Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[semlogo]

I believe he's saying that marriage is gold, and so-called same-sex "marriage" is lead. A position with which I heartily agree.

Lehi

There seems to be no basis for that claim other than simple bigotry. I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone can present an argument for inherent hetero-superiority that's based on facts and not emotion or dogma.

[Vance]

There seems to be no basis for that claim other than simple bigotry. I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone can present an argument for inherent hetero-superiority that's based on facts and not emotion or dogma.

Yeah, yeah, I know. These are only from LDS.org the official church web site. And therefore carry no weight with you.

But!!!

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/e/42

GS Exaltation

In thy presence is fulness of joy, Ps. 16: 11. They are gods, even the sons of God—wherefore, all things are theirs, D&C 76: 58-59. The Saints shall receive their inheritance and be made equal with him, D&C 88: 107. These angels did not abide my law; therefore, they remain separately and singly, without exaltation, D&C 132: 17. Men and women must marry according to God’s law in order to gain exaltation, D&C 132: 19-20

I really don't expect that if the secular world is able to change the definition of "marriage" into something that it currently is NOT, that definition of "God's law" will suddenly change as well.

But hey, that's just me.

[semlogo]

Yeah, yeah, I know. These are only from LDS.org the official church web site. And therefore carry no weight with you.

But!!!

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/e/42

GS Exaltation

In thy presence is fulness of joy, Ps. 16: 11. They are gods, even the sons of God—wherefore, all things are theirs, D&C 76: 58-59. The Saints shall receive their inheritance and be made equal with him, D&C 88: 107. These angels did not abide my law; therefore, they remain separately and singly, without exaltation, D&C 132: 17. Men and women must marry according to God’s law in order to gain exaltation, D&C 132: 19-20

I really don't expect that if the secular world is able to change the definition of "marriage" into something that it currently is NOT, that definition of "God's law" will suddenly change as well.

But hey, that's just me.

I did say no dogma, right?

I believe in the church, but I don't feel there is any doctrinal basis to exclude gays. We have no revelation regarding them, and no relevant scriptures, only tradition. In light of the evidence presented in my first post, I think there is plenty of wiggle room for letting our wonderful gay brothers and sisters enjoy all the blessings we do, without asking them to be someone they're not or live a life of misery, contrary to the way God made them.

[Mordecai]

It doesn't take a prophet of God to predict that those over 65 will grow old and die well before those under age 29.

It does take a prophet to predict that we cant turn it around. If, in the future, young people begin to reject your gay-marriage dogma and many of the young people that were indoctrinated grow out of it, we can beat this ridiculous trend back into submission. Also, even if our side loses, we'll still have been on the right side of history and will ultimately win, in my view.

I have not advocated calling lead, gold.

Yes you are. Metaphorically, you are.

I am in favor of allowing gay couples to marry.

So am I. I'm just against calling a gay union, "a marriage," when it's profoundly different than a straight union.

The fact is, marriage means different things to different people. Unlike you, I don't see that its my business that Adam wants to marry Steve rather than Eve. Likewise, if Adam want to marry Eve and Abby, that is fine with me.

Right. Who you marry and how you use words are up to the individual. Never said otherwise. At the same time, without a unique designation to describe heterosexual unions, you're causing confusion and restricting free speech in a sense. That's not acceptable, just like we shouldn't have the gov't officially declare lead to be gold.

[Mordecai]

It’s exactly the same issue, just shifted to the newest hated minority.

In your mind, sure. To you, profoundly different behaviors are the same as something completely superficial, like skin color? Sad that you can't tell the difference.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

How does one measure character? Largely from behavior. See how behavior is something profoundly different from skin color? Not remotely comparable, much less "exactly the same issue."

Furthermore, why do you keep bringing up how hate-filled everyone that disagrees with your gay-marriage dogma is? I don't see it. As I've pointed out, when we demonstrated here in California, it was your side that was busy spewing hatred and anger. We responded, for the most part, patiently and kindly. All the hate I saw was coming from your side.

Some people don't understand what's occurring with hatred of minorities. What happened with African Americans had a lot to do with racist government policy put in place to please the Southern states and the spread of fake science regarding people of color. That resulted in white people being given too much power over black people, not to mention motive to treat them with disrespect initially. Of course, humans seem to instinctively hate those whom they hurt, not unlike people love those whom they serve. As time went on, the policies, and racist dogmas of the day fed the hatred and paranoia that we so self-righteously condemn. Of course, if we were them, we would likely have turned out the same in that environment.

