Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[Mordecai]

You still have failed to show, how in Mass, NY, or anything state/country that permits ssm that you forbidden or prohibited from voicing your opinion that marriage is only between one man and one woman except in cases of God sanctioned polygamy.

And you continue to fail to put a modicum of thought into what I've said. I've made my argument clear, but it's quite obvious you didn't pay the tiniest bit of attention to what I've said. ZERO effort. Again, for you, homosexuals engender tremendous sympathy and frankly, defensiveness. But conservative FUNDAMENTAL rights apparently don't deserve the slightest bit of mental exertion. That's pretty sick and profoundly depraved.

[Jaybear]

You're seemingly making the assumption that SSM can be forever filling and loving while the opposite seems to be the case. There are already indications that the divorce rate among SSM's is occurring equal to that of opposite sex marriages.

No. My expressly stated point is that such factors are not relevant to the issue at hand.

Marriage of any kind generally supports the raising of children, but under the best of all possible scenarios two loving individuals of opposite gender provide the best home.

I have no doubt you believe that. But you still have to rationally connect your factual belief with your opposition to gay marriage.

Here is where your argument falls flat:

If given the choice of a child being raised by uncaring hetero couples or a loving gay couple I would probably support the latter, but the vast majority of cases I would support heterosexual marriage because it is a social and historical norm.

That choice does not exist. If you think this through with a real example, you can grasp the point.

Assume for the moment that we have a lesbian woman, who wants to have two children, raised in a loving marriage with another woman.

Since you want to use marriage laws to socially engineer the optimal environment for these two future children, you need to explain how denying her the right to marry a woman, will lead to these two children being raised by a married heterosexual couple.

In reality, the only choice you can make is whether the children should be raised by a lesbian couple who are married, or who are living together without the benefit of marriage.

Aside from the social implications one way or another there is still the little fact that as an active LDS I find the practice and lifestyle of homosexuality inconsistent with the gospel.

I get it. You want society to create a legal barrier to hinder or prevent other adults from making choices about their personal lives in a manner which you, because of your religious belief, disapprove.

It must be frustrating that gays don't appreciate that you are opposing gay marriage for their own benefit.

[TAO]

I appreciate that you looked into it, but in those post I am challenging arguments against ssm, I am not arguing for; I am addressing specific claims made by others. I have done as I have always done, that is, challenge the arguments against ssm. I have not argued in favor of ssm.

This thread, post #10. Because you are excusing, you are supporting in that instance.

To be quite honest, I do not really care if you support it or don't. But don't try and walk a fine line like this - it seems deceptive to other people imo. Okay =P?

[Jaybear]

To be quite honest, I do not really care if you support it or don't. But don't try and walk a fine line like this - it seems deceptive to other people imo. Okay =P?

Frank made a critical remark to a statement I made. If he wants to play devil's advocate to better understand the real issues, concerns and arguments expressed, I welcome his contribution.

[krose]

Even so, Krose's statement that there is no reliable data that suggests that same-sex couples are just as capable of parenting as their straight counterparts is untrue.

Daniel, you read it wrong. I said the opposite of that.

[Jaybear]

Daniel, you read it wrong. I said the opposite of that.

I would expect homosexual parents, on average to be better parents that heterosexual parents.

Unlike heterosexual intimacy, gay intimacy does not lead to unexpected, unwanted pregnancies.

Accordingly, homosexual couples should, on average, be better prepared to raise children.

I would imagine the biggest challenge facing gay parents raising children, is the bigotry of their neighbors, employers, and family members, who harbor an irrational belief that gays should not be raising children.

[Daniel2]

Daniel, you read it wrong. I said the opposite of that.

Sorry, Krose! You're right--that was my bad for reading that wrong. It should have been directed at the point Red Baron had made, and which I see you were disagreeing with.

Thanks,

Daniel2

[bluebell]

I would expect homosexual parents, on average to be better parents that heterosexual parents.

Using your arguement, it's not whether parents are homosexual or heterosexual that would impact the level of good parenting, but whether or not the child was planned for or wanted, right?

