Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[Mordecai]

Perhaps the Government should get out of the marriage business altogether and let it be solely a religious ceremony...

If they can no longer tell the difference between a heterosexual union and a homosexual union, they have no business involving themselves in marriage at all, seeing as they are apparently not competent enough to be in charge of something this important.

I think proponents of protecting marriage are quick to accept the civil union compromise. That's because we're cool. But I don't think the extremists on the left will accept that and will use their dictators...er... I mean judges to control everything.

[Sky]

If they can no longer tell the difference between a heterosexual union and a homosexual union, they have no business involving themselves in marriage at all, seeing as they are apparently not competent enough to be in charge of something this important.

I think proponents of protecting marriage are quick to accept the civil union compromise. That's because we're cool. But I don't think the extremists on the left will accept that and will use their dictators...er... I mean judges to control everything.

But regardless if you call it a civil union or not, sin is still sin, right? The fact that you are willing to accept the civil union compromise at all demonstrates how far society has come – for better or for worse. Isn’t it true that 40 or 50 years ago, same-sex unions of any kind would have been considered unacceptable to society? By calling it a civil union but not a marriage, are we really protecting marriage? What difference does it make if same-sex couples have all the benefits of a marriage anyway? Why not just call it a marriage? To me it seems like it’s becoming more a battle of semantics and the meaning of words.

[Mordecai]

...To me it seems like it’s becoming more a battle of semantics and the meaning of words.

It's more than that. The issue is, if you treat two things identically and call them by the same name, you imply that they are either identical or have no relevant differences. For example, if people didn't care about the difference between lead and gold, a nickname for lead might be, "Grey gold," or if people really didn't care, they might just call them both, "gold." The more important something is to a society, the more necessary it is for that thing to have its own unique designation as a means to clear communication of its value or the importance of its differences, rather than lumping it into a general heap of similar or somewhat similar things.

[Sky]

It's more than that. The issue is, if you treat two things identically and call them by the same name, you imply that they are either identical or have no relevant differences. For example, if people didn't care about the difference between lead and gold, a nickname for lead might be, "Grey gold," or if people really didn't care, they might just call them both, "gold." The more important something is to a society, the more necessary it is for that thing to have its own unique designation as a means to clear communication of its value or the importance of its differences, rather than lumping it into a general heap of similar or somewhat similar things.

Considering the direction that society is moving, civil unions/domestic partnerships and marriage are essentially being treated as the same thing anyway. I think it is simply inevitable that civil unions pave the way for full-blown gay marriage down the road.

In some places, even heterosexual couples are allowed to enter into civil unions instead of a full blown marriage if they choose. Now if you ask me, that is really starting to muddy the waters. Which then begs the question – why would one but not both be allowed for gay couples, but for straight couples both would be allowed? I think I’ve had enough hair-splitting for one day.

[Damien the Leper]

Did you even read what I said? Apparently not. I never mentioned homosexuals being the cause of anything. I mentioned the gov't confusing what a marriage is, resulting in impressionable young people being harmed. And you call me presumptuous? Why so angry and assuming? Sounds like you're angry at heterosexuals, too. I never said heterosexuals are doing a great job. But of course, just because people aren't doing a good job as it is, does that mean we should just give up and throw everything away by allowing the gov't to adopt left-wing-extremist marriage dogma? That will make things worse than ever and hasten the process of corrupting society.

I actually don't care what anyone else thinks, Mordecai. I simply recommend that a re-evaluation is perhaps in order. I'm not angry at heterosexuals. They aren't at fault. Irrational and fallable logic, in both camps, is to blame. Just so I'm clear...I don't approve of the promiscous, overbearing, flamboyant, in-your-face style that the mainstream LBGT community flaunts. What's the point? Pride? Are freaking kidding me? That isn't pride...it's narcissism.

If the LGBT community wants absolute equality then perhaps they need to remove their heads from their nether-regions and actually begin appropriate dialogue.

I do want to apologize for my inappropriate antagonisms. They were un-called for.

[Damien the Leper]

I really like the quote you have written at the bottom of your messages.

Thanks.

[Damien the Leper]

For further arguments against religious and cultural regurgitation check out the documentary "For The Bible Tells Me So".

I had to remove the link because the full movie was removed. I am looking for a replacement.

[Mordecai]

I do want to apologize for my inappropriate antagonisms. They were un-called for.

