Breaking News - Gay Marriage Ruling

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 June 2011 - 04:01 PM, said:

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.

As a gay man, how would he know the difficulty held by heterosexual men?

[Analytics]

As a gay man, how would he know the difficulty held by heterosexual men?

You’re the one who introduced him as an expert on the male proclivity for monogamy. It sounds like you are you suggesting that it is okay to generalize about people who share your sexual orientation, but that you shouldn't generalize about people with other orientations. That's a bit ironic, given the way you generalize about the people you see at white parties and gay parades.

[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.

One can very much support same-sex marriage equality and yet still oppose "white parties" (I've never been to one, and have no desire to ever go to one), and not even necessarily gay Pride Parades. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, just as Mardi Gras has nothing to do with oppoite-sex marriage.

Not everyone who supports gay marriage supports white parties, and I submit any implication that marriage equality supporters would all be guilty of "shoving dishonesty before the electorate" would be unjustified and unfair.

I find it interesting that you've been to both Pride and white parties. Why did you feel the need to attend?

What are these other "gay activities" that you suggest gay men should film and share with their affiliates that you feel is related to marriage...?

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 is certainly entitled to his opinion, as we all are, but--like any celebrity--he is not a prophet or spokesperson for everyone else. For example, I disagree with this particular point.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

As a gay man, how would he know the difficulty held by heterosexual men?

As one man, how would he know the difficulty held by every other man, regardless of sexual orientation?

Daniel2

[Jaybear]

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.

Jeff the person that would be lying is the person who wants to engage in illegal discrimination, but not get caught.

BTW, any law that protects gays from discrimination, will likely also protect Mormons. Funny that I have never heard you complain when people who want to discriminate agaisnt Mormons are forced to lie to avoid getting in trouble.

[TAO]

I was simply asking a question.

Are you saying you honestly didn't already know the answer?

A question is only a true question if you haven't already decided.

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.

Yes, it is. Luckily, I rather dislike negative labeling terms. This doesn't have to do with labeling terms in this case, though.

I am not one to let false/misleading/deliberately deceptive claims go unchallenged.

That is fine. I expect you to challenge them. Good people do.

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.

Just as it is easy for me to prove what a hollow word 'right' is. Just as you don't want to let misleading claims go unchallenged, I do not want to let misleading implications go unchallenged. Because unsaid implications are half of a conversation. It is not just what is physically said, but what is implied. Both matter, to a degree. They are not the same, but both matter.

If people are going to be agaisnt something they better be able to back up that claim.

Correct. Just as people in all positions must justify their positions. Those, for, against, and in neutrality must justify their positions in the long run.

To me, the law is not perfect. I will not justify with law, but with logic. =)

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

As one man, how would he know the difficulty held by every other man, regardless of sexual orientation?

Daniel2

Similarly, as a man, he should be able to control himself, as other men have done, slowly, before him. The path is rough, but it has been tread before.

Force of will is the most powerful force on earth if put to good use. Trust me =). It is a hard lesson to learn, a hard path to overcome, but it is worth it =D.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 June 2011 - 04:27 PM, said:

As a gay man, how would he know the difficulty held by heterosexual men?

You’re the one who introduced him as an expert on the male proclivity for monogamy. It sounds like you are you suggesting that it is okay to generalize about people who share your sexual orientation, but that you shouldn't generalize about people with other orientations. That's a bit ironic, given the way you generalize about the people you see at white parties and gay parades.

No, I simply pointed out what appears to be the gay man's approach to marriage. Which by the way is sustained and supported by those white parties in the US and elsewhere, the gay pride parades, whose exhibitions cannot be shown to the public based on (ironically) decency laws in the public airways. So it isn't simply a generalization, it is supported by the actions of the gay community.

[Jeff K.]

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.

Jeff the person that would be lying is the person who wants to engage in illegal discrimination, but not get caught.

BTW, any law that protects gays from discrimination, will likely also protect Mormons. Funny that I have never heard you complain when people who want to discriminate agaisnt Mormons are forced to lie to avoid getting in trouble.

Actually it doesn't. Just ask the Mormons who lost their jobs because they voted and supported their conscience.

[frankenstein]

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.

does the LDS Church "lie" when it does not mention topics when said topics are related to a matter the Church might be speaking on? Does the LDS Church "lie" via depictions of the translation process by not having pictures of a top hat being used? I ask because I would like to know if your statement is all encompassing?

