Ten years of "gay marriage"

[california boy]

I never said such a thing. Is it Bare False Witness Day on this forum or something? In fact, I give all credit to God, my parents, the scriptures, the G.A.'s and my education for helping to prevent me from believing such an inane dogma. I've developed critical thinking, intellectual self-assurance, mental fortitude and become informed not because of something innate. It has little to do with intelligence, and I never said it was about intelligence. You did.

This is what you wrote.

Mordecai, on 03 April 2011 - 08:53 AM, said:

What do I think, when people talk about "gay marriage?" I think it's ridiculous, because I know this debate well and have good critical thinking. Of course, I've never said that I might get confused, only that society, in the long run will get confused. Young people and unusually gullible or those prone to group think, on the other hand, are quite impressionable and actually believe there are no significant differences. People on this board have said many times, "There are no significant differences between a gay union and a marriage!!! You're a bigot!" They obviously are prone to group-think, are just gullible or easily indoctrinated due to poor critical thinking.

What you said here, is that you would not be confused what gay marriage ment because you have been educated by God, parents etc. But there are people not as smart and gullible as you who would be fooled. So don't accuse me of bareing false witness. It was your argument not mine. You know the whole gold/lead thing you have been trying to push on this thread. The uneducated and gullible people will begin to think lead is gold. Read your past posts if you are confused about your assertion.

I feel most reasonable people that was introduced to two men that were married would not be confused that it was a gay marriage, not a heterosexual marriage. You on the other hand are fighting for marriage to stay as it is so there will be no confusion. That is your cause, not mine. And hey if you want to rant about it to someone who sees the logic in that reasoning, then go ahead carry on. I support you in your right to try and convince as many people as you can that such confusion would result if gay marriage is allowed.

[Daniel2]

Darin, I remember a bit ago about a thread in which it was talking about a teacher's association supporting teaching kids about... things which they should not be taught about. More than just homosexuality as well.

I think that would be a good example.

I'm sure USU's example is also there as well, but we'll wait for him to respond, as I don't know which thing he is referring to.

I hid an actual URL in my response, which Dan'l no doubt knows well, and where this "anti-Gospel" of 'sin away!, there is no sin' is advocated. I was not going to link it directly because of its gross perversion. I'm not about porn, especially not the religious sort. Besides which I think the old rule about being very careful about what we link to was preserved in the most recent move.

USU "The alliterative couplet was only a couplet" 78

OK, in light of TAO/s comment and USU's response above, it appears that a couple of clarifications are in order.

TAO, my CFR of USU's words is not related to the teaching of pro-gay curriculum in schools. USU mentioned that some sort of "anti-gospel" is being spread that specifically says that "breeders-bad/gays-good" (especially the bolded part). "Breeders" is a term for straight couples who have children. I think we all get who "gays" are. In other words, USU's apparently claiming that someone, somewhere is teaching or advancing some sort of "anti-gospel" messsage that "straight people are bad; gay people are good."

THAT'S what I'm looking for USU to back up. Who or where is this message that is claiming that "straights (breeders) are bad," and "gays are good"?

USU apparently thinks that I'm being intentionally obtuse or coy--that I "no doubt know well" what he's referring to. I'm honestly, sincerely totally lost on what looks to me like a game of inentional information hide and seek (especially his reference to "porn"--really, I'm dumbfounded as to what on earth he's talking about...! ).

USU, please clarify what the heck you're talking about. I don't know anyone who's claiming that "breeders-bad."

Darin

[WalkerW]

My understanding is that it is likely a mix between genetics and hormones present during gestation. Nurture doesn't seem to have any effect, for the most part.

This sounds like the genetic determinism I was referencing. I provided the links because of the complex genetic interplay of nature and nurture.

Nonetheless, I find the "genetic argument" to be irrelevant when it comes to the marriage debate. Plenty of things, both normal and abnormal, have genetic roots. The real question is what is the definition and purpose of the institute of marriage. This, I find, would determine whether or not it is something to be left to the private sector or something that the state might have an interest in.

[semlogo]

This sounds like the genetic determinism I was referencing. I provided the links because of the complex genetic interplay of nature and nurture.

Nonetheless, I find the "genetic argument" to be irrelevant when it comes to the marriage debate. Plenty of things, both normal and abnormal, have genetic roots. The real question is what is the definition and purpose of the institute of marriage. This, I find, would determine whether or not it is something to be left to the private sector or something that the state might have an interest in.