No worries. I completely forgot about it, actually. I've responded thoughtlessly in knee-jerk fashion many times and not come off well. It happens. As a side note, 5000 views!!! Wahoo! Er something. Seriously, though, that's a lot of views.

[AmorLibertas]

I'm with Lesellers on this. It's not about adults suddenly changing due to government policy. It's about the idea of marriage being torn down into something unrecognizable for future generations.

So you're of the mind that equality of government recognition of homosexual domestic partnerships and heterosexual domestic partnerships will ultimately result in marriage being torn down into what exactly?

If kids are so easily influenced to do dumb things like smoking and doing drugs, it shouldn't be hard to also influence them to believe marriage has nothing to do with having children, that biological parenthood means nothing, that children don't need a father or perhaps they don't need a mother and that natural procreation is just a side-note in human history, nothing to be grateful for or valued.

You're absolutely right. I mean look at what happened when government stopped treating Blacks as second-class citizens. Next thing you knew they were dancing with and dating Whites, drinking out of the same drinking fountains, using the same bathrooms. Teaching kids that they were the cursed descendants of Cain became more and more difficult. Rebellious Whites even began maarrying Blacks. Pretty soon kids began viewing race as insignifcant and the whole institution of White Supremacy has become almost unrecognizable. The very stability of society and racial purity is now in jeopardy.

You tear down the basic tradition central to the building up of civilization, the primary place from which human beings derive strength against all the evils of the world and what do you have left? Without the traditional family, everything we know that is good deteriorates and will eventually be destroyed. What do you think is wrong with our society today? I guarantee that further weakening the family will hasten the process of producing a society full of hedonistic, ignorant, immature, irresponsible, hate-filled narcissists.

Only bigotted dogmatics and their irrational or unthinking followers would think that being more inclusive and honoring the commitments of more people to the instituion of a civilly recognized domestic partnership would result in a weakening of society and destruction of society.

This isn't just speculation...

Of course it is. That the situations you suggest would necessarily or even typically result in the consequences you suggest, especially in the highly improbable closed system is nothing more than self-serving speculation.

Which part of this can't possibly occur due to gov't dogma that a gay union is the same as a marriage?

Can't possibly leaves the door open so broadly it seems you would be prepared to deny homosexual couples equal protection on the off chance that such might be the case for a single individual. By that same reasoning one could deny equal protection for anyone for virtually any speculative harm that could conceivably occur, no matter how unlikely it might be to occur or how few might be adversely affected.

The implications of "gay marriage," if adopted as truth by society, are incredibly destructive, if behavioral science has anything to say about this debate.

No, your wild speculations are not behavioral science.

If children had real power, like an interest group, you can bet that they'd be fighting for simple things, like having both of their biological parents around. The U.N. children's bill of rights, apparently, is a step in the right direction. The French government cites that as the reason they have rejected "gay marriage."

You think it's a step in the right direction, huh? I think that deserves its own thread altogether. I wonder how closely you read what it states.

[Mordecai]

So you're of the mind that equality of government recognition of homosexual domestic partnerships and heterosexual domestic partnerships will ultimately result in marriage being torn down into what exactly?

Primarily, the concept of marriage will be severed from the idea of having and raising biological children together, which is potentially harmful in itself. But there are other implications as well, that may be less likely but will ultimately effect the way people behave to some degree or another.

You're absolutely right. I mean look at what happened when government stopped treating Blacks as second-class citizens.

Exactly. The gov't has the power to influence thought. So if we treat gay unions like they're first-class, when in reality, they're 2nd class, it'll confuse people. Of course, giving something a different name doesn't suggest it is 2nd class. It only suggests it's different, and it is. That's a fact.

Also, do we need to AGAIN talk about how false this analogy is? Gay unions are not people. A gay union doesn't have any rights and can't be a 2nd class or first class citizen. It's a thing. It's a behavior based on choices, i.e. "the carrying out of the decision to live as husband and husband," which stem from homosexual urges. Nevertheless, it's based on choices. No one is forcing gay people to form "2nd class" unions, unlike how black people were actually coerced into going to bad schools and sitting at the back of the bus. Incredibly false analogy and frankly, it's an insult to the real Civil Rights movement.

Only bigotted dogmatics and their irrational or unthinking followers...