It was ultimately the elitists, or aristocrats that led the South into civil war, offended by the apparent bumpkin status of Abraham Lincoln (kind of like elitists against Bush) and profoundly indoctrinated regarding the sense of entitlement for power and money. They "deserved" slaves. They "deserved" the money that came from slaves. And Abe Lincoln, a "lowly bumpkin," had no business telling them otherwise.

Now who is behind the current hatred? The elitist left with their overblown sense of entitlement. The science that illustrates differences between gay unions and heterosexual unions is just that and isn't about hatred but about what behavior is best for society. The Left's "science" is the dumbest science I've ever seen. In truth, men aren't women. Biological parents can't be duplicated. History can't be rewritten to make heterosexual unions relevant or useful.

I see a lot of argument by assertion here, but not many facts. Children do great with gay parents - that's a fact.

By "gay parents" what you mean are lesbian parents pre-screened by the gov't. But if you look the statistics coming out of Canada, gay men in "gay marriages" are 3X more prone to physical abuse than heterosexual couples. Sounds like a great environment for children, doesn't it? This particular graph of another study may also be of some use:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

I've also shared studies that show a greater rate of mental illness among homosexuals. All of that said, even if all gay couples that adopted were about even with heterosexual couples in abuse rates, that's not the issue. The fact remains that biological parents are more inclined to care for their children in the way that is best for children. If the gov't adopts gay-marriage dogma, the message will be, "Kids don't need a biological father," "Marriage has nothing to do with children; it's really about adults," or even, "Children don't need a mother; a step father is just as good." Imagine overtly preaching that insanity in elementary schools. These are the messages many children will take to heart, which will effect their behavior as adults.

...this dumb generation, as you call them, is a chosen and special generation...

I'm going to guess that Mormons buck the trend, as they often do with bad trends in society.

This really doesn’t sound any different from the old arguments against miscegenation.

Considering you seem to think profoundly different behavior is the same as having different skin color, this doesn't have a lot of credibility.

[TAO]

This is pretty much what President Packer said and the church changed his words in the Ensign.

If you read it, what they changed it too is pretty much the same thing if I remember correctly.

[TAO]

You seem to forget, those who advocated for marriage equality, did so when it was not so popular. It has become, an will continue to be more popular, because of their efforts.

Social movements, from abolition, suffrage, labor rights, integration and now marriage equality, were all led by those who had the foresight and courage to fight against the status quo.

In this fight, you are on the side of the status quo, fighting agaisnt social progress.

You miss the point of why I stated what I did.

I was saying that what is right is not always popular.

However, that doesn't mean that what is right is never popular.

Consider World War II for example.

In other words, you should avoid saying 'it's getting more popular' as evidence to support a specific side.

[Damien the Leper]

It seems that too much weight of influence is put on 15 men in SLC. What is disappointing is how the LDS church fails to be revolutionary any more. Its great to be revelatory so long as you can maintain the revelatory experience. The LDS church in its maintenance of unnecessary traditionalism makes it incapable of being revolutionary, iconic, divinely led, etc. It is more like monotonous repetition and gross regurgitation. I stopped relying on the arm of the LDS flesh when I realized that my life is about me and God. Me and the Savior. And it was never about me and the LDS church. In order for me to truly experience God I needed to give up the church. In order for me to truly experience God I needed to cut out the middle man.

[Mordecai]

It seems that too much weight of influence is put on 15 men in SLC. What is disappointing is how the LDS church fails to be revolutionary any more....

Clearly, you are the guy we should have running the Church. Obviously. Why have confidence in those 15 men whose lives have been dedicated to serving the members of the Church with love, raising children, working successfully at various vocations, when we can have you? How awesome would you be? Who needs 15, when we could have Valentinus telling the members what Jesus Christ wants of us? Definitely the guy to do it.

[Vance]

I did say no dogma, right?

Dogma? What "dogma"?

I believe in the church, but I don't feel there is any doctrinal basis to exclude gays.

So?

Oh, wait! I am supposed to disregard any counter evidence and just accept your opinion as fact.

Sorry, I forgot.

We have no revelation regarding them, and no relevant scriptures, only tradition.

Right! I am supposed to disregard any counter evidence and just accept your opinion as fact.

Sorry, I forgot.