Why is that the real question? People define the purpose of their own marriages, without the need of committees or governments or political action committees. And that's how it should be.

[WalkerW]

Why is that the real question? People define the purpose of their own marriages, without the need of committees or governments or political action committees. And that's how it should be.

This doesn't even make sense. The institution has to be defined for the word to have any meaning.

For example, if marriage is defined simply as a committed relationship between two people, then there is no point for the state to be involved. Leave it to the market.

However, if marriage is defined in principle as the social institution that provides the bearing and rearing of the next generation, then the state might have an interest in recognizing it.

So, yes, how the institution is defined is key. You said to let people "define the purpose of their own marriages." I asked what the definition and purpose of marriage is. This isn't what you answered.

Your response presupposes the existence of the institution. My question asks for the definition and purpose of the institution.

[semlogo]

This doesn't even make sense. The institution has to be defined for the word to have any meaning.

For example, if marriage is defined simply as a committed relationship between two people, then there is no point for the state to be involved. Leave it to the market.

However, if marriage is defined in principle as the social institution that provides the bearing and rearing of the next generation, then the state might have an interest in recognizing it.

So, yes, how the institution is defined is key. You said to let people "define the purpose of their own marriages." I asked what the definition and purpose of marriage is. This isn't what you answered.

Your response presupposes the existence of the institution. My question asks for the definition and purpose of the institution.

But in the real world, it's the people who define the purpose of their own marriages. So the definition and purpose of marriage will differ from couple to couple. There's no need for a stiffing central control of what marriage is.

Legally speaking, marriage is a contractual partnership. But the state and society doesn't get to define a single purpose that applies to all contracts. Why should they do so in the case of marriage?

Your argument is a popular one in the post Prop 8 debate, but it's not one anyone seemed to care about immediately before the gay marriage issue, which suggests to me that its purely ad hoc.

[Daniel2]

Let me ask you a question: why should the gov't be involved in labeling certain types of unions over others?

You mean, referring to marriage? As in, "so far as marriage is concerned, why shoudl the government be involved in labeling certain types of unioins over others?"

If that's what you mean, then this question presumes that, so far as marriage is concerned, that the respondant presumes that the government should be involved in labeling one type of marital union over another. My response is that my point is exactly the opposite, which strikes precisely at the heart of my point: that the government should not be attempting to label certain types of marital unions over others.

Now, if you're asking, in a broader sense of the term "union" (that is, ANY general type of "legal contract" between adults), "why should the government be invovled in labeling certain types of unions (i.e. a marriage contract) vs. others (such as an employment contract; or a licensing contract, etc), then I would answer that different contracts (a civil marriage contract vs. a licensing contract vs. an employment contract vs. a rental contract, etc) all form the basis of defining different legal relationships. All of these definitions are civilly/legally spelled out in the laws governing whatever specific type of contract is being entered into. The Rental Contract between a renter and a landlord, for example, defines specific legal obligations and responsabilities for both parties invovled. A Divorce Contract definies specific legal obligations and responabilities for both parties involved. An Employment Contract definies specific legal obligations and responabilities for both parties involved.

A Licensing Contract definies specific legal obligations and responabilities for both parties involved. A Business Partnership Contract definies specific legal obligations and responabilities for both parties involved. And a Marriage Contract definies specific legal obligations and responabilities for both parties involved.

My point is that, despite there being obvious personal differences/roles/agreements in every marriage, the legal rights and responsabilities of the civil marriage contract between "a woman and a man" make it legally/civilly indistinguishable (so far as the government is concerned) from a civil marriage contract between "a man and a man" OR "a woman and a woman." That is, if the government was reviewing the finanical and legal documents (finances, tax returns, health care bills, etc.) of 100 "civilly married couples" in a state that allows gay marriage (say, Massachussetts, or Iowa, or Connecticut, for example), the same-sex couples would be legally indisitinguisable from the opposite-sex couples (unless you looked at fields that were marked with 'gender,' or their names gave away their genders). That is, in a world where "justice is blind," the gender of the couples really makes little difference, so far as the government is concerned.

