Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[Damien the Leper]

As I mentioned, these tend to be assumed rather than asserted. I suspect that if they were asserted, more people would actually question them. And yet we hear constantly, from certain quarters, that we are "homophobic" if we disagree with SSM. And, as the Chick-Fil-A debacle has shown, one cannot be "tolerant" if they tolerate Mr Cathy's views, while excluding them evidently makes for greater "diversity."

Regards,

Pahoran

I would like to know when the definition of phobia was changed. I will admit guilt that at different points in time that even I determined that homophobic was synonymous with anti-gay.

Members of the LDS church uphold a certain standard solely binding on the members of the LDS church. It would be absolutely inappropriate for me to ask the LDS church to change its position since I am not a member. It would also be inappropriate if I were a member to do so since the church is a top-down authority. The general membership must remember their place and that they have no say whatsoever in church policy and doctrine. That is the sole responsibility of the General Authorities.

[cwald]

I would believe that there are some things that only pertain to us as Saints. Some things are perfectly alright for others to do. But we've made a covenant to avoid some behaviors. For these we gain additional blessings than if anyone else does the same.

Really? What do You mean? What additional blessing? And what behaviors? What does this have to do with this topic?

Edited August 7, 2012 by cwald

[Libs]

Dan Peterson posted the following on his blog:

"Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

- Rick Warren

Those "two huge lies" are, nowadays, not asserted so much as they are assumed. But any argument based upon them is necessarily false.

Regards,

Pahoran

The truth is not nearly so cut and dry. Some people who oppose ss marriage are homophobic. Just how many, it would be difficult to tell, but I do think it is a minority.

The second statement is a given, IMO. I don't know anyone who believes you cannot love someone who disagrees with you (or we would not love anyone, I think!). But, I would say, the greater the differences, the more difficult it is to maintain a "close" relationship. Again, that doesn't mean you cannot love that person, in the general sense, and wish them well.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Libs

[california boy]

Given some of the salient points raised in the excellent FAIR presentation by Joshua Johanson on Navigating the Labyrinth Surrounding Homosexual Desire, in contrast to the many shenanigans surrounding the recent Chick-Fil-A controversy, I thought it may be wise to, in the spirit of one of my favorite TV programs (Mythbusters), expose all the disinformation and propaganda myths plied by gay advocates generally in pursuit of their presumed agenda, and in relation to the SSM debate in particular.

Let me start this off by listing a few myths that come to mind, which we can discuss in greater detail later. Feel free to list some of your own if you wish.

The point being is to increase critical thinking in relation to these issues and sift through all the disinformation in hopes of making sound choices and holding rational positions.

Busted Propaganda:

1. People are homophobic if they are against SSM or other pro-gay issues.

2. People are anti-gay if they are against SSM.

3. People are hateful if they prefer that legalized marriage be reserved between a man and a woman.

4. The high rate of suicides among gays is due to _______ (anything other than homosexual behavior--i.e. having gay sex at an early age and having more same-sex partners)

5. It is unhealthy to suppress same-sex behaviors or to attempt to change same-sex desires, values, etc.

6. SSM is a right--fundamental, civil, human, or otherwise.

7. People with SSA can't have a healthy, sexually satisfying, relationship/marriages with someone of the opposite sex.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is a very good reason why people that support gay marriage have these attitudes. It all comes down to the fact that there is one group of people that feel it is their right, duty, responsibility, God given task to prevent those that are gay from being married. When asked what gay marriage has to do with them, there has never been a legitimate legal answer to that question. (see defense offered from prop 8 trial). If you think there is a legitimate legal argument, then the Supreme Court will be the one deciding the legalities. There is no sense in arguing about it here. Our opinion on this board or anywhere else will not make it law.

When you oppose marriage to one part of the population that wants to participate in marriage simply because you think they should not be participating in "your" ceremony, then those that support the right for everyone in American to have the blessing of being married feel you must be against gay marriage because of prejudice. To someone who supports gay marriage, your points simply look like justification to make you feel better about denying a part of the population the right to marry.

The strongest argument against gay marriage seems to be that it is against personal religious beliefs. "We don't want gay marriage because God doesn't want gay marriage." But the fact is, no one is asking churches or anyone who does not wish to participate in a gay marriage to do so.

Often this sentiment is tied to the notion that marriage has been defined by God from the beginning of time. That to change the meaning of traditional marriage would be both against Gods will and what is natural. But what does the Bible say about marriage? Perhaps this chart will help explain why those that support marriage for everyone does not really buy this reason to be against gay marriage.

Religious beliefs seem to be very arbitrary when it comes to what is traditional marriage.