It is not a lie, to simply say "No"

for example:

A: Will you help me

B: No

C: Why wont you help A

B: Because I choose not too.

D(best friend and confidaunt of B): why didn't you help a

B: because A is a parade marching dsyfunctional homo and I choose not to help homos.

in the end and in truth B has not lied. I believe even Elder Oaks talk would support the notion that B has not lied.

where is the lie? or where is the evasion?

--------------------------------

Actually it doesn't. Just ask the Mormons who lost their jobs because they voted and supported their conscience.

Actually it does, no one can show how a non-discrimination law as written, or on the face of the law protects one class more than another. If a law states "sexual orientation" then the law applies to both everyone. you are muddling issues by, jaybear is speaking of "sexual orientation' and discrimination, you are speaking of 'voting' and discrimination. to different issues, and yours does not even approach what jaybear is speaking on.

[frankenstein]

Are you saying you honestly didn't already know the answer?

A question is only a true question if you haven't already decided.

Best Wishes,

TAO

tao, from the thread the quote comes from the person I responded too seemed to be lumping everyone from those who identify as "struggling with ssa" to the most flamboinat grand marshall of gay pride parades in to the same box. I was asking "what choice" has a person made if they are attracted to members of the same gender?

I really liked your response, though, I believe you gave too much benefit of doubt to the person I was responding too. But as for "what choice" can you choose not attracted to a person you find attractive? That is can you control the very molecular process which leads to your conscious recognition that you are attracted to a particular person? I don't think anyone can. can a person choose how to act on those impulse, yes they can. So my question to poster went to that, though I did not state it with such clarity. So I do not think a person has much of choice if any in what the natural processes of their bodies does which triggers "attraction".

[Jaybear]

Actually it doesn't. Just ask the Mormons who lost their jobs because they voted and supported their conscience.

Name one person that was fired, because they were a Mormon following passage of Prop 8.

Your lack of precision in your choice of language is challenging.

They were not fired, they resigned.

The threatened boycotts occurred, not because they were mormon, or because they VOTED for prop 8. The pressure came because they CONTRIBUTED funds to Prop 8.

I did not say laws preventing discrimination agaisnt gays also prevent discrimination agaisnt people who contribute to political campaigns. If you think that would be a good law to pass, go get em tiger.

[Jeff K.]

No Jaybear, there were many men of other groups who also voted for prop 8 and did not lose their jobs.

Mormons were the easiest ones to use as a scapegoat, just like the Jews. So spare me the false dichotomy. Tell you what, show me the protests in front of the AME church and the African Americans, Muslims and Jews who voted against it and how they lost their jobs.

Otherwise your point is a false one.

[Jeff K.]

Your lack of precision in your choice of language is challenging.

The lack of honesty sometimes displayed by posters makes for a challenge for me too.

[TAO]

tao, from the thread the quote comes from the person I responded too seemed to be lumping everyone from those who identify as "struggling with ssa" to the most flamboinat grand marshall of gay pride parades in to the same box. I was asking "what choice" has a person made if they are attracted to members of the same gender?

Aha, okay. So you were taking about that. Nevermind then.

Although you probably shouldn't let that specified person bug you.

I really liked your response, though, I believe you gave too much benefit of doubt to the person I was responding too.

I gave less than my usual actually. The spirit reprimanded me on another post (not my post to you, though I should have done that too) and made me edit it to be more merciful. XD

But as for "what choice" can you choose not attracted to a person you find attractive? That is can you control the very molecular process which leads to your conscious recognition that you are attracted to a particular person? I don't think anyone can. can a person choose how to act on those impulse, yes they can. So my question to poster went to that, though I did not state it with such clarity. So I do not think a person has much of choice if any in what the natural processes of their bodies does which triggers "attraction".

I misread your statement, it is fine.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Jeff K.]

tao, from the thread the quote comes from the person I responded too seemed to be lumping everyone from those who identify as "struggling with ssa" to the most flamboinat grand marshall of gay pride parades in to the same box. I was asking "what choice" has a person made if they are attracted to members of the same gender?