In light of the evidence presented in my first post, I think there is plenty of wiggle room for letting our wonderful gay brothers and sisters enjoy all the blessings we do, without asking them to be someone they're not or live a life of misery, contrary to the way God made them.

Right! I am supposed to disregard any counter evidence and just accept your opinion as fact.

Sorry, I forgot.

You really don't want to see opposing points of view. I get it now.

[Vance]

Clearly, you are the guy we should have running the Church. Obviously. Why have confidence in those 15 men whose lives have been dedicated to serving the members of the Church with love, raising children, working successfully at various vocations, when we can have you? How awesome would you be? Who needs 15, when we could have Valentinus telling the members what Jesus Christ wants of us? Definitely the guy to do it.

Ah, what could those 15 men possibly know that one single truly enlightened and elite person doesn't know.

[Jaybear]

You miss the point of why I stated what I did.

I was saying that what is right is not always popular.

However, that doesn't mean that what is right is never popular.

Consider World War II for example.

Right/wrong, meh.

Those who opposed social progress whether it be women's rights, ie to vote, to work or to own property, or the civil rights of minorities all thought they were "right" position, even as their position became less popular. Most came around. Those who didn't became social pariahs.

In other words, you should avoid saying 'it's getting more popular' as evidence to support a specific side.

That is not my point. I am simply pointing out that by opposing social progress, notwithstanding the obvious trend, you are on the wrong side of history. And by wrong, I mean the losing side of history. You can speak proudly now of fighting for what is right, but have you noticed that no one these days speaks proudly of the day they were part of the crowd taunting the young black students who were accompanied to school by the national guard.

[thesometimesaint]

Semlogo:

SSM by design precludes children.

[TAO]

Jaybear;

If you notice, even as you used the term 'social pariah', this law won't actually help that. All it is doing is exchanging who is the pariah. Having lived as a pariah for a long time, that is rather ridiculous to me tbh. I'd rather not have the law change at all than go through no progress.

And no... I do not fight proudly for what I know is right... I fight to prevent the inevitable if I di not fight. Pride is a pointless thing, it truly is. It be better to cast it off beforehand than to be weighed down by it.

Best Wishes, Respectfully,

TAO

[Daniel2]

Semlogo:

SSM by design precludes children.

sometimesaint,

I don't mean to be obtuse, here, but there's a wealth of data, not to mention my own personal experience with many married same-sex couples, that disproves your comment that "SSM by design precludes children."

There are thousands married gay couples (some of whom I have the pleasure and priviledge of knowing and looking up to) that either have their own children with medical assistence (as their married straight-but-barren counterparts do---the marriages of which would also be inaccurate to suggest 'preclude children' 'by design'), or adopt, foster, or otherwise raise children from previous relationships.

An accurate state would be "currently, same-sex couples cannot procreate without medical assistance of one kind or another," but "same-sex marriage," by design or most other aspects, certainly does not "preclude children," just as it would be inaccurate to suggest that infertile opposite-sex couples' marriages "preclude children by design." The "design of marriage" (speaking civilly, here--NOT religiously) certainly encompasses and includes either bearing, adopting, and raising children, whether or not the couple is physically capable of doing so, and/or whether or not a couple chooses not to, even when they may be physically able to.

My view,

Darin

[california boy]

I guess you, having the benefit of hindsight, being the god of objectivity, are the one to tell us that. I will just stick to being rational. That seemed to work well for past generations, even in hindsight. (And we can actually use hindsight for that). You with your "fertile imagination," apparently already have hindsight... yet you have no rational arguments in favor of calling lead, "gold," metaphorically speaking. One would think that hindsight would allow you to make coherent arguments in favor of calling a gay union, "marriage," if it were a true dogma. But it's not. It's obviously false to suggest that a gay union is the same in all relevant sociological ways. Obviously.

Maybe the "dumbest generation" as you call them think your whole gold/lead argument is dumb and that is why they don't support your belief. I mean if that is your best argument against gay marriage, it is pretty hard to not ignore it as being not that valid next to the whole concept of treating people equal under the laws of this country.

[Daniel2]

If it weren't for young people being so prone to listen to insane rants about being on the right side of history, without a single rational reason to take away the unique status of heterosexual unions, we'd be destroying you guys. Unfortunately, young impressionable people will often hold onto their childish adoption of elitist lefty dogma, so we do have a fight on our hands.