Since it's a fact that a gay union is different from a marriage, giving it a different name represents no dogma whatsoever. As far as irrationality is concerned, you're the one that suggests they are the same when they are not. You also seem to think a set of behaviors is comparable to African Americans. Hogwash.

...nothing more than self-serving speculation...

It doesn't serve me in the slightest. Plus, perhaps it's somewhat speculative, but it's also based on reason and inference.

Fact: If a gay union and a straight union have no relevant differences, it must follow that having a biological father in the home is irrelevant.

Fact: If the gov't calls a gay union by the same name as a straight union and treats them identically, an authoritative source that influences schools, media and the court system will consistently reinforce the idea that they are the same.

Fact: Since environments and language effect thoughts, inevitably, people's feelings and actions will be effected by that environment.

Fact: Since this directly involves family environments, children will be effected.

Fact: Children are extremely sensitive (albeit highly resilient) and their personality develops in early childhood, influencing how they feel and behave for the rest of their lives, effecting their children as well.

Since this is not complicated, you can connect the dots from here. This doesn't seem like speculation to me. It seems like a line of reasoning, which means that reasonable people should not be trying to impose homosexual sociological experiments on society.

Can't possibly leaves the door open so broadly it seems you would be prepared to deny homosexual couples equal protection on the off chance that such might be the case for a single individual. By that same reasoning one could deny equal protection for anyone for virtually any speculative harm that could conceivably occur, no matter how unlikely it might be to occur or how few might be adversely affected.

Within reason, you're right. But this isn't "wild speculation" at all. It's inference. Why do you want to impose an insane social experiment on society's children? Why would you do that? Because here's another fact: you can't predict the future. I have this crazy idea that we should learn from history and respect how marriage has proved itself, having been the very mortar that built every civilization known to man. To not respect that is just mad left-wing hysterics.

Also, gay couples are not denied equal protection. The behavior is unequal, not the way the law is applied. It's kind of like a guy wearing wearing a bullet proof vest complaining that he doesn't have equal protection like the other police officers, because he stubbed his toe. Never mind that no one forced him to stub his toe nor did they deprive him of protection. He just stubbed his toe, so he has to deal with it.

[frankenstein]

Within reason, you're right. But this isn't "wild speculation" at all. It's inference. Why do you want to impose an insane social experiment on society's children? Why would you do that? Because here's another fact: you can't predict the future.

fact: gay marriage has been going on for 10years now, it is hardly a "social experiment".

[Mordecai]

...fact: gay marriage has been going on for 10years now, it is hardly a "social experiment"....

It's a social experiment with a small sample size and no opportunities to measure effects on the youngest children. Young people will be most effected by this, and in more liberal countries, people tend to get married at about 30. The sensitive period, where people adopt language the fastest and easiest ends at about 7-8. Six-year olds and younger will be effected more than other groups. So we should see more pronounced effects about 24-30 years after the initial adoption of your ridiculous dogma. Of course, their children might be even more profoundly effected.

[Calm]

fact: gay marriage has been going on for 10years now, it is hardly a "social experiment".

While there are many things in society that can change quite quickly I don't think ten years is long enough to understand the deeper, more extensive impact those changes can have on a society especially since changes of attitude need a few generations to work through from "progressive" to "run of the mill". One has only to look at the continued prevalence of bigotry in our society to realize that fundamental social change does not happen overnight, even with technological changes...which tend to happen a whole lot faster than personal attitude and social structure change. I would say something is a "social experiment" as long as the outcome (talking not only about the 'variable' that has changed itself, but about the changes that change will cause in the society) is up in the air.

[LeSellers]

fact: gay marriage has been going on for 10years now, it is hardly a "social experiment".

Marriage has been around for 6,000 years. Same-sex "marriage" has been around for 10. Lessee: 10/6000 = ~0.

We're supposed to believe that ten years is anything like an adequate period to make the observation you are claiming?

We can look at similar "advances" and see what they have wrought:

No-fault divorce has given us, well a lot more divorce (and no compensating increase in "happiness"—divorcé(e)s are more unhappy than the unhappily married). We also have the phenomenon of a husband whose wife has children "from a previous marriage" who treats these innocents as slaves or punching bags: they're not his children, not even by adoption (which would help them a great deal).