Adoptive heterosexual parents would also be equal to homosexual parents as their situation would be exactly the same as that for a homosexual couple.

And any heterosexual couple who had a child through planning would also be equal to homosexual couples in this regard. In this way, i think it would be difficult to average who the best parents are based only on their sexuality.

[california boy]

So you're saying that what the gov't calls it is irrelevant to people's rights? Great. Then you won't mind having the gov't call it a civil union, since you have no ulterior motives to act as the thought police. Glad we finally agree.

Either you don't read or you don't have a leg to stand on with your free speech violation. This is what I said.

Yeah well this is a fun fantasy you have going here, but until the government starts putting people in jail for calling gay marriage what ever they want, it is not a violation of free speech. Mormons can even call marriage "temple marriage" if they want. They won't go to jail for calling it what they want.

Now did I say anything at ALL about what the gov't calls it as being irrelevant?? No I did not. Nice try. You have no argument. Move on.

[Mordecai]

Now did I say anything at ALL about what the gov't calls it as being irrelevant?? No I did not. Nice try. You have no argument. Move on.

I think you supported my argument, in fact, which is why I put so little effort into responding to you. It's obvious that your top priority is to get power over the word marriage. That's because you intend to indoctrinate children and society, dominating them with your culture, smothering the "inferior" social conservativism.

[frankenstein]

This thread, post #10. Because you are excusing, you are supporting in that instance.

http://www.mormondia...ing-curriculum/

To be quite honest, I do not really care if you support it or don't. But don't try and walk a fine line like this - it seems deceptive to other people imo. Okay =P?

I was simply asking a question.

as for what other perceive, that is a symtomatic of this board. If anyone challenges the party line (for lack of better words) that person is most often labeled as a antimormon, or some other inflammatory term of disgust. I am not one to let false/misleading/deliberately deceptive claims go unchallenged. if someone claims "marriage is not a fundamental right" well, that is quite easy to disprove. If someone claims their "rights" are being violated, well, prove it, that person needs make their claim clearly and consicely and demonstrate how in fact their rights are being violated. If people are going to be agaisnt something they better be able to back up that claim.

[Mordecai]

I was simply asking a question....

Actually, you've made claims of fact that support "gay marriage." You haven't just asked questions, e.g. "...marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundemental right." The implication here is that a gay union is identical to a straight union or that there are no relevant differences. You begin with the premise that "gay marriage" is a right and argue from there. It's obvious you accept the premises of the far left as factual, and it shows in your arguments. So when you say you're "just asking a question," that's hardly the case.

[frankenstein]

Actually, you've made claims of fact that support "gay marriage." You haven't just asked questions, e.g. "...marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundemental right." The implication here is that a gay union is identical to a straight union or that there are no relevant differences. You begin with the premise that "gay marriage" is a right and argue from there. It's obvious you accept the premises of the far left as factual, and it shows in your arguments. So when you say you're "just asking a question," that's hardly the case.

i have made claims of law, when others have denied the law, which you have done, which cdowis has done, which stargazer has done. I presented the law to show that marriage is a fundamental right. "marriage to a person of ones own choosing" is essentially the totality of the fundamental right to marriage which comes from the SCOTUS cases on marriage.

That you need to put people in boxes with inflammatory and by your use and intention derogatory language is your own personal issue. I have not argued in favor in ssm, if I have prove it, I have asked you to prove it several times and you still haven't. I don't imply anything with my posts, except in a post about economic theory where I used "basrrrards" and yes, I am imply a different term in that post. but as for ssm, I have only ever challenged the statements made against it.

if someone makes claims they better be able to support the claim.

[california boy]

I think you supported my argument, in fact, which is why I put so little effort into responding to you. It's obvious that your top priority is to get power over the word marriage. That's because you intend to indoctrinate children and society, dominating them with your culture, smothering the "inferior" social conservativism.

Oh Brother. Pure fantasy. You can think and say what you want. I guess that is part of free speech as well. You can think as say what ever you want whether it has any basis in reality or not.

