Has Anyone On This Board Softened Their Views Of Gay Marriage?

[Buzzard]

I'm not trying to be contrarian on this, but my views have changed. I have worked with and known many homosexuals and lesbians. I got along fine with them, was even instrumental in getting a gay subordinate of mine promoted, because he deserved it professionally. And I hope that and try to exercise charity towards all of Gods children, like I have done all my life.

HOWEVER. I have come to realize that many Gays-at least the activists-don't want marriage, they don't want equal rights, they want their sexuality to be celebrated, they want anyone who dares express moral discomfort with that sexuality to suffer the condemnation of society on the same level that we now condemn the KKK, they will not be satisfied until we have gay temple marriages and lesbian apostles. (Not saying this would happen, but this level of integration is what they are after and will demand).

In our desire to be nice and to love our fellow man, I hope we all can withstand the onslaught and defend what is right and moral in every eternal sense of the word. Because will will have to defend it, and sooner than we think.

So, in a perverse sense, I should be grateful to my gay brothers and sisters for showing their hand. It HAS changed my opinion in the sense that I didn't worry or think about it much before, but I sure do now.

[Aliwe]

I know a number of homosexual LDS youth who would do anything to be heterosexual. It's heartbreaking. I don't really need a scientific study to confirm that.

They used to try to treat people for the left-handed "lifestyle choice" too. There is not enough information density in human DNA to code for the exact wiring layout of the brain. There are simple basic rules that neurons follow in the womb when they grow and start hooking up their neighbors, but randomness plays a role. In the case of both handedness and sexual preference (which are independent phenomena, of course), this chaos resolves in the form of a bifurcated butterfly pattern (called a strange attractor, no pun intended) with left-handedness (and likewise same sex attraction) forming a lobe with somewhat less probability of occurring than the other. Fifteen percent of human beings resolve as lefties. Eight percent of male humans and five percent of female humans resolve with same-sex attraction.

[Damien the Leper]

Terms such as 'traditional' and 'orthodox' have little to no meaning to me. Nor, as Joseph Antley said, do they hold water. I'm not interested in sociological, religious and anthropological opinions of what is 'traditional'. Such an opinion has little worth if any.

It is pretentious and audacious for any group to be so asinine as to decide that they are the rightful authorities to define what marriage is.

Western Culture, especially its conservative religionists, are far from the authorities on such a matter considering that the world and use of 'marriage' worldwide supercede such a minority.

[Buzzard]

Eight percent of male humans and five percent of female humans resolve with same-sex attraction.

A polite CFR. I have never seen percentages this high, except in gay publications, which usually claim 10%. Scholarship that I HAVE seen usually puts the percentage closer to two, with an additional two percent or so somewhere on the bisexual spectrum.

[blackstrap]

I live where gay marriage is a fait accompli (sic). The activist gay agenda is slowly working its way into the education system and society in general. There was little public discussion and things have moved along as "normal". Continuing to fight against gay marriage is a good way to keep the gay agenda front and center in the public sphere.

[bluebell]

It is pretentious and audacious for any group to be so asinine as to decide that they are the rightful authorities to define what marriage is.

It seems like it would be pretty impossible to make this statement here without also including gay and lesbian groups in it, though that seems to be the opposite of what you meant to say.

The fact is though, that if one group is asinine for thinking they can define what marriage is, then all groups who attempt to do that-whatever definition they choose-are asinine as well.

As for the OP-my stance is pretty much the same. I think the government should get out of the marriage business and just give everyone a civil union. If people want to call their union a 'marriage' then they would have that freedom to do so (just as they do right now in every state).

[Aliwe]

A polite CFR. I have never seen percentages this high, except in gay publications, which usually claim 10%. Scholarship that I HAVE seen usually puts the percentage closer to two, with an additional two percent or so somewhere on the bisexual spectrum.

Sex, Time, and Power, Leonard Shain, pg 242.