Abortion on demand has given us huge numbers of abortions and an ever diminishing reduction in the level of responsibility among (primarily) young men who father children out of wedlock, massive increases in single motherhood and the concomitant poverty among these women and their ba$tard children.

Social acceptance of shacking up has made the concept of Family so unimportant that a man may be sleeping with a woman who has three children (who don't know their father(s)), none of them his, and all of whom he beats, including the woman. He will probably leave her when he impregnates her, leave her and their child who will not know who he is, either.

There is absolutely no reason to believe, short of ardent desire to "make everything equal, and damn the consequences", that same-sex "marriage" will give us any positive advantage, and it is more than likely (to the point of absolute certainty) that it will drastically and negatively affect culture and society as a whole.

Lehi

[california boy]

It's more than that. The issue is, if you treat two things identically and call them by the same name, you imply that they are either identical or have no relevant differences. For example, if people didn't care about the difference between lead and gold, a nickname for lead might be, "Grey gold," or if people really didn't care, they might just call them both, "gold." The more important something is to a society, the more necessary it is for that thing to have its own unique designation as a means to clear communication of its value or the importance of its differences, rather than lumping it into a general heap of similar or somewhat similar things.

So you are still hanging on to your silly gold/lead argument. You do realize your gold Visa card really isn't gold right? And winning a gold medal is not always gold? And white gold really isn't gold at all right? And lead can also mean you are being lead down a road of false logic.

Do you get confused between a marriage where the kids are biologically produced and those that are adopted? Or a marriage where one is Jewish and the other Christian? Or a temple marriage verses a civil marriage? Do you think the people are totally confused what a marriage is in Massachusetts or any of the other states where gay marriage is now the law of the state? They are all still called marriage, but they are all a little different. Can you see how silly your stance is? Or are you so blinded by your ideology that you have to hold on to it rather than looking at reality.

Here are some other causes you might consider supporting.

1. Let's call marriages with biological offspring bm marriage (bio marriages)

2. Let's call marriages with adopted kids GDWMTHK marriages (God didn't want me to have kids marriages)

3/ Let's call marriages where the couple is too old to have children any longer ITO marriages (I'm too old marriages"

4. Let's call marriages where young people just don't want to have children IWACI marriages (I want a marriage instead of kids marriage)

5. And of course SSM (Same sex marriage)

We could create an entire page of different types of marriages. Some can produce children, some can not, and some choose not to. Some are different than your marriage. But hey, you go guy in your quixote quest for "defending marriage" as only you want it defined, Now you won't be confused by the different relationships there can be in a marriage. I am sure there are more we need to define so you won't be confusted, since this seems to be your main issue with gay couples marrying

It seems you are the only one confused what the difference between gold and lead would be. I doubt that any judge would really consider this silly argument would have any validly in a court of law. And ultimately this will be decided by the Supreme Court. And I have to say, if this is the best argument against gay marriage, I am pretty confident the Supreme Court of the United States will be giving something the majority of Americans are looking forward to...equality for gay couples.

[california boy]

This is the latest of the recent polls that show most people in America don't buy these flimzy arguments used to deny equal rights to gay couples. The most interesting thing about this poll is it shows equality for gays has increased twice as fast as it did in the past. Momentum is increasing as arguments against gay marriage become less reasonable.

Gay Marriage Opponents Now in Minority

By NATE SILVER

A poll from CNN this week is the latest to show a majority of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage, with 51 percent saying that marriages between gay and lesbian couples “should be recognized by the law as valid” and 47 percent opposed.

This is the fourth credible poll in the past eight months to show an outright majority of Americans in favor of gay marriage. That represents quite a lot of progress for supporters of same-sex marriage. Prior to last year, there had been just one survey — a Washington Post poll conducted in April 2009 — to show support for gay marriage as the plurality position, and none had shown it with a majority.

As we noted last August, support for gay marriage seems to have been increasing at an accelerated pace over the past couple of years. Below is an update to the graph from last year’s article, which charts the trend from all available public polls on same-sex marriage going back to 1988

The trendline — derived through regression smoothing — estimates that about 50 percent of Americans now support gay marriage and that 46 percent are opposed, with a small percentage of voters undecided. By contrast, at this time two years ago, the numbers were 42 percent in favor and 53 percent opposed, according to the same technique.

The change — about a 4 percentage-point shift in favor of gay marriage in each of the last two years — is about double the longer-term rate of progress for supporters of gay marriage, which has been between 1 and 2 percentage points per year.