I had a political science professors quote that saying, "If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and liberal, you have no brain." The professor followed that up with, "And that's true." LOL

More examples of successful brainwashing going on that could be potentially swaying the impressionable members of "the Dumbest Generation" (according to Mord):

Anti-gay Facebook page hacked by its own administrator

By Helen A.S. Popkin

Who says people don't change?

After five years of writing anti-gay blogs, making anti-gay YouTube videos and going on the National Organization for Marriage's "Summer of Marriage," NOM Facebook administrator Louis Marinelli deleted the organization's Facebook page, taking all 290,000 "fans" with it, reports All Facebook.

Marinelli originally launched the Fan page to promote his own initiative, Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman, according to gay rights website GoodAsYou.org. He stayed on as administrator until last Friday, when he submitted his resignation. In a blog post titled "I now support full marriage equality," Marinelli explained why:

Having spent the last five years putting all of my political will, interest and energy into fighting against the spread of same-sex marriage as if it were a contagious disease, I must admit that it is hard for me to put the following text into words let alone utter them with my own voice.

Whether it is an issue of disbelief, shame or embarrassment, the one thing that is for sure is that I have come to this point after several months of an internal conflict with myself. That conflict gradually tore away at me until recently when I was able to for the first time simply admit to myself that I do in fact support civil marriage equality.

That's civil marriage, mind you, performed and recognized by the State — as opposed to "holy matrimony," which Marinelli maintains is about a man and a woman. He doesn't mention anything about the enormous tax burden and extra insurance costs gay couples still carry, civil marriage or not.

Marinelli describes, in emotional detail, an internal journey that began when he met real live homosexuals and lesbians protesting NOM's cross-country campaign against gay rights and could not help but notice they were just as human as he. This fact was reinforced by a online dialogue with a gay rights blogger who contacted him and ongoing conversations with same-sex marriage supporters in another Facebook group.

"I soon realized that there I was surrounded by hateful people; propping up a cause I created five years ago, a cause which I had begun to question," he writes, and one might assume he's referring to NOM, the largest anti-gay marriage organization in the U.S.

Marinelli's blog doesn't go into detail about his Facebook fan page purge, and it appears NOM doesn't use a third-party archival service — and therefore must build its previous 290,000 following back from scratch. At the time of this post, it had around 600 fans.

I haven't yet been able to find a source for Marinelli's age, but he looks like he's in his early 30's, so I dunno if he personally qualifies.

EDIT: He was born in 1986. Not sure what the cut-off is, to qualify as a member of Mord's "Dumbest Generation." Here's his blog post announcing his change of heart:

I now support full marriage equality

Having spent the last five years putting all of my political will, interest and energy into fighting against the spread of same-sex marriage as if it were a contagious disease, I must admit that it is hard for me to put the following text into words let alone utter them with my own voice.

Whether it is an issue of disbelief, shame or embarrassment, the one thing that is for sure is that I have come to this point after several months of an internal conflict with myself. That conflict gradually tore away at me until recently when I was able to for the first time simply admit to myself that I do in fact support civil marriage equality.

While I have come to terms with this reality internally, speaking about it, even with the closest members of my family, has proven to be something difficult for me to do.

In short, if there is an issue of disbelief surrounding my newfound support for civil marriage equality, it is disbelief from those who surround me. If there is an issue of shame, it is a result of acknowledging the number of people I have targeted, hurt and oppressed. And if there is an issue of embarrassment, its roots lie in the face-to-face encounters I have had and expect to have with those with whom I once toiled over this very contentious issue.

I understand that those whom I approach now are well within their right to disbelieve and question me and my motives. I accept that is the result of what I have done over the past few years and would therefore like to take this time to, as openly as I can, discuss the events that brought about my change of heart.

As you may already know, I was the one behind the 2010 Summer for Marriage Tour which the National Organization for Marriage sponsored and operated throughout July and August last year. It was my doing when, in March that year, I approached Brian Brown, then Executive Director of the National Organization for Marriage about sponsoring and participating in a series of traditional marriage rallies scattered around the Nation.

In fact, the tour route itself, while chosen largely by NOM itself, incorporated as many of the sites I had originally chosen and helped independently organize. Other locations were added due to strategic, political or simply logistical purposes.

Ironically, one of the last tour stops added to the itinerary was Atlanta and I bring this site up because it was in Atlanta that I can remember that I questioned what I was doing for the first time. The NOM showing in the heart of the Bible-belt was dismal and the hundreds of counter-protesters who showed up were nothing short of inspiring.