Then again, LGBT demographics are all over the place. As for bisexuality, it's even less prevalent than homosexuality. There's a J curve, with gay to straight going left to right, and incidence is the plotted function, bisexuals are in the bottom of the "J" where the function reaches a minimum.

[Damien the Leper]

It seems like it would be pretty impossible to make this statement here without also including gay and lesbian groups in it, though that seems to be the opposite of what you meant to say.

The fact is though, that if one group is asinine for thinking they can define what marriage is, then all groups who attempt to do that-whatever definition they choose-are asinine as well.

As for the OP-my stance is pretty much the same. I think the government should get out of the marriage business and just give everyone a civil union. If people want to call their union a 'marriage' then they would have that freedom to do so (just as they do right now in every state).

Actually, I agree with you. This is why my position on gay marriage has hardened. While I am gay and I do eventually want to have a committed, longterm relationship...I don't see what greater good it would do to have a signed contract with the state just so that our relationship can be 'legitamized'. Legitamization is trivial...atleast for me it is.

[thesometimesaint]

My opinion of gay marriage hasn't changed. Do as you want, but don't demand my approval.

[Damien the Leper]

The TRUE homosexual agenda (in part):

Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.

Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.

[wenglund]

Terms such as 'traditional' and 'orthodox' have little to no meaning to me. Nor, as Joseph Antley said, do they hold water. I'm not interested in sociological, religious and anthropological opinions of what is 'traditional'. Such an opinion has little worth if any.

It is pretentious and audacious for any group to be so asinine as to decide that they are the rightful authorities to define what marriage is.

Western Culture, especially its conservative religionists, are far from the authorities on such a matter considering that the world and use of 'marriage' worldwide supercede such a minority.

Meaningful words may become meaningless to those who don't like the meaning and wish to change the meaning to suite their abarant proclivities.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[blackstrap]

" bring about the general decline of Western civilization" . According to some,they already did it once(Greco/Roman times) so they can do it again.

[Damien the Leper]

Meaningful words may become meaningless to those who don't like the meaning and wish to change the meaning to suite their abarant proclivities.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What a hasty generalization, Wade. How amusing. It is fascinating how 'meaningful' words become the center of meaningless arguments. Traditional and orthodox are NOT synonymous with 'truth', 'correct', 'right' or 'godly'.

[selek1]

" bring about the general decline of Western civilization" . According to some,they already did it once(Greco/Roman times) so they can do it again.

Indeed.

I am surprised that Valentinus is willing to be so open about the agenda...

[Damien the Leper]

Indeed.

I am surprised that Valentinus is willing to be so open about the agenda...

Oh Selek...Western Civilization, since its inception, IS the epitome of the spawn of Outer Darkness. Just ask the ignoramuses at the Westboro Baptist Church.

Also...have you seen my avatar? I'm no tree hugging, good loving, peace keeping hippie like the Jedi. Destruction and power are the true gifts of God.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Valentinus

[selek1]

Oh Selek...Western Civilization, since its inception, IS the epitome of the spawn of Outer Darkness. Just ask the ignoramuses at the Westboro Baptist Church.

That's a Godwin's Law violation, Valentinus- an extreme and invidious comparison.

You will find no room on this board for the kinds of idiocy Westboro embodies, even among those most hotly opposed to the homosexual agenda.

Opposition to the radical homosexual agenda does not automagically equal bigotry.

Support for Prop 8 does not automagicaly equate to support for a modern version of Jim Crow.

Opposition to legitimizing homosexual behavior does not automagically indicate incipient homophobia.

If you wish to keep this thread open and productive, I suggest you ratchet back on the divisive and inciteful rhetoric.

Or as Bill Bixby once said, "Don't make me angry, Mr. McGee. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

Edited June 24, 2012 by selek1

[Damien the Leper]

That's a Godwin's Law violation, Valentinus- an extreme and invidious comparison.

