Ten years of "gay marriage"

[Jaybear]

This was in response to your (Jaybear's) questions about my explanation about why I call gay dogma, "gay dogma."

Perhaps I should clarify. I was asking for a coherent explanation.

Here is an example of new earth Dogma:

Dogma: The earth is 6,000 years old.

In the present context, your side's dogma is:

Dogma: God abhors sodomy.

So what is my dogma?

What is the simple, consise, incontrovertible statement of "fact" that I adhere to?

[Mars]

Look, I'm not going try to defend or argue whether or not it's dogma or what is meant by dogma. I think I understand how he's using the term and I have no feelings on it. Keep talking with him, not me, Jaybear.

I typically keep quiet in these discussions. They often degenerate down into fights over word and group definitions. Gay marriage defenders seem to feel like if you can define the words "family" or "marriage" in terms that include gay couples, then gay marriage should be allowed, accepted, taught as normal, etc... I suppose that's not a bad way to go about it, but it's sooooo tiring to fight that fight.

~shrugs~

It gets me no points to admit this - ESPECIALLY in a forum such as this - but I don't find much use in defending my position. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman who commit to love each other as long as possible and that gender is an identity given to us by God who intends us to assume the ultimate role of mother and father. I'm not going to blame a guy (or gal) for his orientation, but any behavior that takes away from these sacred roles is contrary to the plan of God, I believe. And any institution that attempts to pass itself off as equal to marriage as I've defined it is only the same because of superficial similarities. Fool's gold indeed.

[Chris Smith]

That is a pretty good analogy, because just like with "gay marriage," the government definitely should not officially declare Mormons to be Christians.

A little parody I wrote some years back:

Alabama Court Strikes Down Law Defining Christian Religion

[Chris Smith]

It is dishonest to assume Ezekiel, on the road to the real Babel, when speaking of the "sins of Sodom" must necessarily be speaking of the long-dead city-state . . . and to build a counter/anti-gospel upon it. The Velvet Mafia has much to answer for, perverting Ezekiel as they have.

When I Googled this a bit the other day, I couldn't find any scholar or commentary that agreed with you that this is "code" for Israel. That's not to say it couldn't be so; just that your interpretation isn't as self-evident as you seem to believe. Far from being a "dishonest . . . perversion" by the "Velvet Mafia," the literal interpretation of this passage is a Protestant standard, dating back to at least John Calvin in the 16th century. Maybe do some research before slinging around offensive accusations. Seriously . . . are y'all listening to yourselves? Have you been taking lessons from the folks at CARM on how to demonize those who disagree with you?

[USU78]

When I Googled this a bit the other day, I couldn't find any scholar or commentary that agreed with you that this is "code" for Israel. That's not to say it couldn't be so; just that your interpretation isn't as self-evident as you seem to believe. Far from being a "dishonest . . . perversion" by the "Velvet Mafia," the literal interpretation of this passage is a Protestant standard, dating back to at least John Calvin in the 16th century. Maybe do some research before slinging around offensive accusations. Seriously . . . are y'all listening to yourselves? Have you been taking lessons from the folks at CARM on how to demonize those who disagree with you?

Perhaps you are unaware of who the "velvet mafia" are/were: Homosexual priests who gained effective control of the seminaries, advancing those of like mind while putting those with opposing views in positions where they would never advance. The first time I heard the "Sodom has nothing to do with 'gay' sexual sin" argument was out of Seminarians about 20-25 years ago.

And, CS, the dishonesty is in building the counter-anti-gospel I referred to. Perhaps you missed my point.

Ezekiel, if we accept him as a Temple Priest/Prophet of the Captivity, is attempting to communicate to Judah both the reasons for the Wrath that was upon them, and the hope the future held. A Restoration of the Two Kingdoms in one under G-d's leadership.

[Chris Smith]

Ezekiel, if we accept him as a Temple Priest/Prophet of the Captivity, is attempting to communicate to Judah both the reasons for the Wrath that was upon them, and the hope the future held. A Restoration of the Two Kingdoms in one under G-d's leadership.

That still doesn't explain why Ezekiel 16:55 describes two sisters of Judah, and distinguishes Samaria from Sodom.

[Chris Smith]

Also, I like how you resort to insults, when you've lost this particular part of the debate very badly.

Actually, I didn't insult you. I deliberately refrained from insulting you. I am deliberately withdrawing from discussion with you, because if I continue then I probably will insult you. And that would accomplish nothing. So, I hope you have a relaxing Sunday.

[Mordecai]

Perhaps I should clarify. I was asking for a coherent explanation.