[Daniel2]

Oh Brother. Pure fantasy. You can think and say what you want. I guess that is part of free speech as well. You can think as say what ever you want whether it has any basis in reality or not.

Yeah... I'm not sure anyone else follows Mordecai's "logic" in this thread, either. Apparently, he believes government recognition of other people's civil marriage--and any social pressure that he perceives as same-sex weddings gain ongoing social acceptance--is some sort of infringement on his freedom of speech... and religion... and a whole bunch of other personal perceived threats. :-P

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

A legal perspective on the New York issue.

ALBANY, N.Y. (BP)--Religious exemption language that was part of a successful "gay marriage" bill in New York addresses a handful of religious liberty concerns but ignores a large number of other religious conflicts, says an attorney familiar with the issue.

The religious exemption language was critical to getting a handful of Republican senators -- four total -- to support the bill, allowing it to pass, 33-29.

The issue of religious liberty has been at the forefront of conservative concerns about "gay marriage." After it was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, Catholic Charities chose to get out of adoptions instead of being forced to place children in same-sex homes. While the language might prevent that from happening in New York, Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin R. Nimocks says, it would not protect a husband-and-wife photography team from state action if they declined to take pictures at a same-sex "wedding." It also would do nothing to prevent the teaching of "gay marriage" in New York schools. Alliance Defense Fund is a legal organization that fights for religious liberty.

Following is a partial transcript of an interview with Nimocks:

BAPTIST PRESS: Give me an example of what the bill supposedly would cover in its religious exemptions.

AUSTIN R NIMOCKS: A church or religious organization that, for example, owns property, would not be required to have their property used or appropriated for purposes inconsistent with their theological beliefs or views about marriage.

BP: Would the exemption protect Catholic Charities and prevent the problem that they had in Massachusetts?

NIMOCKS: It's hard to say because you don't know how all this is going to be interpreted. But I would say that Catholic Charities would likely be covered [by the exemption] because of the religious nature of Catholic Charities. But if you have a private adoption agency that is not overtly religious but believes they want to adopt kids out only to moms and dads -- they're not covered.

BP: You're saying that the term "religious" is up to a judge's interpretation.

NIMOCKS: Absolutely. Where a conflict arises, it will be played out in court or some tribunal. This language does not cover everything it needs to cover and everybody that needs to be covered. In terms of what it purports to cover, it remains to be seen whether it will be interpreted in the way that many legislators who enacted it are promising it will be. There are significant holes in this religious liberty language.

BP: What are some examples?

NIMOCKS: It does not protect individuals. It does not protect private business owners. It does not protect, for example, a bed and breakfast owner who is using their own private personal property in the type of intimate setting that a bed and breakfast is. It does not protect licensed professionals. For example, it does not protect counselors. It also does not protect lawyers -- you may have a family law attorney who does not want to do a same-sex divorce because of their deeply held religious beliefs. It does not protect fertility doctors who may have a strict belief and only want to help [heterosexual] married couples because they believe a kid deserves both a mom and a dad.

BP: So it would not cover wedding photographers, such as the famous case in New Mexico? [A state judge ruled in 2009 that a husband-and wife-owned photography company violated state anti-discrimination laws when they refused to take pictures of a lesbian commitment ceremony.]

NIMOCKS: No, it absolutely would not, and that's a problem. And that's just one type of artist involved in your traditional, everyday American wedding ceremony. You've got invitation printers, you have caterers, cake makers. You've got several different types of professions that can all be impacted by this, and this language makes no effort whatsoever to protect them.

BP: Would it cover a situation similar to what happened in Ocean Grove, N.J.? [Where a Methodist-owned beachfront property lost part of its tax-exempt status because its leaders denied use of the property to a lesbian couple for a commitment ceremony.]

NIMOCKS: It's unclear.

BP: Are public schools covered?

NIMOCKS: The most glaring omissions from this bill -- what it does not cover -- are individuals and business owners and schools and school officials. It does not protect our children.

BP: Which means that "gay marriage" can be taught as normative and be protected by state law?