Does the gender of ANY of the above mentioned 100 couples matter, at all, to anyone...? Are either their divergent genders or same genders relevant, to anyone? Of COURSE their genders matter--specifically, the genders (and differences of each gender and each individual spouse and marital dynamic) matter very much to EACH INDIVIDUAL couple in question. To the straight couples, it makes a WORLD of difference that their spouse is someone of the opposite gender, to whom they are romantically and (hopefully) affectionally attracted. And to the gay couples, it makes a WOLRD of difference that their spouse is someone of the same gender, to whom the are romantically and (hopefully) affectionally attracted. It is impossible for the government to judge or mandate the personal sexual behaviours of any of the above couples in question, not to mention inappropriate for the government to do so, and it isn't always easy for the government (or even family or friends) to gauge the level of personal/emotional committment that any of all of these 100 couples in question hold towards each other--but one thing is certain--by LEGALLY entering into a CIVIL marriage contract, they have each agreed to certain legal and financial obligations, at a bare minimum, that is required by law. Hopefully, social support and encouragement will likewise encourage additional stability and support for couples' martial harmony and longevity.

The gov't doesn't label, for example, friends with benefits, do they? What's the point in the first place? Why not give everyone the same rights, having them register to be able to visit each other in the hospital or leave their money to whomever they choose?

I would imagine the government has not created a legal designation or recognized union for "friends with benefits" precisely because "friends with benefits" aren't seeking the legal rights and responsabilities that come with marriage. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're asking here, given that if any couple (whether straight or gay) that starts off as "friends with benefits" romantically progressed to the point that they then desired to legally commit to one another as a married couple does, and wanted to receive the legal rights and assume the legal responsabilities of a married couple, then they could choose to marry each other.

In short, from my perspective, your rummination about "friends with benefits" only serves to illusrate that, if we want to create a culture of marriage and promote marriage within our culture, we should AVOID creating a series of "marriage-like" substitutes (such as "civil unions," which are available for both straight and gay couples. These "marriage lite" substitutes are similar to marriage, or have some of the benefits of marriage, but serve to decrease the number of marriages performed, because the creation of new classes of varying degress of legally-measurable relational committment (i.e. "civil unions" or "friends with benefits") will offer a smorgasboard of alternate legally-recongized-familiar-relationship choices that will decrease the number of marriages performed--even among straights.

Will allowing gay and lesbian couples have ANY affect on the sum total of opposite-sex marriages that performed...? For a very clear minority, I not only think so, but I hope so--that decrease being due to SOME gay men and woman who (in previous generations) would have felt unnatural (as in, contrary to their own nature) pressure to heterosexually-marry someone of the opposite-gender (a concept which, far from strengthening "marriage," as a whole, only had the likely effect of increasing divorce rates). So, as same-sex marriage gains traction, hopefully, less gay men and women will marry someone of the opposite gender (though some, especially within conservative cultures like Mormonism, likely will continue to do so, as is their priviledge and right, according to the personal autonomy all consentual couples should have have, when it comes to selecting each other, as spouses).

My view,

Darin

[WalkerW]

But in the real world, it's the people who define the purpose of their own marriages.

But do they define what the institution actually is? This seems to make the institution meaningless.

Legally speaking, marriage is a contractual partnership.

And if that is all it is, then there is no need for the institution. Paperwork will do just fine. The private sector can handle it.

Your argument is a popular one in the post Prop 8 debate, but it's not one anyone seemed to care about immediately before the gay marriage issue, which suggests to me that its purely ad hoc.

It wasn't an issue before.

[WalkerW]

Notice, however, that I merely said the institution would need to be defined. You've defined it simply as a contractual partnership with no purpose beyond that. If that is the case, then I think an argument can be made for privatizing the institution to allow partners to define other purposes beyond the initial one.

This is why I find it crucial to actually define the point of the institution.

[Mordecai]

Congratulations. This has to be the most contrived argument against gay marriage that I have ever come across. All because you don't want to admit that your opposition to gay marriage is rooted in your dogmatic belief that God abhors sodomy.

I suppose this wording and the level of complexity in my argument are difficult to connect with. Of course, this same argument applies equally well to why the gov't shouldn't call lead, "gold." Ultimately, that's what I wanted to explain, i.e. that calling a gay union, "marriage," has a very strong analogy in the gov't officially calling lead, "gold."