I really liked your response, though, I believe you gave too much benefit of doubt to the person I was responding too. But as for "what choice" can you choose not attracted to a person you find attractive? That is can you control the very molecular process which leads to your conscious recognition that you are attracted to a particular person? I don't think anyone can. can a person choose how to act on those impulse, yes they can. So my question to poster went to that, though I did not state it with such clarity. So I do not think a person has much of choice if any in what the natural processes of their bodies does which triggers "attraction".

You presume attraction alone dictates action. Well it does among the lower animals. But then, should lower animals be given the right to marry?

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Actually it doesn't. Just ask the Mormons who lost their jobs because they voted and supported their conscience.

Actually it does, no one can show how a non-discrimination law as written, or on the face of the law protects one class more than another. If a law states "sexual orientation" then the law applies to both everyone. you are muddling issues by, jaybear is speaking of "sexual orientation' and discrimination, you are speaking of 'voting' and discrimination. to different issues, and yours does not even approach what jaybear is speaking on.

It is easy for those who advocate same sex marriage to lie and avoid an open honest debate. Not so for the ethical though. The photographers were not, as you described them, hating individuals, anymore than you hate people whose ethics you disagree with. But you chose to dehumanize them that way.

They didn't hate, but there is a good chance that those who accuse them of being hateful are reflecting their own ideas on the matter.

[Jeff K.]

Je

ff K., on 28 June 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

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.

does the LDS Church "lie" when it does not mention topics when said topics are related to a matter the Church might be speaking on? Does the LDS Church "lie" via depictions of the translation process by not having pictures of a top hat being used? I ask because I would like to know if your statement is all encompassing?

It is not a lie, to simply say "No"

for example:

A: Will you help me

B: No

C: Why wont you help A

B: Because I choose not too.

D(best friend and confidaunt of B): why didn't you help a

B: because A is a parade marching dsyfunctional homo and I choose not to help homos.

in the end and in truth B has not lied. I believe even Elder Oaks talk would support the notion that B has not lied.

where is the lie? or where is the evasion?

In part C, the evasion becomes the lie. The truth is not be tossed aside for consumer convenience, it is whay something is done.

As to D, your attempts to dehumanize someone who thinks differently reflects more upon your own anger and viceral reaction than it does what actually might have occurred. Among other things the answer could have been "because I deem same sex marriage to be wrong and do not want to promote it with my work". It has nothing to do with the hyperbolic phrases of homo, and dysfunctional, this reflects you, and your projection of yourself upon others. Please refrain from it.

[Analytics]

No, I simply pointed out what appears to be the gay man's approach to marriage. Which by the way is sustained and supported by those white parties in the US and elsewhere, the gay pride parades, whose exhibitions cannot be shown to the public based on (ironically) decency laws in the public airways. So it isn't simply a generalization, it is supported by the actions of the gay community.

White parties and gay parades are “the gay man’s” approach to marriage in the same way that Mardi Gras and swinger parties are “the straight man’s” approach to marriage.

[Jeff K.]

White parties and gay parades are “the gay man’s” approach to marriage in the same way that Mardi Gras and swinger parties are “the straight man’s” approach to marriage.

Swinger parties are not acceptable to the married community and Mardi Gras certainly isn't to the idea of marriage.

So why should we further undermine marriage?

I bet however that White Parties are indeed acceptable to the gay community, as are gay pride parades. I haven't seen anyone in the gay community speak out against them, or say they are wrong. I haven't seen an expose of those parties where they are decried as going against family lifestyles.

And that is the chasm that isn't being crossed. Better to redefine marriage than to live up to it eh?

[frankenstein]

In part C, the evasion becomes the lie. The truth is not be tossed aside for consumer convenience, it is whay something is done.

As to D, your attempts to dehumanize someone who thinks differently reflects more upon your own anger and viceral reaction than it does what actually might have occurred. Among other things the answer could have been "because I deem same sex marriage to be wrong and do not want to promote it with my work". It has nothing to do with the hyperbolic phrases of homo, and dysfunctional, this reflects you, and your projection of yourself upon others. Please refrain from it.

dsyfunctional is a term I think you have used, dysfunction is also a term that has been used quite often on these boards.

as for "because I choose not too" that is perfectly honest answer. I do not believe God would consider it a lie, nor many others.

[KevinG]

Swinger parties are not acceptable to the married community and Mardi Gras certainly isn't to the idea of marriage.