NIMOCKS: That is correct. It does not exempt one of the most important things that should be exempted -- from what we've learned as this agenda has progressed -- and that is the intent of advocates of same-sex marriage to teach same-sex marriage as wonderful, normal and appropriate to children as young as kindergarten.

Baptist Press

They certainly have tried it here in CA.

[Daniel2]

While SSM might be legally accepted in many states it will still be considered an aberration as has been polygamy and incest.

Just to clarify: I find the use of the word "might" here to be potentially non-reflective of reality, in that civil marriage for same-sex couples already has been legally accepted by six states, and there's little doubt that that number will continue to grow.

Consider the following:

Having said that, I'm ok with a Latter-day Saint considering it to be the same classification of an "aberration" of so-called "traditional" marriage as "polygamy" is.

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

"While the language might prevent that from happening in New York, Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin R. Nimocks says, it would not protect a husband-and-wife photography team from state action if they declined to take pictures at a same-sex "wedding.""

and one wonders why a person might question a study sponsored by ADF?

why did the photographer in New Mexico get sued? Because she was dumb enough to say she did not provide services to homosexuals; rather than doing the smart thing and saying "No, I am not interested, thank you, and do not not call back". Once she made it a issue of sexual orientation she was in violation of New Mexico law. so what is the lesson for people in NY if you don't want to provide services to homosexuals just say "No thank you" but if you are dumb to say "I don't like homos and will not provide services to homos" then in my opinion you deserve to get sued, if only for you stupidity in opening yourself up to a law suit.

[Daniel2]

[The] intent of advocates of same-sex marriage [is] to teach same-sex marriage as wonderful, normal and appropriate to children as young as kindergarten.

I find it strange that one would suggest that schools teach that any specific type of marriage (religious, interracial, same-sex, civil, etc) is "wonderful." I'd be interested in seeing curriculum that demonstrates that rule.

Beyond that, I don't fear acknowledging that advocates of civil marriage equality suggest that there's nothing inappropriate about teaching or modeling to children in states where same-sex marriage is legally accepted that "marriage" is "normal" and "appropriate" for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

I don't think that schools should ignore or shy away from acknowledging the reality of those states where their students live--and which they might encounter in fellow classmates' same-sex parents (even "as young as kindergarden") in a school setting (i.e. a fellow kindergarden classmate's same-sex parents attending a school function together with their child)--especially in the face of, say, any bullying that goes on due to intolerance of families that differ from one's own.

Do you?

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

In how many states was it rejected by the legislatures? I believe 36, and that number is likely to grow. In know that in at least 11 states where it was put on the ballot it was overwhelming rejected by the voters, including California.

I am reminded of what Andrew Sullivan said basically that homosexual men viewed commitment to marriage as something considerably broader than heterosexual couples would be willing to tolerate. That gay men needed extramarital outlets and same sex marriage will make adultry more acceptable for all married couples.

I personally would not support a group wishing to change what marriage is in order to change what adultry is. I simply find it unacceptable.

[Jeff K.]

I find it strange that one would suggest that schools teach that any specific type of marriage (religious, interracial, same-sex, civil, etc) is "wonderful." I'd be interested in seeing curriculum that demonstrates that rule.

Beyond that, I don't fear acknowledging that advocates of civil marriage equality suggest that there's nothing inappropriate about teaching or modeling to children in states where same-sex marriage is legally accepted that "marriage" is "normal" and "appropriate" for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

I don't think that schools should ignore or shy away from acknowledging the reality of those states where their students live--and which they might encounter in fellow classmates' same-sex parents (even "as young as kindergarden") in a school setting (i.e. a fellow kindergarden classmate's same-sex parents attending a school function together with their child)--especially in the face of, say, any bullying that goes on due to intolerance of families that differ from one's own.

Do you?

Daniel2

Gay marriage is wrong, gay lifestyles are wrong. If people really saw a white party, as I have seen, they would not vote for it. If people actually saw a gay pride parade, which I have seen, they would not vote in its favor. It is disengenuous of gay men and women to hide the truth regarding those issues while they seek to redefine the debate. And yet, many gay men and women find these white parties to be perfectly acceptable in their "monogamos" relationships. So there is a certain amount of dishonesty being shoved before the electorate. I would challenge a gay man to make a full movie of gay activities both among themselves and affiliates and then see if the support still remains strong.