I already answered each of your specific questions; perhaps it would have been more clear if I was allowed to quote you from the other thread, illustrating that I was answering your specific questions.

Gay dogma: There are no significant differences between the institutions, gay union and marriage; they have equal value.

While you don't personally believe these statements (Well, I guess probably the value, which is just as dogmatic), the gov't, for all practical purposes, is adopting this dogma, when they treat a gay union and a marriage the same and label them identically. Like I've explained before, you want the gov't to adopt a dogma you know to be false.

[Mordecai]

Actually, I didn't insult you. I deliberately refrained from insulting you...

I found it insulting, and I have pretty good reading comprehension. So I disagree with you that you "didn't insult me." It's even more insulting on the 2nd read, actually, so I didn't misread it the first time. Probably because I noticed how you tried to sugar coat the insult and then denied you ever insulted me, which is more insulting. I don't mind an occasional insult, but to insult me and then run away from the debate is pretty weak.

We'll let people decide for themselves:

Oh, Mordecai. If only you could see the ironies in your rhetoric, we'd both have a good laugh about it over drinks.

All I can say is, I hope you don't actually believe any of this nonsense you spout about totalitarian leftist conspiracies. That kind of contempt for those who disagree with you will engender neither health nor the respect of others, and surely cannot be conducive to a happy life.

Emphasis added

Now that I think about it, this is rather complementary. What was I thinking?

[Chris Smith]

Well, you are free to feel as insulted as you like. As I said, I hope you have a restful Sunday.

[Mordecai]

Well, you are free to feel as insulted as you like. As I said, I hope you have a restful Sunday.

Actually, I was hoping for more insults and contention. Best thing ever to have on Sunday. heh heh

[Mordecai]

Nothing to see here. Move along:

[california boy]

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.

Thanks for answering at least one of the two questions. So you are against gay marriage because other people are not as smart as you and might get confused that two guys marrying might be the exact same as two heterosexuals marrying. So you are fighting for the dumb people of America. Sounds like a worthy cause I guess. Ok I can live with that answer.

As far as there being words that are identical with profoundly different meanings, I wouldn't say those are treated nor labeled the same. For example, if you read an advertisement for bows, you'll see a picture to tell you which bow they're talking about and a price that differs greatly between each type of bow. In sentences, the context will explain which bow. There is zero potential for confusion due to contextual differences and different treatments. Not remotely true when conflating a gay union with real marriage.

I guess when someone says rick and steve are married, they need a picture to help explain that their marriage will not be producing any biological children. Ok now I see what you are fighting for. Sounds real important.

The courts and schools will adopt your gay dogma, and there will be no pictures, price tags nor differences in context to imprint on people's minds the importance of, for example, biological parenthood. The authority of the gov't will convince the impressionable (unlike me) that biological parenthood means nothing in relation to marriage. Furthermore, a picture of two men versus a man and a woman, to show the difference between a gay union and a marriage would not illustrate the important differences. The profound differences, you can't show in a picture. It's quite easy to confuse people about the importance of the connection between marriage and biological parenthood, unlike with your bow example.

Still fighting for the dumb people in the world. You go man. Maybe all pictures of two guys married should have a disclaimer underneath the photo stating that this union will not be having any biological children. That would help the dumb people of America don't you think??

Well that is one question. How about the second question. Or is this just too painful for you?

[pcarthew]

Unfortunately, God and Jesus aren't citizens so they have no say in the matter. We're discussing secular law here, and since most of us hold the separation of church and state dear, the proclamation has no place in this discussion.

I never indicated that God the Father and Jesus Christ are citizens here upon the earth. We will be judged of God for our secular laws as well as those of a more religious nature. When it comes to morality, those of the falsely believe that either believe that God's commandments do no matter, or they are only the foolish imaginations of zealots. Those who do will ultimately bring upon themselves the judgements of God, regardless of any learned worldly argument. When it comes to any discussion with a Latter-Day saint about Gay marriage, the proclamation does figure, like it or not.

It is worth re-emphasising

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. 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. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

[Jaybear]

Gay dogma: There are no significant differences between the institutions, gay union and marriage; they have equal value.

Thanks for the clarity. Unfortunately, you have it completely backwards.

We liberals/gay right advocates believe that marriages are inherently personal. We don't believe the Government has any business assigning value based on the type of marriage, whether it be a marriage by white heterosexual college educated christian republicans who aspire to have 3 children, or an arranged marriage, or an interracial marriage, or a marriage between atheists, etc., etc.

Liberals/gay rights advocates believe that and are driven by their belief that .... (dogmatic statement ahead) .... marriage is a fundamental right.