There is a margin of error associated with the calculation of the trendline, so it is too soon to say with confidence that support for gay marriage has become the plurality position (let alone the majority one). Other polls — like a Pew survey released in March — continue to show opinion split about evenly.

However, opponents of gay marriage almost certainly no longer constitute a majority; just one of the last nine polls has shown opposition to gay marriage above 50 percent.

Gay marriage advocates still face some challenges, however. The only time a statewide ballot proposition to limit gay marriage was defeated was in Arizona in 2006, although a narrower version of that initiative was passed by the state’s voters in 2008. Gay marriage advocates lost key ballot proposition battles in California in 2008 and Maine in 2009.

Both the California and Maine results were close, and because opinion is shifting so quickly on the issue, the outcomes would probably be different if they were voted on again today. At the same time, the people who turn out to vote are considerably older than the population as a whole, so gay marriage will not perform quite as well at the ballot booth as in surveys of the general population. In addition, whenever a position is gaining ground, its newly won support is often tentative and can be peeled away by an effective counter-campaign.

But Republican candidates, who have placed less emphasis on gay marriage in recent years, probably cannot expect their opposition to it to be a net electoral positive for them except in select circumstances. If support for gay marriage were to continue accelerating as fast as it has in the past two years, supporters would outnumber opponents roughly 56-40 in the general population by November 2012.

Past trends, of course, are no guarantee of future ones, and it’s always possible that the momentum toward increasing support for gay marriage could flatten out or even reverse itself.

But this does put Republicans in a tricky position. Their traditional position on gay marriage is becoming less popular. But to the extent they disengage from the issue, they may lose even more ground. One way to read the trends of the past few years is that we have passed an inflection point wherein it is no longer politically advantageous for candidates to oppose same-sex marriage, which in turn softens opposition to it among the general public, creating a sort of feedback loop and accelerating the trend.

[Mordecai]

So you are still hanging on to your silly gold/lead argument. You do realize your gold Visa card really isn't gold right? And winning a gold medal is not always gold? And white gold really isn't gold at all right? And lead can also mean you are being lead down a road of false logic.

Do you know why I realize they are different? Because it's being used as an adjective or in a different context. "White gold," is actually an alloy mix of platinum and gold, by the way. Doesn't take genius to figure out the grammatical differences and the contextual differences. But if Visa told me, "You are now qualified to receive gold!" that would sound like they were talking about actual gold. That's why it's a gold Visa and not just gold. I can't believe this confuses you, that you would think this is a valid analogy.

Do you get confused between a marriage where the kids are biologically produced and those that are adopted?

A little bit. As a matter of fact, I can't tell the difference much of the time. The reason being, they aren't identified differently by names. See the principle and how that works? Same name makes people think it's the same thing. Probably something a child could figure out.

[Nathair/|\]

Marriage has been around for 6,000 years. Same-sex "marriage" has been around for 10. Lessee: 10/6000 = ~0.

We're supposed to believe that ten years is anything like an adequate period to make the observation you are claiming?

We can look at similar "advances" and see what they have wrought:

No-fault divorce has given us, well a lot more divorce (and no compensating increase in "happiness"—divorcé(e)s are more unhappy than the unhappily married). We also have the phenomenon of a husband whose wife has children "from a previous marriage" who treats these innocents as slaves or punching bags: they're not his children, not even by adoption (which would help them a great deal).

Abortion on demand has given us huge numbers of abortions and an ever diminishing reduction in the level of responsibility among (primarily) young men who father children out of wedlock, massive increases in single motherhood and the concomitant poverty among these women and their ba$tard children.

Social acceptance of shacking up has made the concept of Family so unimportant that a man may by sleeping with a woman who has three children (who don't know their father(s)), none of them his, and all of whom he beats, including the woman. He will probably leave her when he impregnates her, leave her and their child who will not know who he is, either.

There is absolutely no reason to believe, short of ardent desire to "make everything equal, and damn the consequences", that same-sex "marriage" will give us any positive advantage, and it is more than likely (to the point of absolute certainty) that it will drastically and negatively affect culture and society as a whole.

Lehi

Minor point of fact: In some Native American tribes, gay people were called two-spirits, were considered to have a strong connection to the spirit world, and were known to marry members of their preferred gender.