I think parents should have a right, above the right of schools to withdraw their children from classes they deem as unethical or immoral. I believe a class can cover the idea of bullying without introducing the gay lifestyle (which I have seen done in CA) and attempting to portray it as acceptable. It is not.

Again...

I am reminded of what Andrew Sullivan said basically that homosexual men viewed commitment to marriage as something considerably broader than heterosexual couples would be willing to tolerate. That gay men needed extramarital outlets and same sex marriage will make adultry more acceptable for all married couples.

[Jeff K.]

"While the language might prevent that from happening in New York, Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin R. Nimocks says, it would not protect a husband-and-wife photography team from state action if they declined to take pictures at a same-sex "wedding.""

and one wonders why a person might question a study sponsored by ADF?

why did the photographer in New Mexico get sued? Because she was dumb enough to say she did not provide services to homosexuals; rather than doing the smart thing and saying "No, I am not interested, thank you, and do not not call back". Once she made it a issue of sexual orientation she was in violation of New Mexico law. so what is the lesson for people in NY if you don't want to provide services to homosexuals just say "No thank you" but if you are dumb to say "I don't like homos and will not provide services to homos" then in my opinion you deserve to get sued, if only for you stupidity in opening yourself up to a law suit.

In other words, the laws advocating immoral behavior require us to lie in order to remain moral. And you see nothing wrong with that? We cannot be honest with ourselves or our government because we will be prosecuted for our honesty.

I wonder if you can see how that squelches true and honest debate and leads to little more than lies and gilded facades in order to push through immoral acts. What next? Rape is not rape, but merely assault with a friendly weapon? Debate in a democracy should be honest and open, choices should be honest and open, not some Orwellian game gay advocates seem to be playing.

[frankenstein]

In other words, the laws advocating immoral behavior require us to lie in order to remain moral.

how is simply declining an offer a lie?

which person lieing

Homosexual: can we hire you for a gay wedding

Photographer 1: No

Photographer 2: No because I hate homos and you should all burn in h***.

[Analytics]

I am reminded of what Andrew Sullivan said basically that homosexual men viewed commitment to marriage as something considerably broader than heterosexual couples would be willing to tolerate. That gay men needed extramarital outlets and same sex marriage will make adultry more acceptable for all married couples.

Andrew Sullivan said this:

"Momogamy [sic] is very hard for men, straight or gay."

Thus, those in favor of monogamy should be opposed to men--gay or straight--having the right to marry; marriage should be reserved for lesbians so that sexual fidelity becomes the norm for all marriages.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 June 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

In other words, the laws advocating immoral behavior require us to lie in order to remain moral.

how is simply declining an offer a lie?

which person lieing

Homosexual: can we hire you for a gay wedding

Photographer 1: No

Photographer 2: No because I hate homos and you should all burn in h***.

Since you have decided to descend into hyperbole I will not.

Lets look at what you said specifically...

why did the photographer in New Mexico get sued? Because she was dumb enough to say she did not provide services to homosexuals; rather than doing the smart thing and saying "No, I am not interested, thank you, and do not not call back". Once she made it a issue of sexual orientation she was in violation of New Mexico law. so what is the lesson for people in NY if you don't want to provide services to homosexuals just say "No thank you" but if you are dumb to say "I don't like homos and will not provide services to homos" then in my opinion you deserve to get sued, if only for you stupidity in opening yourself up to a law suit.

In other words, she gave a true reason without evasion. She chose not to lie, an evasion is also a lie. Any lie, deception or evasion corrupts one's integrity. Apparently some do not feel that way. Evasion and deception are quite possibly and acceptable part of those who do not really understand what a lie is.

She may have been willing to take other photographs, but not those that undermine the concept of marriage. In other words hate, what you call anyone who disagrees with you and your position has nothing to do with it. I would suggest you think a tad more regarding such issues in the future.