Of course, perhaps my real motive for not wanting the gov't to call lead, "gold," is... uh... hatred of sodomy?

Not true at all. A couple need not be married to have and raise children. A couple that is married, need not have children.

You missed the point. Nature/God bestowed upon man the natural inclination to nurture and protect BIOLOGICAL offspring. That's the part you missed. Nurturing and protecting adopted or step children is less likely and largely learned.

Marriage is about the legal relationship of the couple. Parents are parents regardless of whether they are married.

Marriage is NOT about the legal relationship. There is a legal contract in place, but real marriage is comprised of "the carrying out of the decision to live as husband and wife." That's one thing that hasn't changed, regardless of gov't recognition. Court decisions, on various occasions, have made this clear, e.g. Loving v. Virginia, wherein the "evidence that the [Lovings] are married is that they are living together as husband and wife [prior to the Virginia gov't even being aware they were doing so]." Marriage is not a contract, although the gov't, for purposes of legal discussion, often talks as if it is. But it's not and never has been.

The only reason the legal recognition of marriage came into existence was due to the importance of the institution in itself. To conflate marriage, which is essential to any civilization, with the mere recognition of it, is absurd. You're not someone I would refer to as "down to earth."

Your deep concern for the heterosexual children being raised by heterosexual parents is touching. The issue is gay marriage, however, not the forced removal of heterosexual children from their heterosexual parents and placing them with gay couples.

You misunderstand. I'm just pointing out a difference that is not separable from heterosexual unions. No matter what gay unions do, they will not have the quality of being appropriate role models for heterosexual children. Since heterosexual children will vastly outnumber homosexuals, heterosexual unions clearly are for a greater good.

If that were the issue, we would be in agreement.

I think that no matter what, we will still not be in agreement.

[Mordecai]

You mean, referring to marriage? As in, "so far as marriage is concerned, why shoudl the government be involved in labeling certain types of unioins over others?"

If that's what you mean, then this question presumes that, so far as marriage is concerned, that the respondant presumes that the government should be involved in labeling one type of marital union over another.

You misunderstand. The gov't recognizes and labels marriages, but they do not do so with friendship or a close-knit Dungeons & Dragons club. In other words, the gov't views some unions to be more in gov't jurisdiction. That's not discrimination.

...different contracts (a civil marriage contract vs. a licensing contract vs. an employment contract vs. a rental contract, etc) all form the basis of defining different legal relationships...

Exactly. Different things get different names. Natural law of language.

My point is that, despite there being obvious personal differences/roles/agreements in every marriage, the legal rights and responsabilities of the civil marriage contract between "a woman and a man" make it legally/civilly indistinguishable

The gov't can't distinguish between a man and a woman? Really? Clearly, the difference between a man and a woman is relevant to the gov't, or they wouldn't identify us according to gender at all.

That is, in a world where "justice is blind," the gender of the couples really makes little difference, so far as the government is concerned.

"Justice is blind" is about not being arbitrarily biased in favor of someone's looks nor societal stature. But when it comes to an obviously proven good with unique qualities that can't be separated from it, i.e. the natural protectiveness and nurturing instincts that come with biological parenthood, the "blindness" in question doesn't apply. While "justice is blind" is a nice saying, the law says, "Promote the public good." Does marriage represent good that is not duplicated in a gay union? Yup. Gay unions are always missing at least one biological parent and never represent a good model for heterosexual children.

In short, from my perspective, your rummination about "friends with benefits" only serves to illusrate that, if we want to create a culture of marriage and promote marriage within our culture, we should AVOID creating a series of "marriage-like" substitutes...

Why not? As you pointed out, for all the other different types of contracts, they are spelled out differently and labeled differently by the gov't.

...offer a smorgasboard of alternate legally-recongized-familiar-relationship choices that will decrease the number of marriages performed--even among straights.

If people are straight, then their union is a marriage provided they are living together in a committed relationship, i.e. living together as husband and wife, regardless of what the gov't calls it. So what if the gov't calls it a different name? If you stop calling one of a horse's legs, "a leg," does the horse only have 3 legs? In other words, the label placed on the union isn't important, unless it is used to describe a significant difference. Why give any heterosexual couple "living together as husband and wife," a label anything other than, "married?" If they're not living together as husband and wife, they're simply not married.