Even though I had been confronted by the counter-protesters throughout the marriage tour, the lesbian and gay people whom I made a profession out of opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For the first time I had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was doing.

If my transition from opponent to supporter of same-sex civil marriage was a timeline, Atlanta would be indicated by the first point on the line. The next point on that timeline would be two months later.

After the marriage tour wrapped up and everyone went their separate ways, I transformed my marriage tour “Inside Look” blog to a more general blog about protecting marriage and opposing the homosexual agenda.

Over the course of September and October I occupied my time writing up articles along these very lines. Some of the articles were fair, even if you disagree with them, but many of them I would now categorize as propaganda filled with strong and unnecessary rhetoric. This is especially true of the YouTube videos I made.

One article I wrote, towards the end of October, 2010 caught the attention of a blogger by the name of RJ, who writes on the blog AmIWorking. He responded to my article about the homosexual agenda with an article addressed personally to me regarding marriage equality. In short, his article had the miraculous effect of instantly putting things into perspective for me.

At that point, between what I had witnessed on the marriage tour and RJ’s post about marriage equality, I really came to understand that gays and lesbians were just real people who wanted to live real lives and be treated equally as opposed to, for example, wanting to destroy American culture. No, they didn’t want to destroy American culture, they wanted to openly particulate in it. I was well on my way to becoming a supporter of civil marriage equality. You can read my statement retracting the statements I made about gays and lesbians here.

As a result of that I closed down my blog within a couple of days. That gave birth to my current endeavor, The Conservative Dispatch, which is how I occupy my time. The site is about promoting general conservative principles and is not focused solely on social issues.

In December I came out in support of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I also removed the admins I had delegated my moderating duties to for my Facebook page.

Having done that, I had to pick up where they left off. I was largely taken aback by the fact that the page I created had become such a hateful place. My comments and rhetoric paled in comparison to what that place had turned into. I began to understand why the gay community was out there claiming opposition to same-sex civil marriage was all about hate.

I soon realized that there I was surrounded by hateful people; propping up a cause I created five years ago, a cause which I had begun to question. This would be timeline point number three. I wanted to extend an olive branch in some way and started to reinstate those who had been banned by previous administrators of my page. I welcomed them to participate on the page and did what I could do erase the worst comments and even ban those who posted them.

Also, I started regularly conversing with same-sex marriage supporters in another Facebook group. This further solidified my new perception of gays and lesbians as real people, not some faceless political opponent. That could be considered the next point on the timeline.

Lastly, I came to understand the difference between civil marriage and holy marriage as in the sacrament of the Catholic Church. Let me rephrase. I understood that but either willingly chose not to accept it or just didn’t see it. Regardless, I see it now and the significance of that is as follows:

Once you understand the great difference between civil marriage and holy marriage, there is not one valid reason to forbid the former from same-sex couples, and all that is left to protect is the latter.

Indeed Christians and Catholics alike are well within their right to demand that holy matrimony, a sacrament and service performed by the Church and recognized by the Church, remains between a man and a woman as their faith would dictate. However, that has nothing to do with civil marriage, performed and recognized by the State in accordance with state law.

My name is Louis J. Marinelli, a conservative-Republican and I now support full civil marriage equality. The constitution calls for nothing less.

Darin

[Daniel2]

Here's the text Marinelli mentioned in the previous post of his retraction of previous arguments he once advanced:

(1)JEREMY HOOPER: On record, I'd ask you to go through the list of comments you have written/ Tweeted/ blogged/ Facebooked and repudiate any/all that you now see were objectionable.

LOUIS MARINELLI: I quoted from the research of Paul Cameron when I said that homosexuals have a shorter life-span. I must say that when I quoted this man I was not aware of his history and here and now do not wish to comment on the legitimacy or irrelevance of the man’s work as I am neither a psychologist nor does psychology interest me.

What I said, referring to the life-spans of homosexuals, I continue to believe in the following context: Any group of people that contract any viral disease more than the general public due to the nature of their lifestyle, logically, will have a life-expectancy lower than that of the general populace.

However, that kind of rhetoric, implying that gay men are unworthy of civil marriage due to any particular health issues surrounding their sexual activity was both inappropriate and offensive. It is for those reasons, that I retract this statement.

___________________________________________________________

I once wrote or implied that all homosexuals are single, even if they had at some point or another, been legally married by the state. While in the eyes of the Catholic faith, these same-sex unions aren’t recognized as marriages insofar as holy matrimony is concerned, I retract this statement now that I have been able to see and distinguish and understand the differences between religious and civil marriage.

