Battling Disinformation In The Ssm Debate

[Libs]

People really need to read all the posts. I have noticed that quite a few people on this board consistently misread the posts of others. That really doesn't help, especially, on such a controversial topic, as this one.

[wenglund]

It's hard for me to imagine a people so caught up in debunking this movement when more than half of all so-called traditional marriages end in ruin as it is.

Let's call this myth #25: since existing marriages have their problems, we shouldn't worry about opening legal marriage up to SS couples.

First of all, this myth falsely assumes that we as a society can't concern ourselves with both, and that we haven't or aren't taking steps to curb the existing marital problems. We have, and we are (no small portion of exisitning marital laws are intended for that purpose).

Second, it fails to consider that by adding to the marital roles a demographic that is statistically at greater risk for domestic violence, infidelity, and non-durable relationships, that this will add even more to the existing problems with marriages.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2012 by wenglund

[Deborah]

It's too bad that those criticizing what Br. Johanson said didn't actually read his talk, or having read it understood what it was saying. It wasn't about changing orientation or entering a heterosexual relationship. It was about knowing the difference between attraction and behavior and that in spite of what the other side preaches behavior is a choice.

[wenglund]

I think this conversation has run its course if you ask me. No one is listening. No one is learning. Everyone us just taking over each other.

Again, you are free to throw your hands in the air. I, for one, think it is of value to continue, not just on the off chance that some people might learn how to critically think about this issue and not just drink the Kool-aid being served up by pop culture and gay advocates, but also because it exercises my mind and helps me coalesce my thoughts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I remember a few years ago that over on the CARM board a critic started a thread about their favorite false teaching or lie told by Mormonism. Some of the contributions of other critic board members were honest criticisms but the major majority was all propaganda about how evil, amoral, unethical, and deceitful Mormonism was. That thread was truly reprehensible because it was a baiting thread with the sole purpose to victimize Mormons and demonize their faith.It really was heartbreaking to see that happen.

I wish I could say that the attitudes and tactics demonstrated and on display here were different.

I'm probably going to be accused of a Godwin's Law violation by comparing some of the Mormons here to the CARMites but certain individuals lead others to see them in such a way.

In the end, no one wins. Someone will get hurt and people who are like those who started both the thread on CARM and here on MDD show their Christian love so well.

Myth #26: Reasoned analysis in favor of restricting marriage to a man and a woman should be summarily dismissed on the basis of fallacious equivalences, fallacious guilt by association, and because of fallacious appeals to emotion (it hurts people's feelings); whereas, in actual fact, reasoned analysis should be judged on their own merits using sound reasoning, and not dismissed by way of a barrage of fallacies--ironically condescending as it were.

Again, I am encouraging people to think critically, whereas you are resorting to lame dismissals and propaganda--presumably because, as indicated several times previously, this seems to be the best that gay advocates have to offer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Myth #26: Reasoned analysis in favor of restricting marriage to a man and a woman should be summarily dismissed on the basis of fallacious equivalences, fallacious guilt by association, and because of fallacious appeals to emotion (it hurts people's feelings); whereas, in actual fact, reasoned analysis should be judged on their own merits using sound reasoning, and not dismissed by way of a barrage of fallacies--ironically condescending as it were.

Again, I am encouraging people to think critically, whereas you are resorting to lame dismissals and propaganda--presumably because, as indicated several times previously, this seems to be the best that gay advocates have to offer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're not thinking critically, Wade. I know of no Philosophy of Logic or Philosophy of Ethics professor, and I know quite a few in more than 5 states that would agree with your brand of 'critical thinking'. I'm intending to give authority to my position by citing who I know. I'm trying demonstrate that you have a uniquely flawed and grossly distorted idea of what thinking critically is.

Furthermore, you demonstrate a lack of care for 'collateral damage' caused by such spiritual, ethical and moral violence and thereby asserting your position as some sort of superior line of thinking. Such an assertion is delusional at best but damaging at worse. You sacrifice mercy and charity for some peculiarly audacious thought process. Is this what you did in your now defunct and reprehensible "think tank" concerning homosexuality, Wade? Is this an attempt to correct a distastrously epic failure?

I'm sure that in your own eloquently malevolent and malicious way you'll come up with another myth to satisfy your narcissistic, arrogant and self-aggrandizing need for self gratification, self glorification and some poor example of intellectual/rational/ethical/logical superiority while smugly smiling so kindly at yourself in the mirror and patting yourself on the back for a job well done.