Of course, the mere fact that societies have condoned certain practices doesn't make those practices moral.

I endorse the rest of your argument.

[Mordecai]

Minor point of fact: In some Native American tribes, gay people were called two-spirits, were considered to have a strong connection to the spirit world, and were known to marry members of their preferred gender.

So they adopted a homodogma, too, huh?

[AmorLibertas]

Primarily, the concept of marriage will be severed from the idea of having and raising biological children together, which is potentially harmful in itself.

So by legal recognition of homosexual domestic partnerships that are registered with the state as marriage, heterosexuals will stop having and raising biological children together, and Churches will stop teaching the benefits of conceiving and raising children in a family? Wow! It never occurred to me that heterosexuals such as myself would be so deeply affected by homosexual marriage that I would lose all desire whatsoever to marry and raise children. You've made me see the light now. I see how gay marriage will now bring about the total destruction of society by causing heterosexuals to stop wanting to marry and raise children.

Mordecai: But there are other implications as well, that may be less likely but will ultimately effect the way people behave to some degree or another.

Libertas: Less likely but ultimately effective? Perhaps it's been too long since my course in probability and statistics. Thanks for the refresher. It hadn't occurred to me that the probability of something, no matter how unlikely it is to occur, will eventually reach one. I must have been absent the day they covered the Douglas Adams constant in Statistics and Probability.

Mordecai: Exactly. The gov't has the power to influence thought. So if we treat gay unions like they're first-class, when in reality, they're 2nd class, it'll confuse people. Of course, giving something a different name doesn't suggest it is 2nd class. It only suggests it's different, and it is. That's a fact.

Libertas: Kinda like "Black Schools" and "White Schools", "Black Drinking Fountains" and "White Drinking Fountains", etc. Got it. Separate and unequal, not even the pretense of equality. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation, under the Abrahamic God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all except homosexual couples.

Mordecai: Also, do we need to AGAIN talk about how false this analogy is? Gay unions are not people. A gay union doesn't have any rights and can't be a 2nd class or first class citizen. It's a thing. It's a behavior based on choices, i.e. "the carrying out of the decision to live as husband and husband," which stem from homosexual urges. Nevertheless, it's based on choices. No one is forcing gay people to form "2nd class" unions, unlike how black people were actually coerced into going to bad schools and sitting at the back of the bus. Incredibly false analogy and frankly, it's an insult to the real Civil Rights movement.

Libertas: No, not an incredibly false or bad analogy, and not an insult to the "real Civil Rights movement". It's merely an imperfect one as homosexuals were not as comprehensively discriminated against; although to be sure, they have been beaten, maligned, called names, cast out of businesses, spit upon, demonized, scapegoated as the cause of various social ills, denied employment, lost jobs, discriminated against and only recently come to be accepted by the majority of people in society, as well as the LDS Church, as equals.

Mordecai: Since it's a fact that a gay union is different from a marriage...

Libertas: Only in the sex of the participants. As far as government is concerned, it is nothing more than a legal contract for a domestic partnership with special rights and privileges codified into law. There is no rational justification for denying such legal protections and privileges to any two (or more for that matter) adults wishing to register their domestic partnership with the state.

Mordecai: Fact: If a gay union and a straight union have no relevant differences, it must follow that having a biological father in the home is irrelevant.

Libertas: Fallacy. That implies that the only reason for marriage is procreation, and that having a biological father in the home is always the best option for a child. Furthermore, it suggests that gay couples with children living under the legal privileges and protections of marriage would provide less advantages or benefits to their children than living without such protections as single unmarried adults with children.

Mordecai: Fact: If the gov't calls a gay union by the same name as a straight union and treats them identically, an authoritative source that influences schools, media and the court system will consistently reinforce the idea that they are the same.

Libertas: Most likely true, as it should if as far as the government is concerned, they are.

Mordecai: Fact: Since environments and language effect thoughts, inevitably, people's feelings and actions will be effected by that environment.

Libertas: Quite obviously true. If you don't like the messages your children are receiving, it is your right to offer alternative messages.

Mordecai: Fact: Since this directly involves family environments, children will be effected.

Libertas: A less prejudiced society is a more peaceful and nurturing society. I hardly see this as a bad thing.