______________________________________________________________

Any support or endorsement of what Peter LaBarbera does I retract. I have been reading via Twitter and his website what this guy has to say, and it is clear that he is just a hateful man and I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with him.

Furthermore, the issues Peter takes on, even if they were true, are not in themselves valid reasons for denying same-sex couples access to civil marriage. I am aware how he was upset by my public support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in December. His reasoning for such seemed to be something along the lines of “in order to protect marriage, you have to oppose everything homosexuals do”. If that were the case, Peter, how far should we go in restricting homosexuals’ lives?

_____________________________________________________________

As far as my comments about the hijacking of the civil rights movement, I would say that while the offenses the gay community endure from the public are similar, the issue as it pertains to the government are totally different. 



The gay community is not forced to attend different schools, drink from different water fountains, or give up their seats for heterosexuals on the bus. They are not, as black Americans are to this day, incarcerated at higher levels than heterosexuals and while I do not deny that there is violence directed towards gays and lesbians because of their sexual orientation, no one should be comparing that to the organized violence faced by the black community prior to the civil rights movement itself. 



That said, I agree that what the gay community are fighting for are their civil rights. So in that way, it is indeed a civil rights movement but not the civil rights movement. That is to say, a new civil rights movement, not an extension or continuation of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

_____________________________________________________________

Any comments I made that attacked homosexuals on a personal level, I retract. This includes calling them an abomination. I personally do not agree with homosexuality and without any shame will continue to uphold my belief that homosexuality itself presents a public health concern due to the sexual diseases that are associated with it and that spread rapidly as a result of it.

I think a lot of work needs to be done for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, to change the culture of promiscuity in our country and we would be doing ourselves a favor to focus our energies on that instead of singling out and lying the blame on one of the many guilty parties. 

However, until the day comes that homosexual sex does not continue to spread HIV at alarming rates as it does today, I must stand by my comments that, from a public health stance, homosexuality is a harmful to society.

Having said that, the health issues facing promiscuous homosexual men is irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. I was guilty of and apologize for this insensitive and inappropriate rhetoric.

___________________________________________________________

On multiple occasions I have said something to the effect of “homosexuality is wrong”. And in my opinion it is. My transition from an opponent of same-sex marriage to a supporter does not mean I suddenly think homosexuality is a good thing. 



I personally disagree with it. The same way I disagree with many other things other people do with their lives. That doesn’t give me or anyone else the right to prevent homosexuals from being homosexuals or to take away their constitutionally protected civil rights as American citizens.

____________________________________________________________

As a supporter of civil marriage equality, any statements I’ve made in the past about not recognizing homosexual relationships for one reason or another, of course it goes without saying that I no longer stand by these comments and I apologize for the insensitivity. Same-sex couples, whether they are married, in civil unions or domestic partnerships, ought to be recognized for what they are.

____________________________________________________________

I consider myself agnostic and while homosexual acts may very well be “immoral” in the eyes of Christian morality, I can no longer stand by any comments I’ve made in the past about the immorality of homosexuality. There are a variety of different sets and sources of morals and no one has the right to impose their set on the rest of society.


_______________________________________________________________

Once I wrote that homosexuals are deceitful people who care only about themselves or something to that effect. Honestly, aren’t we all? It was wrong for me to exclude everyone else from that description. We all lie and when it comes down to it, we will do what is best for ourselves. So throwing in a little levity, I stand by the comment but want to apologize for limiting its scope to the gay community.

_______________________________________________________________

My 3P’s video from YouTube was wrong. It may be true that at some point in time that the legalization of prostitution, the lowering of the age of consent and the legalization of polygamy may have been a part of the platform endorsed by homosexual activists in Chicago in the 1970s. However, there is no indication that any mainstream LGBT activist groups or organizations today advocate for these issues.


What’s further, from a technical standpoint alone the video was inaccurate. The platform called for the reduction of the age of consent, not the legalization of pedophilia, which is the sexual interest in pre-pubescent children. The reduction of the age of consent was about that and instead, to my knowledge, involved a reduction that would involve post-pubescent teenagers, which would not be pedophilia. 



I think this kind of rhetoric is harmful to our homosexual neighbors and I retract the statements. The entire YouTube account I used for this video, as well as others, was deleted sometime in late January, when I began to accept the fact that what I was doing was wrong.