Will allowing gay and lesbian couples have ANY affect on the sum total of opposite-sex marriages that performed...?

Probably, because it will likely reinforce the declining value people place on marriage, just like in the Netherlands. Again, we go back to the gov't adopting lead as "gold," analogy. Nonsensical. Insane. Unjust.

We could also revisit my 9/11 analogy. If the left decides that the differences among "man-caused disasters" are irrelevant, perhaps 9/11 will also be used to commemorate the Mexican Gulf oil spill. After all, it is also a "man-caused disaster," without relevant differences. Right? Right? Anyone?

[Mordecai]

This is what you wrote.

Right, and just as I said, you misrepresented me. I didn't mention intelligence nor did I call anyone dumb.

[Daniel2]

Marriage is NOT about the legal relationship. There is a legal contract in place, but real marriage is comprised of "the carrying out of the decision to live as husband and wife." That's one thing that hasn't changed, regardless of gov't recognition. Court decisions, on various occasions, have made this clear, e.g. Loving v. Virginia, wherein the "evidence that the [Lovings] are married is that they are living together as husband and wife [prior to the Virginia gov't even being aware they were doing so]." Marriage is not a contract, although the gov't, for purposes of legal discussion, often talks as if it is. But it's not and never has been.

This paragraph really, really helps explain why those of us who are fighting for civil marriage recognition by same-sex couples will likely never reach an agreement with you, Moredcai--because the place where you're operating from ("marriage is NOT and never has been a legal relationship/contract") is diametrically opposed to the paradigm that we're operating from ("civil marriage most definitely IS a legal relationship/contract").

We're under no delusions that government recognition and designations of same-sex couples unions as "civil marriages" will alter your God's view of or moral judgement towards gay and lesbian relationships. We're fighting for a CIVIL concept.

You appear unwilling to admit that a purely civil/legal aspect of marriage exists, independant/distinct/separate/apart of your religious definition (and possession) of it.

Understanding and acknowledging that divergence in our views helps frame and understand why the discussion is every likely to advance between you and I.

(The above distinction isn't the extent of our disagreement, of course... for example, I think that many same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents--and when taken on a individual comparative basis, some will exceed--in providing appropriate role models for their children).

I think that no matter what, we will still not be in agreement.

Well, at least we agree that it's unlikely we'll ever agree!

Darin

[Mordecai]

This paragraph really, really helps explain why those of us who are fighting for civil marriage recognition by same-sex couples will likely never reach an agreement with you, Moredcai--because the place where you're operating from ("marriage is NOT and never has been a legal relationship/contract") is diametrically opposed to the paradigm that we're operating from ("civil marriage most definitely IS a legal relationship/contract").

The courts and the dictionary disagree with you. You assume it's about my religion. It is not. It's about the natural laws of language and what makes sense. People were getting married without the government back in the day, with only the recognition of a local minister and their neighbors. Are you going to say that's not a marriage? If so, absurd.

[Daniel2]

The courts and the dictionary disagree with you. You assume it's about my religion. It is not. It's about the natural laws of language and what makes sense. People were getting married without the government back in the day, with only the recognition of a local minister and their neighbors. Are you going to say that's not a marriage? If so, absurd.

Some courts have disagreed with me. Other courts have agreed with me, and the tide seems to be turning towards courts recogniziting the term "marriage" as applicable to gay couples.

Can you point to a current dictionary that disagrees with me...? (Consider this a CFR). Most dictionaries I'm aware of have already been updated to include gay couples in their definitions.

The natural laws of language that I have experience demonstrate that language is not static or frozen in time; nor was man created to be the servant of language, rather, language was created to be the servant of man. The meaning of words evolve and change with time, place, location, and context. Old words take on new meanings, and previous definitions may be abandoned.

Yes, throughout history, people have gotten married, and in some instances, those marriages were legally sanctioned by the state, and in other cases, they were not. Certainly, most especially to the individuals getting married, their marriages were profoundly real.

In similar fashion, gay and lesbian couples have been getting married for decades, now. Just as the structure of society evolved to incorporate legal aspects of marriage into a civil construct for the couples you mentioned, I believe it will eventually evolve to recognize the same for gay and lesbian couples, just as it has been doing in an increasing number of countries across the world and states in America.

Darin

[Mordecai]

Most dictionaries I'm aware of have already been updated to include gay couples in their definitions.