So why should we further undermine marriage?

I bet however that White Parties are indeed acceptable to the gay community, as are gay pride parades. I haven't seen anyone in the gay community speak out against them, or say they are wrong. I haven't seen an expose of those parties where they are decried as going against family lifestyles.

And that is the chasm that isn't being crossed. Better to redefine marriage than to live up to it eh?

In fairness I have homosexual collegues and friends who are appalled by the kind of behavior some homosexuals exhibit in public, just as heterosexuals don't endorse all public exhibitions of "straight" sex. I think the public acting out clouds the issue for both sides.

While I don't think it is correct to redefine marriage, the fact that marriage has been endorsed by the state (meaning there are legal and financial advantages to being married in the state sanctioned way) actually causes 1st amendment issues by endorsing a particular religious institution in a very concrete way.

I have a strange take on the debate and that is to"divorce" the financial and legal protections from state sanctioned definitions of marriage, do the hard work of broadly defining what a dependent is and what rights they have regardless of demographics, then put marriage back into the sole custody of churches as they see fit to observe it.

That is not an endorsement of Gay Marriage or a condemnation of Straight Marriage but a practical and more ecumenical reading of the constitutional rights of all citizens.

As long as we continue to have the state define what marriage is we will continue to step on each others toes in a big way.

[Nathair/|\]

In fairness I have homosexual collegues and friends who are appalled by the kind of behavior some homosexuals exhibit in public, just as heterosexuals don't endorse all public exhibitions of "straight" sex. I think the public acting out clouds the issue for both sides.

While I don't think it is correct to redefine marriage, the fact that marriage has been endorsed by the state (meaning there are legal and financial advantages to being married in the state sanctioned way) actually causes 2nd amendment issues by endorsing a particular religious institution in a very concrete way.

I have to ask, what does the right to keep and bear arms have to do with the state's involvement in marriage?

I have a strange take on the debate and that is to"divorce" the financial and legal protections from state sanctioned definitions of marriage, do the hard work of broadly defining what a dependent is and what rights they have regardless of demographics, then put marriage back into the sole custody of churches as they see fit to observe it.

That is not an endorsement of Gay Marriage or a condemnation of Straight Marriage but a practical and more ecumenical reading of the constitutional rights of all citizens.

As long as we continue to have the state define what marriage is we will continue to step on each others toes in a big way.

There are a lot of us who agree with your proposal.

[Jeff K.]

My view DaddyG is that the fact that some heterosexuals engage is wrong behavior is no excuse to endorse an expansion of that behavior. And you might have some homosexual friends who are appalled, but I dare say there are many more that are accepting of it, especially in large communities. If the gay community were really appalled, then such actions would not occur in San Francisco and other places. Apparently decency as well as marriage are open to redefinition for some groups.

As to the definition of marriage by the state, in fact it is the people who, through the state have defined marriage and in many states at that.

In general terms; if we wish to remove the people from democracy and have an elite class make the decisions for the population, then lets be honest and state as much. But so far, by and large, same sex marriage advocates have failed to articulate to the populations that theirs is a desireable lifestyle in which marriage should be redefined to fit their needs.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 June 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:

In part C, the evasion becomes the lie. The truth is not be tossed aside for consumer convenience, it is whay something is done.

As to D, your attempts to dehumanize someone who thinks differently reflects more upon your own anger and viceral reaction than it does what actually might have occurred. Among other things the answer could have been "because I deem same sex marriage to be wrong and do not want to promote it with my work". It has nothing to do with the hyperbolic phrases of homo, and dysfunctional, this reflects you, and your projection of yourself upon others. Please refrain from it.

dsyfunctional is a term I think you have used, dysfunction is also a term that has been used quite often on these boards.

as for "because I choose not too" that is perfectly honest answer. I do not believe God would consider it a lie, nor many others.

Sin is dysfunctional to be sure, but you have used many other hyperbolic phrases or attempted to push button using hateful language, I suggest your refrain from it in the future. If you cannot, I am sure others will help you see the error. I am trying not to rise to your baiting.

Evasion is a lie, if you don't think so, you have much to learn about the definition of truth. Why you choose deception as an acceptable lifestyle and response to open answers in a democracy speaks volumes as how one respond to your questions.