____________________________________________________________

When it comes to the issue of my statements about homosexuality being a mental disorder, I have one thing to say. And that is that I apologize for the insensitivity and accept the fact that this has nothing to do with civil marriage. So what if it’s a mental disorder? It wouldn’t and shouldn’t disqualify gay men and women from civil marriage.

...

(3) What value do you still see in NOM's work? And of course: What negatives?

MARINELLI: The value I see in NOM’s work, even to this day, is the value of the work they do to promote marriage in general. We as a culture and a people have a bad record on marriage as a whole, particularly when it comes to divorce. This is something we need to work on and I think NOM could play a critical role in doing this, especially with the work they do via the Ruth Institute.

Granted their work is based on their Catholic faith, but they are not the only non-profit organization out there that is Catholic in nature. They should instead focus their energies on improving and protecting the sanctity of the holy marriages performed by the Church. That would go a long way, since a great number of marriages in the US are in fact performed by the Church, towards improving that tarnished track record.

NOM is well within their right to want to preserve the religious sacrament of matrimony as the union of a man and a woman and I continue to support them in that regard, although I am not a Catholic myself. However, when it comes to the civil marriage ceremony, which has nothing to do with the religious sacrament, we should all be standing together for equal protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

The negative thing about NOM’s work is that it diverts our attention from what is important to preventing a group of people from obtaining civil marriage licenses. We have to stop seeing things in black and white all the time and that is, I’m afraid, what NOM does in terms of marriage. The world isn’t black and white, it’s yellow, it’s green, it’s purple, it’s red, orange, it’s blue. It is, in fact, all of the colors of the rainbow and that’s what makes up our world and that’s why the rainbow flag represents not only the gay rights movement but the diversity the gay community brings to this world.

Darin

[Mordecai]

Maybe the "dumbest generation" as you call them think your whole gold/lead argument is dumb and that is why they don't support your belief.

If they think that's dumb, they must be dumber than I thought. Shouldn't you at least have an argument to refute it before you dismiss something as dumb? Only an idiot would call something dumb without even an examining it.

I mean if that is your best argument against gay marriage, it is pretty hard to not ignore it as being not that valid next to the whole concept of treating people equal under the laws of this country.

I laugh every time I hear the phrase "treat people equally under the law." WHY would we do that? We treat behaviors differently, so people will never get the same treatment and shouldn't.

[awesome0]

It doesn't take a Ph.D. in statistics (which I kinda have) to tell you these statistics and comparisons are incredibly flawed.

Most importantly, one should needs to adjust for age and other trends. There aren't any 90 year homosexual couples and most intra-familiar violence is with younger couples.

I'd be interested in the comparison when one compares relationships coming from similar age cohorts.

In your mind, sure. To you, profoundly different behaviors are the same as something completely superficial, like skin color? Sad that you can't tell the difference.

How does one measure character? Largely from behavior. See how behavior is something profoundly different from skin color? Not remotely comparable, much less "exactly the same issue."

Furthermore, why do you keep bringing up how hate-filled everyone that disagrees with your gay-marriage dogma is? I don't see it. As I've pointed out, when we demonstrated here in California, it was your side that was busy spewing hatred and anger. We responded, for the most part, patiently and kindly. All the hate I saw was coming from your side.

Some people don't understand what's occurring with hatred of minorities. What happened with African Americans had a lot to do with racist government policy put in place to please the Southern states and the spread of fake science regarding people of color. That resulted in white people being given too much power over black people, not to mention motive to treat them with disrespect initially. Of course, humans seem to instinctively hate those whom they hurt, not unlike people love those whom they serve. As time went on, the policies, and racist dogmas of the day fed the hatred and paranoia that we so self-righteously condemn. Of course, if we were them, we would likely have turned out the same in that environment.

It was ultimately the elitists, or aristocrats that led the South into civil war, offended by the apparent bumpkin status of Abraham Lincoln (kind of like elitists against Bush) and profoundly indoctrinated regarding the sense of entitlement for power and money. They "deserved" slaves. They "deserved" the money that came from slaves. And Abe Lincoln, a "lowly bumpkin," had no business telling them otherwise.

Now who is behind the current hatred? The elitist left with their overblown sense of entitlement. The science that illustrates differences between gay unions and heterosexual unions is just that and isn't about hatred but about what behavior is best for society. The Left's "science" is the dumbest science I've ever seen. In truth, men aren't women. Biological parents can't be duplicated. History can't be rewritten to make heterosexual unions relevant or useful.