Mordecai: Fact: Children are extremely sensitive (albeit highly resilient) and their personality develops in early childhood, influencing how they feel and behave for the rest of their lives, effecting their children as well.

Libertas: Best not to leave how your children are raised in the hands of someone whose beliefs and morals you don't agree with. That's why I'll never leave my kids with anyone with beliefs such as yours.

Mordecai: Since this is not complicated, you can connect the dots from here. This doesn't seem like speculation to me. It seems like a line of reasoning, which means that reasonable people should not be trying to impose homosexual sociological experiments on society.

Libertas: Kinda like imposing interracial sociological experiments on society.

Mordecai: Within reason, you're right. But this isn't "wild speculation" at all. It's inference. Why do you want to impose an insane social experiment on society's children?

Libertas: I don't. I disagree with your notion that it is either insane, or a "social experiment".

Mordecai: Why would you do that? Because here's another fact: you can't predict the future.

Libertas: Here's a tip, neither can you, though your rhetoric suggests you believe that you can.

Mordecai: I have this crazy idea that we should learn from history and respect how marriage has proved itself, having been the very mortar that built every civilization known to man. To not respect that is just mad left-wing hysterics.

Libertas: No, you have a crazy idea that rather than learning from history and respecting marriage, we should keep it the exclusive province of heterosexuals under the ridiculous, religious-right, hysterical, scare-mongering assertion that by extending the franchise to homosexuals it will destroy society.

Mordecai: Also, gay couples are not denied equal protection. The behavior is unequal, not the way the law is applied.

Libertas: The behavior is equal to that of heterosexuals incapable of having children together wishing to marry; but you're right, it is not equal the way the law is applied. It is decidedly unequally prejudiced in favor or heterosexual couples.

Mordecai: It's kind of like a guy wearing wearing a bullet proof vest complaining that he doesn't have equal protection like the other police officers, because he stubbed his toe. Never mind that no one forced him to stub his toe nor did they deprive him of protection. He just stubbed his toe, so he has to deal with it.

Libertas: No, and that is one of the worst, most ridiculously asinine analogies to the differences between the legal privileges and protections enjoyed by heterosexual married couples and the limited privileges and protections granted to homosexual couples.

Since attempting to debate the issue with you is as productive as teaching a stubborn @ss how to talk or a pig to sing, I will cease this thread as well at this point, having said my peace many times over (to the quite obviously deaf ears of some Pharisees here).

[california boy]

A valiant effort to insert logic into Mordecal's ridiculous claims. I doubt very much that someone who has such deep prejudice against gay marriage will ever see things from a rational viewpoint. Fortunately this debate will be won in the courts of this country, in the legislature bodies of its states, and eventually even at the ballot box. Each month polls across the country report a strong movement of the American people to support equality for gay marriage. The last polls showed an increase of support for the past two years at double the rate of national acceptance. There is not one poll that shows any reversal of that direction in the past 10 years. The main reason for the continued support of gay marriage in this country is simply because there is no reasonable argument that is stronger than equality for all Americans. Some of the posts on this thread make that point painfully obvious.

A poll was published by the New York times yesterday that shows American Catholics support gay marriage or civil unions by 74 percent. Wow.

Here is the link. 74 percent of American Catholics surveyed supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry or form civil unions (43 percent and 31 percent, respectively)

Even on this board, there seems to be more and more Mormons that believe they can be active faithful members of the church and still be against discrimination towards gay people. I believe that ultimately good people will eventually support equality and reject discrimination over prejudice. Some groups just take a bit longer. We have seen it before. It will happen again. That doesn't mean that the Catholic or Mormon church will institute gay marriage. It just means that members of those churches can still support equality in relationship to the civil laws of this country.

[Bernard Gui]

I believe that ultimately good people will eventually support equality and reject discrimination over prejudice. Some groups just take a bit longer. We have seen it before. It will happen again. That doesn't mean that the Catholic or Mormon church will institute gay marriage. It just means that members of those churches can still support equality in relationship to the civil laws of this country.

Couple of questions....

Will (or should) the government impose sanctions on churches that do not institute or allow gay marriage?

After this glorious victory, whose is the next quest for equality?

Bernard

[Mordecai]

Only in the sex of the participants.

Wow, is that all? Yeah, that's irrelevant, especially if you're a child wondering why his or her biological father abandoned him or her. Studies have indicated that children of lesbian couples stress about why their father isn't present, feeling abandoned or unloved. But I guess that's irrelevant to society and the gov't, and "equality" is more important.

