. Marriage is simply about creating a civilly recognized companionship, in their eyes.

In this appeal process, I believe it will come down to whether the judges can be convinced that bearing children is fundamentally a part of marriage.

-----

elguanteloko,

Wow. That article basically sums up my worst fears. Children not having *their* fundamental rights being granted, because the parents "just want to see if it will work out". Sheesh.

[Calm]

...yea, they have so tough, those Scandinavians:

"In turning away from marriage, Scandinavians have done little to harm their quality of life. Norway ranked first and Sweden second in the United Nations' quality-of-life survey for 2004, which rates per capital income, education levels, health care and life expectancy in measuring a nation's well-being. The USA came in eighth."

http://www.usatoday....-marriage_x.htm

Current measures cannot reflect the long term impact of having unmarried parents for children born in the last decade or so.

Stability of parental relationships are very important for children's overall well being. Stats have historically shown that couples who cohabit are less likely to stay together than couples who marry, the increase of out of wedlock births thus has implications on the well being of the children, if not the adults.

If one is concerned primarily with the effect on future generations, it will take awhile to get confirmation or rejection of one's hypotheses.

[elguanteloko]

I think that's the issue. People who are for gay marriage do not view bearing children as being part of marriage. Marriage is simply about creating a civilly recognized companionship, in their eyes.

And if they don't see having children as being part of marriage we are going to force them to, right?

elguanteloko,

Wow. That article basically sums up my worst fears. Children not having *their* fundamental rights being granted, because the parents "just want to see if it will work out". Sheesh.

...what fundamental right are you talking about? Last time I checked having both parents is anything but a right. Do you want to force people (through the State) to marry before having children?

[elguanteloko]

Current measures cannot reflect the long term impact of having unmarried parents for children born in the last decade or so.

Why not?

Stability of parental relationships are very important for children's overall well being. Stats have historically shown that couples who cohabit are less likely to stay together than couples who marry, the increase of out of wedlock births thus has implications on the well being of the children, if not the adults.

Scandinavians don't seem to have that much trouble at all. Can you prove otherwise? Sure, if the parents are fighting all the time then the children will probably have problems but that's part of the reason Scandinavians don't seem to marry that much.

If one is concerned primarily with the effect on future generations, it will take awhile to get confirmation or rejection of one's hypotheses.

I don't know where you get this from. Out-of-wedlock children have existed for a LONG time.

[Calm]

And if they don't see having children as being part of marriage we are going to force them to, right?

If the government subsidizes the marriage legal contract for the purpose of creating healthy, stable, tax paying, etc. citizens for the future, then I think it is reasonable to attach having children to the legal definition.

In practice, if a couple wants to marry without children, is there anything that is stopping them from creating their own legal arrangement? Why should they be subsidized if they have no intent to 'furnish' more citizens?

I personally think the government should get out of the marriage business and instead focus on directly promoting childbearing/rearing, including rewarding families that have longer term stable parental relationships.

[elguanteloko]

If the government subsidizes the marriage legal contract for the purpose of creating healthy, stable, tax paying, etc. citizens for the future, then I think it is reasonable to attach having children to the legal definition.

Because the purpose of legal marriage is not to breed people so they can pay taxes in the future, obviously. Are you seriously expecting any reasonable person to believe this?

In practice, if a couple wants to marry without children, is there anything that is stopping them from creating their own legal arrangement? Why should they be subsidized if they have no intent to 'furnish' more citizens?

Because the purpose of marriage is NOT to furnish more citizens. That is neither the purpose of legal marriage (as you implied previously) nor the purpose of marriage as a social institution (as you are, for some reason, implying here). Also, I don't understand why you call marriage a subsidy; you might want to check what a subsidy is, first.

I personally think the government should get out of the marriage business and instead focus on directly promoting childbearing/rearing, including rewarding families that have longer term stable parental relationships.

But you just said the purpose of the marriage provided by the Gov. was to furnish healthy, stable, tax paying citizens and now you say they should.. promote childbearing/rearing? Probably you don't think marriage is as effective, after all. Now, if you want the Gov. to stay out of the "marriage business", why do you want the Gov. to promote stable parental relationships? Investing in something, calmoriah, is not really 'staying out of business' (again, unless you think promoting stable parental relationships is not something marriage does).

[Zeta-Flux]

And if they don't see having children as being part of marriage we are going to force them to, right?

Why would we do that? HOW would we do that?

...what fundamental right are you talking about? Last time I checked having both parents is anything but a right. Do you want to force people (through the State) to marry before having children?

I'm talking about the fundamental rights, bestowed by God (and not the State) to children. The ones that the parents are abrogating by creating children outside the bonds of a stable life-long relationship.

[Calm]

Investing in something, calmoriah, is not really 'staying out of business'

Either I am writing or you are reading poorly today, either way today I just don't feel like struggling to get my points across so I am bowing out of the conversation this time around. Perhaps another day.