No, dictionaries do not suggest that a marriage IS the legal recognition, conflating the recognition/contract with the actual relationship, e.g.

1.a.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

dictionary.com emphasis added

The natural laws of language that I have experience demonstrate that language is not static or frozen in time

Never said it was.

In similar fashion, gay and lesbian couples have been getting married for decades, now...

Which is why it's a strawman to say you're trying to legalize "gay marriage" or saying that "gay marriage" is banned or illegal.

So I came up with a compromise, actually. This is the most generous compromise I will ever offer, and I don't particularly like the gov't implying that a gay union is equal but... How about you take a Native American language used to describe marriages that also tended to include same-sex unions, and use their word for marriage as a label. That way, speech is not restricted by the gov't, and gay people get the label of being married without taking the unique identification standard English has traditionally employed to identify heterosexual unions. Unless you assume Native American languages are inferior somehow to English, this can't be taken as an insult or an affront.

[Daniel2]

No, dictionaries do not suggest that a marriage IS the legal recognition, conflating the recognition/contract with the actual relationship, e.g. dictionary.com

Wait... is this seriously happening...? Or is this an episode of the Twilight Zone...? lol

You made the claim that dictionaries "disagree with me," referring to my position that the title 'marriage' has evolved to include gay couples, to which I responded by asking you to quote a current dicitonary that disagrees with me--and you quoted definition #"1. a)" from http://www.dictionary.com as evidence.

Here's the full entry from your source, www.dictionary.com, for the entry "marriage," of which you only quoted the first definition, but which I'll present to you, in it's entirety. The entire entry is worth reading, but in particular, the bolded definition #"1. b)" :

mar

[Mordecai]

Wait... is this seriously happening...? Or is this an episode of the Twilight Zone...? lol

You made the claim that dictionaries "disagree with me," referring to my position that the title 'marriage' has evolved to include gay couples, to which I responded by asking you to quote a current dicitonary that disagrees with me--and you quoted definition #"1. a)" from http://www.dictionary.com as evidence.

I used the wrong quote:

This paragraph really, really helps explain why those of us who are fighting for civil marriage recognition by same-sex couples will likely never reach an agreement with you, Moredcai--because the place where you're operating from ("marriage is NOT and never has been a legal relationship/contract") is diametrically opposed to the paradigm that we're operating from ("civil marriage most definitely IS a legal relationship/contract")...

This is what I had in mind, when I was saying your definition is profoundly wrong.

I've not claimed or said that I'm "trying to 'legalize gay marriage,'" nor have I said "that 'gay marriage' is banned or illegal."

I didn't say you did. I just said it was irrational to say that. I wasn't sure if you were one of the people saying it, but I thought it was possible. Regardless, I worded it, so that there was no assumption that you had said it.

Ummm... I'm not asking you for a compromise...

I know you're not. You're demanding the gov't adopt your obviously false political dogma. I was just offering an interesting proposal from a linguistic and political standpoint. The U.S. has a history of borrowing from foreign (in this case, Native) languages and since the left doesn't like "civil union" or "domestic partnership," I thought I would offer a word with the correct denotation and even a history in place of the proper legal and logical word for a heterosexual union, marriage. This whole debate really has been over a single word, and that's it.

I was also testing you, because I was hoping you were not an extremist, unwilling to compromise. But, anyone that wants the gov't to adopt their obviously false dogma, I shouldn't have any confidence in, when it comes to Democratic principles and values.

[USU78]

Does Dan'l really not know that the term "breeders" is a pejorative of long use used by sufferers of SSDS and their fellow-travelers to mock the fertile and fecund? Can he truly be so disingenuous as to claim that homophile advocacy does not have, as part of its cant that the religious and the religions who refused to cow to homophile pressure to assimilate to the collective are "judgmental" and "unaccepting" and "exclusionary" and "bigoted" and "backward" and "neanderthalish" and "thuggish" and "homophobic" and "self-hating-closeted-queers" and other things that may be loosely put into a Chicago Cubs baseball cap and titled "bad?"

Can Dan'l truly be claiming that he does not believe "gays good?"

Just what is it Dan'l is arguing here?

Dan'l. Fess up. Are "Breeders" good? Are "gays" bad?

What sayee?

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Let's give this topic a rest.

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff