Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[wayfarer]

SS BEHAVIORS ARE WHAT IS DESTRUCTIVE!!!! Perversely wrapping those destructive behaviors in the cloak of "marriage" will make them no less destructive, but will merely serve to inanely put the government seal of approval on destructive behaviors. It would be analogous to putting cigarette smoking on the Department of Health's nutritional list.

Please provide evidence that SS behaviors are destructive outside of the context of religion. Is a committed homosexual couple who practice some form of sex together in a more destructive situation than a heterosexual who is incapable of commitment? How is a committed homosexual couple any more destructive than a committed heterosexual couple?

Do you consider practicing Homosexuality to be a mental illness? If so, please provide your sources.

[Tacenda]

I doubt it will happen but I encourage those that haven't had relationships to gay people that you listen to these podcasts. Especially the one with Dr. William Bradshaw, very touching.

http://mormonstories.org/category/homosexuality/

[wenglund]

So it all comes down to sex?

Primarily, yes, obviously. Notice the common root in the words "heteroSEXual" and "homoSEXual." How did you not get this?

I don't think that is a big part of these relationships.

It is what defines the type of relationship. Otherwise, we would be talking about friendships.

I think you need to widen your circles and get to see the other side and not just the substance abusers or the mental patients!

Actually, as mentioned before, you need to stop drinking the Kool-aid and start thinking more critically. You are being defrauded and you can't even recognize it. Worse still, even when the fraud is clearly pointed out to you, you still can't see it. Wake up and take your head out of the sand!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Experience helps us have compassion. I was of the same mind as you all until I had a daughter come out as gay. It changes one's perspective dramatically.

Of course it does, but it isn’t necessary. I have great compassion, having only close friends but no relatives come out as gay. “Nobody knows how I feel” is a condemnation of those that actually do, and devalues anything they have to offer. It is one more way of pushing people apart into groups and camps.

I personally find the idea that a woman should cover herself from head to foot leaving only her eyes exposed to be repulsive behavior.

***

In India where I have lived, men frequently walk down the street holding hands and embracing each other

***

Now, we go a step further -- ... discriminating against blacks because of their color.

***

RE: burkas and India, “When in Rome…” In these examples, burkas and holding hands do not run contrary to the community’s values. Your druthers in the matter are irrelevant. Also, the examples you provided fail to address the impact of these customs on civil rights.

RE: the color of one’s skin and the “color” of their sex life in America, one is very public and one is very private. The outward, public expression of one is not governed by community values and one is. Civil rights have to do with public behavior as governed by community values, and it also protects private behavior inasmuch as the behavior remains private and its acceptance isn’t being forced onto the community at large. Crossing those lines reflects an inability or unwillingness to be part of the broader community. Blacks being discrimated against in America had nothing to do with some objectionable private behavior they were asserting publicly.

forcing our celestial laws on those not prepared or willing to be in the celestial kingdom is not in harmony with God's will.

I am not talking about celestial laws—I am talking about civil rights, community and how people behave. Civil rights should be granted to all, but when people offend their community they will not be respected. This doesn’t make abuse or denial of civil rights justifiable in the least, and victims should be the first to separate the two by taking their private behavior out of the equation and exerting their identity as community members, not as an accentuated separate identity of being community members that [fill in the blank with the offending private behavior] and at the same time demand respect for it.

[Zeta-Flux]

SS BEHAVIORS/RELATIONSHIPS ARE WHAT ARE DESTRUCTIVE!!!! Perversely wrapping those destructive behaviors/relationships in the cloak of "marriage" will make them no less destructive, but will merely serve to inanely put the government seal of approval on destructive behaviors/relationships. It would be analogous to putting cigarette smoking on the Department of Health's nutritional list.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, you fell into a trap. You are inadvertently allowing Tacenda to conflate two different issues. (1) Curtailing the freedom to associate due to destructive behaviors. (2) Promoting a form of association as a measure of humanness.

Tacenda asserted that the GLTB's want SSM, and by not being for it we are denying them wholesome commitments and denying their humanity. Your response fell right into that trap, for the argument against SSM in particular does not rest on the arguments against homosexual behaviors as a whole.

In particular, denying SSM in no way denies them the right to associate, or to form relationships (whether wholesome or not). That is a different issue.

[wayfarer]

Of course it does, but it isn’t necessary. I have great compassion, having only close friends but no relatives come out as gay. “Nobody knows how I feel” is a condemnation of those that actually do, and devalues anything they have to offer. It is one more way of pushing people apart into groups and camps.

RE: burkas and India, “When in Rome…” In these examples, burkas and holding hands do not run contrary to the community’s values. Your druthers in the matter are irrelevant. Also, the examples you provided fail to address the impact of these customs on civil rights.

Let me explore something a bit closer to home. An interracial couple move into your ward. According to Brigham Young, the penalty for interracial mixing was 'death on the spot', and there remain, today, many people who find interracial marriage objectionable. Should they hide from the public?

The thread has run its course if burkas and race have to be thrown in.