[Mordecai]

...yea, they have so tough, those Scandinavians:

"In turning away from marriage, Scandinavians have done little to harm their quality of life. Norway ranked first and Sweden second in the United Nations' quality-of-life survey for 2004, which rates per capital income, education levels, health care and life expectancy in measuring a nation's well-being. The USA came in eighth."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-12-15-marriage_x.htm

While Scandinavia is doing some thing right, 60% of their children are born out of wedlock since their governments recognized "gay marriage" as if its a real marriage. Living together has also increased. It takes time for children to grow up and prove themselves as functional members of society or dysfunctional. We'll give them 10-15 years to see how these kids turn out, how happy or unhappy they are. We can also see how it effects the generation after that. Weaker families beget weaker families, and it seems to me, that will ultimately result in more abuse, abandonment and misery.

Regardless, the evidence we see in Scandinavia is that people have been influenced by the dogma "gay marriage" represents. Since that's the case, and since neither you nor anyone else can see the future without God's help, we can categorize the state adopting "gay marriage" as a social experiment. The Constitution seems to try to limit government power, and imposing radical social experiments that tear down the age old and proven institution of marriage seems like an incredibly arrogant and rash thing to do. It's also tyrannical to do so without the consent of the voters.

[elguanteloko]

Why would we do that? HOW would we do that?

I'm sorry you did not get it.

I'm talking about the fundamental rights, bestowed by God (and not the State) to children. The ones that the parents are abrogating by creating children outside the bonds of a stable life-long relationship.

Oh! In that case those rights do not matter. You see, we can't take most religious beliefs and base our laws on them. Religion does not tell you what to make legal or illegal and even if it does (i.e. modern-day prophets saying God told us to support some law) that does not mean they have strong enough reasons other than "because God told me to".

[elguanteloko]

While Scandinavia is doing some thing right, 60% of their children are born out of wedlock since their governments recognized "gay marriage" as if its a real marriage.

Here is something I don't quite get, Mordecai. How is it that allowing homosexual marriage affects heterosexual marriage? Is there any evidence you can show on that?

Living together has also increased.

Because of SSM? CFR for some evidence.

It takes time for children to grow up and prove themselves as functional members of society or dysfunctional. We'll give them 10-15 years to see how these kids turn out, how happy or unhappy they are. We can also see how it effects the generation after that. Weaker families beget weaker families, and it seems to me, that will ultimately result in more abuse, abandonment and misery.

How does SSM make 'weaker' families?

Regardless, the evidence we see in Scandinavia is that people have been influenced by the dogma "gay marriage" represents.

CFR, please. You are making WAY too many strange conclusions based on very little, it seems.

Since that's the case, and since neither you nor anyone else can see the future without God's help, we can categorize the state adopting "gay marriage" as a social experiment. The Constitution seems to try to limit government power, and imposing radical social experiments that tear down the age old and proven institution of marriage seems like an incredibly arrogant and rash thing to do. It's also tyrannical to do so without the consent of the voters.

...

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm sorry you did not get it.

Oh, I got it. You think somehow we are trying to force judges to believe something or other. I not only disagree, but think that would be a foolish and impossible thing to do (hence my rhetorical questions).

Oh! In that case those rights do not matter. You see, we can't take most religious beliefs and base our laws on them. Religion does not tell you what to make legal or illegal and even if it does (i.e. modern-day prophets saying God told us to support some law) that does not mean they have strong enough reasons other than "because God told me to".

Maybe in your world-view they don't matter. But they do in mine, and to many other Americans.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Similarly, I and many others hold it as true that "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

The issue of legality or illegality is irrelevant. Children have those rights regardless of whether or not our government recognizes them. Further, I would disagree with you that, a priori, we cannot base our laws on those premises.

[Mordecai]

Here is something I don't quite get, Mordecai. How is it that allowing homosexual marriage affects heterosexual marriage? Is there any evidence you can show on that?

For the love of Pete, how many times do I have to explain this? If you treat two things as if they are the same and call them by the same name, the implication is that the differences are irrelevant. In this case, the more operative difference between a "gay marriage" and a real marriage is the reality that a "gay marriage" doesn't represent both biological parents raising their own children.

The authoritative declaration by the government of the purported factual nature of your mindless political dogma creates a situation very friendly to people agreeing to this dogma and antagonistic to those disagreeing:

This cycle doesn't end, until the environment is changed. Give this twenty years. Give it two-hundred. One way or another, it will result in marriage being a mere product of the state, not meaningful in itself nor beneficial to society. Of course, without marriage being meaningful, it will stop promoting the beneficial behavior that Nature intended, i.e. two biological parents raising their own children.

CFR, please. You are making WAY too many strange conclusions based on very little, it seems.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/10/death_of_marriage_in_scandinavia/

[elguanteloko]

Oh, I got it. You think somehow we are trying to force judges to believe something or other. I not only disagree, but think that would be a foolish and impossible thing to do (hence my rhetorical questions).

I never meant anything like this.

Maybe in your world-view they don't matter. But they do in mine, and to many other Americans.