Simply put, we are not asking that the Government declare that gay marriages "are equal", just that they be treated equally.

We know that there are difference. Your side points out the differences in order to rationalize or justify discrimination against gays. We know that gay couples cannot procreate, yet. We know that because gays have been branded criminals, deviants and marginalized by society, that gay marriage has no tradition in this country.

We simply don't believe that the differences you raise justify the discrimination you advocate.

We know, for example, that couple that can procreate often choose not to, and couple that can't procreate can find a way to raise children. We also know that traditions have to start sometime and somewhere.

[semlogo]

A useful and self-serving fiction that is picked up by useful idiots who support the self-servers.

You prefer the anachronistic modern interpretation. Jesus considered their sin the sin of in-hospitality.

[semlogo]

You mean Genesis 19? and Ezekiel 16:50?

They say the same thing.

And if we look at the many account in the New Testament, it's pretty clear what 'Sodomy' meant.

Why do you think it means something different?

What did Jesus say about the sin of Sodom?

[WalkerW]

Of course Paul didn't understand the nature of them, since the nature of homosexuality has only started to be understood very recently.

I think it is a stretch to say it is starting to be understood.

[semlogo]

I think it is a stretch to say it is starting to be understood.

Why do you say that?

[WalkerW]

You prefer the anachronistic modern interpretation. Jesus considered their sin the sin of in-hospitality.

I've got semlogo's back on this one. Inhospitality was the major sin of Sodom and was highlighted by the attempted rape of Lot's visitors. The brutal and shocking nature of the attempted act was made all the the worse by the fact that it was directed at guests. Sodom was beyond dishonorable. The homosexual aspect of it is really only a small ingredient in the bigger picture.

[WalkerW]

Why do you say that?

Much of what I've read on the subject seems to be along the lines of genetic determinism. Given some of the advances in human genome research and the interplay between nature and nurture, I find genetic determinism to be a stretch. But I'm more than willing to check out whatever you might have on the subject.

[USU78]

I've got semlogo's back on this one. Inhospitality was the major sin of Sodom and was highlighted by the attempted rape of Lot's visitors. The brutal and shocking nature of the attempted act was made all the the worse by the fact that it was directed at guests. Sodom was beyond dishonorable. The homosexual aspect of it is really only a small ingredient in the bigger picture.

You give good context, WW, as per usual. The lawlessness of which brutal homosexual assault (even if only attempted) was a part (and there's a chicken-egg question that ought to be asked at some point in this regard) is the point of the tale. I quite agree.

My point has been and will continue to be that those who deflect G-d's disapproval of homosexual behavior despite that disapproval being all over the Tanakh and well demonstrated in the NT, are not being honest with the material. Sexual perverts are referred to as "dogs" in the Tanakh, for Heaven's sake.

This anti-Gospel of breeders-bad/gays-good is like something right out of Isaiah.

[Daniel2]

I already answered each of your specific questions; perhaps it would have been more clear if I was allowed to quote you from the other thread, illustrating that I was answering your specific questions.

Gay dogma: There are no significant differences between the institutions, gay union and marriage; they have equal value.

While you don't personally believe these statements (Well, I guess probably the value, which is just as dogmatic), the gov't, for all practical purposes, is adopting this dogma, when they treat a gay union and a marriage the same and label them identically. Like I've explained before, you want the gov't to adopt a dogma you know to be false.

Last week, Mordecai started a poll thread called "Gay Dogma: The Rational Basis for 'Gay Marriage'." In that thread, his premise was basically the same that he

[semlogo]

Much of what I've read on the subject seems to be along the lines of genetic determinism. Given some of the advances in human genome research and the interplay between nature and nurture, I find genetic determinism to be a stretch. But I'm more than willing to check out whatever you might have on the subject.

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.

[semlogo]

You give good context, WW, as per usual. The lawlessness of which brutal homosexual assault (even if only attempted) was a part (and there's a chicken-egg question that ought to be asked at some point in this regard) is the point of the tale. I quite agree.

My point has been and will continue to be that those who deflect G-d's disapproval of homosexual behavior despite that disapproval being all over the Tanakh and well demonstrated in the NT, are not being honest with the material. Sexual perverts are referred to as "dogs" in the Tanakh, for Heaven's sake.

This anti-Gospel of breeders-bad/gays-good is like something right out of Isaiah.

Using this logic, we must conclude that a condemnation of heterosexual rape is a condemnation of heterosexuality.

The OT puts forth a lot of backwards opinions about women, too, you know. It's a product of its time.