Some think that gays should not be allowed to marry because children deserve to be raised by a biological mother and father. But that position really has nothing to do with marriage. It has to do with the right to adopt and the right to be divorced and the right for single people to have children. You are free to support that positon, but what you can't do is tie it into gay marriage. Whether a gay couple choose to raise children or not is not tied to marriage. It is already legal for gay couples to adopt.

So it comes down to this belief. Those that support the right of all Americans to participate in the blessings of marriage feel that those that oppose that right have no legitimate reason except a homophobic attitude towards gays. You may disagree, but until real reasons to prevent marriage to everyone is given other than two men or two women marrying is just ucky, then that is the conclusion many Americans are going to draw.

[selek1]

There is a very good reason why people that support gay marriage have these attitudes. It all comes down to the fact that there is one group of people that feel it is their right, duty, responsibility, God given task to prevent those that are gay from being married.

Thank for you for finally admitting what LGBT have tried desperately to hide in high-minded and vaccuous appeals to "love" and "tolerance".

We are "hateful", "evil", "bigoted", etc NOT because of our actions but because of our thoughts.

We are to be demonized, derided, diminished, and disenchranchised not because we act with evil or hateful intent- but because we think differently than you do.

Your clarity is as atypical as your candor is refreshing.

When asked what gay marriage has to do with them, there has never been a legitimate legal answer to that question.

"Legitimate" is matter of opinion. Like beauty, it lies in the eye of the beholder.

That you think it is not illegitimate does not make it so.

After all, you've just justified bigotry and disinformation based on "acceptable" viewpoints.

There is no sense in arguing about it here. Our opinion on this board or anywhere else will not make it law.

No- but the continual demonization and justification of bigotry practiced by you and your fellow travellers will continue to poison the well of political discourse in this country.

It's amazing how many Leftists wield cries about the "level of Civil Discourse" in this country, yet are first in line making hateful, baseless, and bigoted remarks.

When you oppose marriage to one part of the population that wants to participate in marriage simply because you think they should not be participating in "your" ceremony, then those that support the right for everyone in American to have the blessing of being married feel you must be against gay marriage because of prejudice.

Strawman argument aside- their opinion would be more legitimate if they ever bothered to genuinely listen.

Far, far, too many LGBT activists and supporters simply assume instead of asking, and far too many still ask and then dismiss out-of-hand (as you have done above) any answer they don't like.

To someone who supports gay marriage, your points simply look like justification to make you feel better about denying a part of the population the right to marry.

Yep- confirmation bias does come in "all the colors of the rainbow".

So it comes down to this belief.

And you and yours trade in hateful and bigoted stereotypes to justify your belief, and as a means of delegitimizing all who disagree with you.

Those that support the right of all Americans to participate in the blessings of marriage feel that those that oppose that right have no legitimate reason except a homophobic attitude towards gays. You may disagree, but until real reasons to prevent marriage to everyone is given other than two men or two women marrying is just ucky, then that is the conclusion many Americans are going to draw.

Note- the ideological smuggling in that sentence. There is no justification for the "homophobic" slur. We are simply supposed to accept that characterization until the most radical elements of SSM advocates approve of our dissent.

In other words, despite the complete lack of any evidence to support the charge, we are guilty until Torquemada the Lesser and the Rainbow-brite Star Chamber magistrates decide otherwise.

It almost makes Salem look warm-and-fuzzy by comparison.

[selek1]

There is a very good reason why people that support gay marriage have these attitudes. It all comes down to the fact that there is one group of people that feel it is their right, duty, responsibility, God given task to prevent those that are gay from being married.

Thank for you for finally admitting what LGBT have tried desperately to hide in high-minded and vaccuous appeals to "love" and "tolerance".

We are "hateful", "evil", "bigoted", etc NOT because of our actions but because of our thoughts.

We are to be demonized, derided, diminished, and disenchranchised not because we act with evil or hateful intent- but because we think differently than you do.

Your clarity is as atypical as your candor is refreshing.

When asked what gay marriage has to do with them, there has never been a legitimate legal answer to that question.

"Legitimate" is matter of opinion. Like beauty, it lies in the eye of the beholder.

That you think it is not illegitimate does not make it so.

After all, you've just justified bigotry and disinformation based on "acceptable" viewpoints.

There is no sense in arguing about it here. Our opinion on this board or anywhere else will not make it law.

No- but the continual demonization and justification of bigotry practiced by you and your fellow travellers will continue to poison the well of political discourse in this country.

It's amazing how many Leftists wield cries about the "level of Civil Discourse" in this country, yet are first in line making hateful, baseless, and bigoted remarks.

When you oppose marriage to one part of the population that wants to participate in marriage simply because you think they should not be participating in "your" ceremony, then those that support the right for everyone in American to have the blessing of being married feel you must be against gay marriage because of prejudice.

Strawman argument aside- their opinion would be more legitimate if they ever bothered to genuinely listen.

Far, far, too many LGBT activists and supporters simply assume instead of asking, and far too many still ask and then dismiss out-of-hand (as you have done above) any answer they don't like.

To someone who supports gay marriage, your points simply look like justification to make you feel better about denying a part of the population the right to marry.

Yep- confirmation bias does come in "all the colors of the rainbow".

So it comes down to this belief.

And you and yours trade in hateful and bigoted stereotypes to justify your belief, and as a means of delegitimizing all who disagree with you.

There is no room for honest disagreement- we either accept your logic, or the disinformation, bile, name calling and hateful attacks are justified.

Damned if you do....

Those that support the right of all Americans to participate in the blessings of marriage feel that those that oppose that right have no legitimate reason except a homophobic attitude towards gays. You may disagree, but until real reasons to prevent marriage to everyone is given other than two men or two women marrying is just ucky, then that is the conclusion many Americans are going to draw.

Note- the ideological smuggling in that sentence. There is no justification for the "homophobic" slur. We are simply supposed to accept that characterization until the most radical elements of SSM advocates approve of our dissent.

In other words, despite the complete lack of any evidence to support the charge, we are guilty until Torquemada the Lesser and the Rainbow-brite Star Chamber magistrates decide otherwise.

It almost makes Salem look warm-and-fuzzy by comparison.

Look up extreme hyperbole in the board rules. You are out of the thread.

[wenglund]

There is a very good reason why people that support gay marriage have these attitudes.

Agreed. It is because these attitudes and myths are all the gay advocates have to ply their trade. They don't have anything really sensible or beneficial to offer when promoting their destructive self-interest, and so, as with your post, they are left to manufacture emotive myths to try and get their way,

However, it is in our interest as a society to be sensible and do what is best and what improves the over-all human condition, and thus expose efforts and propaganda that do otherwise. Hence, the point of this thread.

Throughout the day I will go carefully through your post, and in addition to selek's salient remarks, I will bust each of the propaganda myths that you attempted to slip by us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Really? What do You mean? What additional blessing? And what behaviors? What does this have to do with this topic?

Actions have natural consequences. My experience is not so much that God is a prude, but that He knows what actions will bring us joy and fulfillment eternally vs. which will damn us to pain and regret. When I try to justify or hang on to my favorite sins (even if they are accepted in broader society) I deny myself eternal growth and health. This is true of any sin and not limited to any favorite or socially acceptable sin.

[KevinG]

Religious beliefs seem to be very arbitrary when it comes to what is traditional marriage.

I like this chart. But the conclusion that I have drawn is that marriage in any age or situation is what God has determined it should be. If God sees fit to reinstate polygamy or allow same sex marriage then I will support Him. But for now I believe as Dan Cathy implied: it is not up to us as individuals or society to dictate to God what we think it should be.

[wenglund]

It all comes down to the fact that there is one group of people that feel it is their right, duty, responsibility, God given task to prevent those that are gay from being married.

Myth #9: This is all about just keeping gays from being married--as though gays are what is so important to the "one group of people," and they are out to get gays, when in actual fact, it is about preserving the traditional legal definition of marriage and protect it against all parties thinking to undermine it, since to them that is what is in everyone's best interest.

When asked what gay marriage has to do with them, there has never been a legitimate legal answer to that question.

Myth #10: The onus for answering legal questions is on those favoring the status quo rather than on those proposing change, whereas the opposite is rationally the case. When governments first got into the marriage business, it was for reasons that were justified at the time. And, generally, at least with democracies, the reasons had to do with it being in the states interest. They made their case for the proposed changes to the status quo, and the changes were voted on and passed at that time, and the reasonings and actions have remained in force through the duration. The onus was on them to make the changes back then. Now that gay advocates wish to change the long-standing laws, it then is incumbent upon them, as with everyone else, to make their case for change, and have it voted upon. Since they don't have a sensible or beneficial case to make, they then are left to ply the myth in question.