They obviously do matter to many people but they are wrong, not in worrying, but in the conclusions they get to because of faulty reasoning.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

As someone who should know some U.S. history, you should realize these words meant something very different to what they are supposed to mean today. "Men" did not include the great majority of people.

Similarly, I and many others hold it as true that "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

You can believe these things as much as you want but the difference is that one is entitled to be enforced through force (the state) and the other one (religion) is not. Ever heard about separation of Church and State? You might want to review that a little bit focusing on the "WHY?"

The issue of legality or illegality is irrelevant. Children have those rights regardless of whether or not our government recognizes them. Further, I would disagree with you that, a priori, we cannot base our laws on those premises.

If the legality does not matter... why do you want to push a certain definition of marriage in the first place?

[elguanteloko]

For the love of Pete, how many times do I have to explain this? If you treat two things as if they are the same and call them by the same name, the implication is that the differences are irrelevant. In this case, the more operative difference between a "gay marriage" and a real marriage is the reality that a "gay marriage" doesn't represent both biological parents raising their own children.

The authoritative declaration by the government of the purported factual nature of your mindless political dogma creates a situation very friendly to people agreeing to this dogma and antagonistic to those disagreeing:

This cycle doesn't end, until the environment is changed. Give this twenty years. Give it two-hundred. One way or another, it will result in marriage being a mere product of the state, not meaningful in itself nor beneficial to society. Of course, without marriage being meaningful, it will stop promoting the beneficial behavior that Nature intended, i.e. two biological parents raising their own children.

You are not answering any of my 4 CFRs at all here.

http://www.boston.co...in_scandinavia/

And this is supposed to answer what? You have not answer my 4 CFRs, Mordecai. I'll even post them here for you.

1) How is it that allowing homosexual marriage affects heterosexual marriage? Is there any evidence you can show on that?

2) CFR that living together has increased BECAUSE of SSM.

3) How does SSM make 'weaker' families?

4) CFR for your statement that "the evidence we see in Scandinavia is that people have been influenced by the dogma "gay marriage" represents."

Remember, you need to show a CAUSAL relation here.

[Zeta-Flux]

elguanteloko,

It appears that I disagree with most of what you said, but I also don't feel a need to discuss it further. Best of luck.

Zeta-Flux

[Mordecai]

Remember, you need to show a CAUSAL relation here.

Refer to my diagram and my explanation. The diagram isn't made up; it's taken from behavioral science, which is well established. This answers your CFR, but you're not comprehending it. We've had this problem with you before; you don't get something and stubbornly insist that you do. Collectively, there is good evidence that the cause is, in part, the government adopting your mindless political dogma.

Do you really think that people's thoughts don't effect feelings and actions? Or perhaps you don't think a person's environment effects their thoughts?

Do you not understand my discussion on semantics? (I did major in English with an option in language and discourse; I'm sure that means nothing to you, based on your previous attitude toward people more educated than you. Regardless, I say your CFR is answered).

[elguanteloko]

Refer to my diagram and my explanation. The diagram isn't made up; it's taken from behavioral science, which is well established. This answers your CFR, but you're not comprehending it. We've had this problem with you before; you don't get something and stubbornly insist that you do. Collectively, there is good evidence that the cause is, in part, the government adopting your mindless political dogma.

Do you really think that people's thoughts don't effect feelings and actions? Or perhaps you don't think a person's environment effects their thoughts?

Do you not understand my discussion on semantics? (I did major in English with an option in language and discourse; I'm sure that means nothing to you, based on your previous attitude toward people more educated than you. Regardless, I say your CFR is answered).

Let's see what you posted and see if you responded to any of my CFRs:

For the love of Pete, how many times do I have to explain this? If you treat two things as if they are the same and call them by the same name, the implication is that the differences are irrelevant.

OK, so people think the differences are irrelevant.

In this case, the more operative difference between a "gay marriage" and a real marriage is the reality that a "gay marriage" doesn't represent both biological parents raising their own children.

Wait, you just said that people would think the differences are irrelevant. By your previous statement, that "a gay marriage doesn't represent both biological parents raising their own children" IS irrelevant. Thanks for proving me right. Also, do you realize homosexuals can adopt kids in Scandinavia, too? So, if they can marry and have children... how come that still affects heterosexual marriage in your view?

My 4 CFRs are still unanswered and you have shown no causal relation whatsoever.

1) How is it that allowing homosexual marriage affects heterosexual marriage? Is there any evidence you can show on that?

2) CFR that living together has increased BECAUSE of SSM.

3) How does SSM make 'weaker' families?

4) CFR for your statement that "the evidence we see in Scandinavia is that people have been influenced by the dogma "gay marriage" represents."

Try again.

[krose]

While Scandinavia is doing some thing right, 60% of their children are born out of wedlock since their governments recognized "gay marriage" as if its a real marriage.

Can you demonstrate that there has been a spike in that number since the official recognition of SSM, rather than a continuation of a long-term trend?

Lacking that, you cannot legitimately claim causation.