That implies that the only reason for marriage is procreation, and that having a biological father in the home is always the best option for a child. Furthermore, it suggests that gay couples with children living under the legal privileges and protections of marriage would provide less advantages or benefits to their children than living without such protections as single unmarried adults with children.

Wrong and wrong. I skipped a lot of your post, because the reasoning was so goshdang awful. Terrible reasoning. I kind of thought you were a little more rational than this post seems to suggest.

For example, that definitely did not imply that the only reason for marriage is procreation and doesn't imply that having a biological father in the home is always the bets option. It also doesn't suggest that gay couples with children living under the legal privileges and protections of [civil unions] would provide less advantage, etc. How did you arrive at those insane conclusions?

Most likely true, as it should if as far as the government is concerned, they are.

Ugh... responding to such nonsense is tiresome. Are you serious? WHY would the gov't only concern itself with your point of view but not mine, unless your point of view were the rational one and mine was not? In reality, the opposite is true.

If you don't like the messages your children are receiving, it is your right to offer alternative messages.

I'd say it's a right to not have a corrupt government indoctrinate your children with left-wing hysterics.

]A less prejudiced society is a more peaceful and nurturing society.

Indoctrination into a mindless dogma does not help people think clearly and be less prejudice. If anything, it will numb people's minds further reducing their ability to think rationally and skeptically.

That's why I'll never leave my kids with anyone with beliefs such as yours.

How about if the gov't adopted my beliefs, e.g. that Joseph Smith was a prophet? Then, by law, you'd have to send your kids to be indoctrinated in public schools or go to all the trouble to home school them. How does that sound? Fair? I didn't think you'd like that. But you think it's okay to have other people's children created in your image, where they "tolerantly" embrace the dogma that gay unions have no difference from a real marriage, the dumbest political dogma in human history.

Kinda like imposing interracial sociological experiments on society.

No one imposed it. People chose that. That was their right. See the difference?

...your rhetoric suggests you believe that you can.

I'm not the one trying to play God to manipulate the future. That's the difference. You seem to think you and your friends have the right to indoctrinate other people's children with something that is obviously false in the name of the "righteousness" of "tolerance." I'm not trying to make other people's children like me. That's absurdly arrogant.

I'm simply trying to keep speech unrestricted by eliminating the confusion caused by calling two obviously different things by the same name, treating them identically. You want to promote confusion and restrict speech. I want to promote free speech and free thought, allowing individuals to make informed and sensible decisions based on reasoning clearly and without government obstruction in the process.

No, you have a crazy idea that rather than learning from history and respecting marriage, we should keep it the exclusive province of heterosexuals under the ridiculous, religious-right, hysterical, scare-mongering assertion that by extending the franchise to homosexuals it will destroy society.

I think it will be a factor in destroying society, yes. I don't think it would be primary cause and never said it would be. All society's fail eventually. Weakening the family, as I've said, will hasten that process. Furthermore, I think my "scare-mongering" against the insane soft-tyranny of imposing a gay dogma on society is a rational thing to do. If it scares you, that wasn't really my intent. I still think what I'm saying is true.

Since attempting to debate the issue with you is as productive as teaching a stubborn @ss how to talk or a pig to sing, I will cease this thread as well at this point, having said my peace many times over (to the quite obviously deaf ears of some Pharisees here).

This was the most irrational response I've read of yours so far. Frankly, you're not leaving on a high note. I'm not stubborn. I'm just not one of the sheeple who believes everything my left-wing professors and news anchors tell me.

[Mordecai]

...discrimination towards gay people...

It's not discrimination to differentiate between two THINGS, or two different types of BEHAVIOR. It's not about people or their urges. It's about behavior. Period.

Again, is it discrimination to not call lead, "gold?" Obviously not.

74 percent of American Catholics surveyed supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry or form civil unions (43 percent and 31 percent, respectively)

In other words, most of them are against your gay dogma. That's good. Sad that there are 43% that are gullible enough to believe that there are no relevant differences between a gay union and a straight one.

[Chronos]

Seriously, if both of you don't knock off the "No, you're irrational!" garbage, this thread will be done and you'll both get a suspension.

Clean it up or stop posting.

~Chronos