Myth #11: There has never been a legitimate legal answer to the question of what SSM has to do with those favoring the status quo, when in actual fact, legal arguments were presented in each of the legislatures of the past where marriage legislation was enacted, and even more recently in the cases of state and federal DOMA's and other related marital laws, and there have been a number of cases through the years and brought by gay advocates challenging these state and federal laws, where legal arguments were presented and the existing legislation upheld. Since these legal arguments work against the gay agenda, the gay advocates are left to spread the myth that these arguments don't exist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 7, 2012 by wenglund

[happy]

All this is moot. Gay marriage will be forced on the people. The pro-traditional marriage side has an impossible task. A majority of the people have been frightened into supporting gay marriage through threats of job or even business loss and just the basic fear of being perceived as homophobic, bigoted, or basically "disgusting".

The pro-gay movement played the game well, and in my view, it's check and mate. I don't agree it was played fairly, but Saul Alinsky would have been proud.

[cwald]

..

A majority of the people have been frightened into supporting gay marriage through threats of job or even business loss and just the basic fear of being perceived as homophobic, bigoted, or basically "disgusting"....

CFR please. Talk about extreme hyperbole.

Perhaps the majority of people support ssm because it feels right to them...and they choose to follow the spirit?

Edited August 7, 2012 by cwald

[cwald]

Actions have natural consequences. My experience is not so much that God is a prude, but that He knows what actions will bring us joy and fulfillment eternally vs. which will damn us to pain and regret. When I try to justify or hang on to my favorite sins (even if they are accepted in broader society) I deny myself eternal growth and health. This is true of any sin and not limited to any favorite or socially acceptable sin.

I agree. But I don't think that is what Carb was stating? He mentioned specific commandments and blessings unique to LDS members.

Am I misunderstanding your message Carb?

[happy]

CFR please. Talk about extreme hyperbole.

Perhaps the majority of people support ssm because it feels right to them...and they choose to follow the spirit?

CFR? Are you being serious? Every conversation throughout the United States has ended with the Liberals calling every traditional marriage supporter a homophobe or a bigot. Are you intentionally trying to be difficult or have you been living under a rock?

[happy]

Here, this is just one article that uses aggressive words to describe people who think differently than them,

http://www.care2.com/causes/renowned-astronauts-partner-denied-survivor-benefits.html

[wenglund]

All this is moot. Gay marriage will be forced on the people. The pro-traditional marriage side has an impossible task. A majority of the people have been frightened into supporting gay marriage through threats of job or even business loss and just the basic fear of being perceived as homophobic, bigoted, or basically "disgusting".

The pro-gay movement played the game well, and in my view, it's check and mate. I don't agree it was played fairly, but Saul Alinsky would have been proud.

You are free to throw your hands in the air, but some of us still hold out hope and see this as more than just a legal battle over a single issue (like SSM), but a multi-front cultural war as well.

The points I am making about exposing myths and encouraging critical thinking, go beyond the gay agenda, and even beyond other digressive societal trends, and speak indirectly to a more functional way of thinking and analyzing that can prove useful in most, if not every, aspect of our lives. The SSM debate simply provides a convenient and timely way to illustrate what I intend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Religious beliefs seem to be very arbitrary when it comes to what is traditional marriage.

Three cheers for a diverse society!

[Damien the Leper]

I like this chart. But the conclusion that I have drawn is that marriage in any age or situation is what God has determined it should be. If God sees fit to reinstate polygamy or allow same sex marriage then I will support Him. But for now I believe as Dan Cathy implied: it is not up to us as individuals or society to dictate to God what we think it should be.

Who is to say that humanity hasn't done so already? It does seem that the chart could support the premise of the question.

[CV75]

Perhaps this chart will help explain why those that support marriage for everyone does not really buy this reason to be against gay marriage.

It is a graphic depiction that marriage always entails at least one man and one woman...

[Damien the Leper]

All this is moot. Gay marriage will be forced on the people. The pro-traditional marriage side has an impossible task. A majority of the people have been frightened into supporting gay marriage through threats of job or even business loss and just the basic fear of being perceived as homophobic, bigoted, or basically "disgusting".

The pro-gay movement played the game well, and in my view, it's check and mate. I don't agree it was played fairly, but Saul Alinsky would have been proud.

No kind of marriage should be forced upon any people. As a gay person, I do not deserve to have straight marriages shoved down my throat everywhere I turn. I would grant you the same courtesy.

[Damien the Leper]

Myth #9: This is all about just keeping gays from being married--as though gays are what is so important to the "one group of people," and they are out to get gays, when in actual fact, it is about preserving the traditional legal definition of marriage and protect it against all parties thinking to undermine it, since to them that is what is in everyone's best interest.