You will find no room on this board for the kinds of idiocy Westboro embodies, even among those most hotly opposed to the homosexual agenda.

Opposition to the radical homosexual agenda does not automagically equal bigotry.

Support for Prop 8 does not automagicaly equate to support for a modern version of Jim Crow.

Opposition to legitimizing homosexual behavior does not automagically indicate incipient homophobia.

If you wish to keep this thread open and productive, I suggest you ratchet back on the divisive and inciteful rhetoric.

Or as Bill Bixby once said, "Don't make me angry, Mr. McGee. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

Selek...I was being facetious. I don't presume the three points above. Also, I was just giving the WBC ignoramuses some comical air time. Relax...have a little fun.

A little bit of Reductio ad Hitlerum never hurt anyone.

Edited June 24, 2012 by Valentinus

[TAO]

Yes, it has softened, in certain ways. But at the same time, in other ways, my views have gotten harder.

I find that it's softened in approaching the people, and maybe a tiny bit on the concept of marriage. I realize that not all of the homosexual community wants to bother others with their marriage. However, my views on the additional strings attached have become much stronger. Because there is a section of their community that wants to pass some laws I'd definitely not be okay with.

Ultimately, I'll have to wait and see how things go down the road before I decide what I am to do.

Edited June 24, 2012 by TAO

[Storm Rider]

I think my position on marriage has changed over the last few months. First, I believe that marriage is a ordinance or sacrament of religious organizations/churches. Second, the government should get out of the marriage business completely i.e. they can license a union of two people, but they have nothing to do with marriage. Third, it has been an unfortunate evolution where specific rights were tied directly to a marriage. Insurance, hospital visits, degrees of income taxes, inheritances, etc. None of these has anything to do with marriage and everything to do with individuals and how they live. Many of these benefits should be enjoyed by all people regardless of how they live.

If the government wants to issues licenses for a union then it has the right to do so. However, it has no right or should not participate in marriages (shut down the justice of the peace that marries people). Marriage should remain solely in the realm of religious institutions and their respective adherents.

For some this may be a cop out and it may be, but it makes sense to me.

[blackstrap]

I see now that some women are marrying ..... themselves,and have never been happier. They also claim that they could marry another but would not divorce themselves to do so.

Storm,would the civil union by the State be just a contract,renewable periodically like a drivers licence?

I agree with the idea that the State "divorce itself '' from marriage.

Edited June 24, 2012 by blackstrap

[altersteve]

I think my position on marriage has changed over the last few months. First, I believe that marriage is a ordinance or sacrament of religious organizations/churches. Second, the government should get out of the marriage business completely i.e. they can license a union of two people, but they have nothing to do with marriage. Third, it has been an unfortunate evolution where specific rights were tied directly to a marriage. Insurance, hospital visits, degrees of income taxes, inheritances, etc. None of these has anything to do with marriage and everything to do with individuals and how they live. Many of these benefits should be enjoyed by all people regardless of how they live.

If the government wants to issues licenses for a union then it has the right to do so. However, it has no right or should not participate in marriages (shut down the justice of the peace that marries people). Marriage should remain solely in the realm of religious institutions and their respective adherents.

For some this may be a cop out and it may be, but it makes sense to me.

This is currently my position as well. The government has absolutely no right to tell people they can't get married. That's not their call.

[mfbukowski]

My position hasn't soften (it has actually become more solidified in terms of confidence and conviction), though I have become increasingly bored by the issue and think it has been given far greater attention than it deserves--which makes me hesitate responding to the OP on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

What he said.

[mfbukowski]

The reality is today, except for church members, it seems the only people today who even want to get married are gay.

We find some great families with kids who want to get baptized, but they still don't want to get married.

[pcarthew]

Have not change my position one bit.

[california boy]

Thanks for your comments on a question I have been wondering about. I found them enlightening and interesting. Hope others did as well.