By "gay parents" what you mean are lesbian parents pre-screened by the gov't. But if you look the statistics coming out of Canada, gay men in "gay marriages" are 3X more prone to physical abuse than heterosexual couples. Sounds like a great environment for children, doesn't it? This particular graph of another study may also be of some use:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

I've also shared studies that show a greater rate of mental illness among homosexuals. All of that said, even if all gay couples that adopted were about even with heterosexual couples in abuse rates, that's not the issue. The fact remains that biological parents are more inclined to care for their children in the way that is best for children. If the gov't adopts gay-marriage dogma, the message will be, "Kids don't need a biological father," "Marriage has nothing to do with children; it's really about adults," or even, "Children don't need a mother; a step father is just as good." Imagine overtly preaching that insanity in elementary schools. These are the messages many children will take to heart, which will effect their behavior as adults.

I'm going to guess that Mormons buck the trend, as they often do with bad trends in society.

Considering you seem to think profoundly different behavior is the same as having different skin color, this doesn't have a lot of credibility.

[Mordecai]

I'd be interested in the comparison when one compares relationships coming from similar age cohorts.

Well, all I know is the statistics aren't flattering to gay men, in particular. Is that really surprising to you? Why wouldn't gay men be more violent. Men are more prone to violence. There is no taboo on hitting another man. There is no evidence that a man can domesticate another man, the way a wife and/or biological offspring can. I mean, it's not rocket science to infer that there will be more physical abuse.

[awesome0]

Well, all I know is the statistics aren't flattering to gay men, in particular. Is that really surprising to you? Why wouldn't gay men be more violent. Men are more prone to violence. There is no taboo on hitting another man. There is no evidence that a man can domesticate another man, the way a wife and/or biological offspring can. I mean, it's not rocket science to infer that there will be more physical abuse.

I'm not surprised it would be higher, but you still need to condition on things to get appropriate numbers otherwise they are likely to be upward biased.

However, prevalence of bad behaviors is hardly a reason to deny marriage to a group. Kids who parents divorced are more likely to divorce. Lower income families are more likely to have violence in the family. So should we deny marriage based on parent marital history, race, income, or other factors because they have a correlation with bad behaviors?? Also, why were no experts willing to come forward and testify of these facts in the Prop 8 trial??

[Mordecai]

However, prevalence of bad behaviors is hardly a reason to deny marriage to a group.

What about adoption?

Kids who parents divorced are more likely to divorce. Lower income families are more likely to have violence in the family. So should we deny marriage based on parent marital history, race, income, or other factors because they have a correlation with bad behaviors??

Interestingly, gay men typically make more money than average, but they still are inclined to be more violent. We, as a nation, are more inclined to deny adoption to low-income homes, too, and whether the parents seem able and willing. It's not acceptable to be politically correct, when it comes to protecting children.

Also, why were no experts willing to come forward and testify of these facts in the Prop 8 trial??

No idea. Maybe they did testify but Walker threw it out. Regardless, my point is that gay unions are significantly and inherently different in sociologically relevant ways. A man is a man, and that's not going to change. For that reason, shouldn't a male homosexual union have different treatment? Why shouldn't it? It's not a person, after all. It's a behavior. Men don't domesticate men. Men are more prone to violence. Those are inescapable, unless you want to genetically alter them or give hormone therapy or something.

Furthermore, why would we call something with considerable differences by the same name? Again, are we going to call lead, "gold," so we don't discriminate against lead?

[semlogo]

Dogma? What "dogma"?

So?

Oh, wait! I am supposed to disregard any counter evidence and just accept your opinion as fact.

Sorry, I forgot.

Right! I am supposed to disregard any counter evidence and just accept your opinion as fact.

Sorry, I forgot.

Right! I am supposed to disregard any counter evidence and just accept your opinion as fact.

Sorry, I forgot.

You really don't want to see opposing points of view. I get it now.

What canonized revelation have we received about homosexuality?

[semlogo]

If they think that's dumb, they must be dumber than I thought. Shouldn't you at least have an argument to refute it before you dismiss something as dumb? Only an idiot would call something dumb without even an examining it.

I laugh every time I hear the phrase "treat people equally under the law." WHY would we do that? We treat behaviors differently, so people will never get the same treatment and shouldn't.

Religion is a behavior. Should we start discriminating based on religion?