Myth #10: The onus for answering legal questions is on those favoring the status quo rather than on those proposing change, whereas the opposite is rationally the case. When governments first got into the marriage business, it was for reasons that were justified at the time. And, generally, at least with democracies, the reasons had to do with it being in the states interest. They made their case for the proposed changes to the status quo, and the changes were voted on and passed at that time, and the reasonings and actions have remained in force through the duration. The onus was on them to make the changes back then. Now that gay advocates wish to change the long-standing laws, it then is incumbent upon them, as with everyone else, to make their case for change, and have it voted upon. Since they don't have a sensible or beneficial case to make, they then are left to ply the myth in question.

Myth #11: There has never been a legitimate legal answer to the question of what SSM has to do with those favoring the status quo, when in actual fact, legal arguments were presented in each of the legislatures of the past where marriage legislation was enacted, and even more recently in the cases of state and federal DOMA's and other related marital laws, and there have been a number of cases through the years and brought by gay advocates challenging these state and federal laws, where legal arguments were presented and the existing legislation upheld. Since these legal arguments work against the gay agenda, the gay advocates are left to spread the myth that these arguments don't exist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would like an official source for these myths...or are we just making them up as we go along? Now where have I seen this before?

[happy]

No kind of marriage should be forced upon any people. As a gay person, I do not deserve to have straight marriages shoved down my throat everywhere I turn. I would grant you the same courtesy.

Traditional marriage was pre-defined before gay advocates decided they wanted to extend it to include homosexuals. The public democratically denied legal recognition of this new definition of marriage. It was overridden by activist judges. That presents a flaw in your argument.

[california boy]

Myth #9: This is all about just keeping gays from being married--as though gays are what is so important to the "one group of people," and they are out to get gays, when in actual fact, it is about preserving the traditional legal definition of marriage and protect it against all parties thinking to undermine it, since to them that is what is in everyone's best interest.

Myth #10: The onus for answering legal questions is on those favoring the status quo rather than on those proposing change, whereas the opposite is rationally the case. When governments first got into the marriage business, it was for reasons that were justified at the time. And, generally, at least with democracies, the reasons had to do with it being in the states interest. They made their case for the proposed changes to the status quo, and the changes were voted on and passed at that time, and the reasonings and actions have remained in force through the duration. The onus was on them to make the changes back then. Now that gay advocates wish to change the long-standing laws, it then is incumbent upon them, as with everyone else, to make their case for change, and have it voted upon. Since they don't have a sensible or beneficial case to make, they then are left to ply the myth in question.

Myth #11: There has never been a legitimate legal answer to the question of what SSM has to do with those favoring the status quo, when in actual fact, legal arguments were presented in each of the legislatures of the past where marriage legislation was enacted, and even more recently in the cases of state and federal DOMA's and other related marital laws, and there have been a number of cases through the years and brought by gay advocates challenging these state and federal laws, where legal arguments were presented and the existing legislation upheld. Since these legal arguments work against the gay agenda, the gay advocates are left to spread the myth that these arguments don't exist.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There is nothing to argue about here. Those opposing gay marriage have had their day in court. The law has ruled against them twice now. It will now go to the Supreme Court. Those that oppose gay marriage have one last shot. They better at some point come up with some legal reason to prevent gay marriage. Arguing about it is pointless. Neither one of us will be in the courtroom when this case is decided. Is all I know is you gotta have some legal reason even for this extremely conservative court to rule against gay marriage.

[CV75]

So it comes down to this belief.

The belief is in the importance of instituionalizing something based on facts.

The fact is that the continuation of civilization is best served by biological reproduction in a stable, nurturing family environment. This is why humanity has established it as the norm. After all, the human race cannot continue without reproduction, and marriage institutionalizes this. Reliance on adoption is too risky, and marriage institutionalizes this also (as the alternative, institutionalized reproduction and adoption is fraught with more pitfalls than marriage).

Where same-sex “marriage” fits into the institutionalized reproduction / adoption model, it is simply not a wise thing to institutionalize.

Edited August 7, 2012 by CV75

[wenglund]

If you think there is a legitimate legal argument, then the Supreme Court will be the one deciding the legalities.

Myth #12: The courts, alone, determine the legality, whereas in actual fact the legislatures, the general public--by way of referendum, as well as the courts, determine the legalities. Really, all the courts may legitimately do is rule on the constitutionality and application of the law. Their role isn't to legislate what is legal or not, but interpret the law.

There is no sense in arguing about it here. Our opinion on this board or anywhere else will not make it law.

Myth #13. Public discourse has no bearing on what is or isn't law; whereas in actual fact, public discourse has been quite influential in the creation and changes made to laws and also to some degree it has impacted how judges have ruled from the bench. No judge is an island.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 7, 2012 by wenglund