ETA: This isn't an ad hominem. I'm thinking critically about the character of Wade Englund and the message he is trying to portray. If anyone perceives this post as a personal attack then that is YOUR problem and not mine.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Valentinus

[Zeta-Flux]

Actually no they don't "switch sides", they cease a behavior by not drinking Alcohol.

How is the different for same-sex attraction?

[Libs]

Again, you are free to throw your hands in the air. I, for one, think it is of value to continue, not just on the off chance that some people might learn how to critically think about this issue and not just drink the Kool-aid being served up by pop culture and gay advocates, but also because it exercises my mind and helps me coalesce my thoughts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you really think that accusing people of being "Kool Aid drinkers" is a good way to convince them that you are a "critical thinker"? Hmm?

[Carborendum]

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

I was following a rabbit hole that KevinG started. Thank you for saving me from the Queen of Hearts. I'll try not to go down that rabbit hole again.

[california boy]

My comment can no more be interpreted to say "yea" as to say "nay". Clearly, there have been legal arguments against restricting marriage to between a man and a woman (not to be confused with arguments in favor of SSM) that have persuaded a few judges of late.

However, given the Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans, which explicitly said its ruling didn't apply to SSM cases, I wouldn't be so sure about the direction the court will take. But, we shall see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

CFR that the Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans, which explicitly said its ruling didn't apply to SSM. Come on Wade. SSM was not even an issue when this court case was decided. I already know that you are not going to reply to this CFR. While you llove to make statements like this, and we have seen plenty of these kinds of distortions of the truth in your little myth escapades, we all know you won't answer this CFR.

[california boy]

Is everyone so frustrated and desperate that they are willing to throw up on the wall any superficial argument they can think of in HOPES that one of them will stick. Most of these ridiculous statements have been around since prop 8. Fortunately people have had enough time to think about them that they no longer are buying into their faulty premise. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." And that is the core of your problem in this debate.

There is a fundamental reason why you are loosing this battle. It is simply this. People in America do not support or like discrimination. Sometimes it takes a long time for the country to realize that all the superficial reasons for discriminating are not enough to continue this practice, but eventually America gets it right. It took almost 100 years from the time women started pushing for the vote for them to get that vote. It took decades from the time blacks pushed back that they were no longer legally treated as second class citizens. It is taking a much shorter time for the discrimination against gays to be corrected. As Martin Luther King said "We shall overcome because the arc of a moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Just how fast is this switch to support equality coming? Look at these numbers from a recent Pews poll. In EVERY category, support for gay marriage has increased just since the last election. What you are seeing is the MORE people look at this issue, the MORE in favor they are of eliminating this travesty of discrimination. This isn't a critical issue thinking problem. People are more than capable of hearing your side of the argument. This is a "we are no longer buying your distorted reasoning" issue.

You can cast doubt, vilify the press, lay out conspiracy theories, throw up bogus arguments, blame it on declining morals, but in the end, America believes in equality for everyone. It is time. And it will happen.

[Libs]

Well said, CA.

I agree that it is not a "critical thinking" issue or simply not understanding the arguments. It's not about trying to stifle religion or religious belief, either. It is plain and simply about fair treatment and equality. It is about not treating a whole group of people like second class citizens, just because they are different. That's the bottom line.

[cwald]

Is everyone so frustrated and desperate that they are willing to throw up on the wall any superficial argument they can think of in HOPES that one of them will stick. Most of these ridiculous statements have been around since prop 8. Fortunately people have had enough time to think about them that they no longer are buying into their faulty premise. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." And that is the core of your problem in this debate.

There is a fundamental reason why you are loosing this battle. It is simply this. People in America do not support or like discrimination. Sometimes it takes a long time for the country to realize that all the superficial reasons for discriminating are not enough to continue this practice, but eventually America gets it right. It took almost 100 years from the time women started pushing for the vote for them to get that vote. It took decades from the time blacks pushed back that they were no longer legally treated as second class citizens. It is taking a much shorter time for the discrimination against gays to be corrected. As Martin Luther King said "We shall overcome because the arc of a moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Just how fast is this switch to support equality coming? Look at these numbers from a recent Pews poll. In EVERY category, support for gay marriage has increased just since the last election. What you are seeing is the MORE people look at this issue, the MORE in favor they are of eliminating this travesty of discrimination. This isn't a critical issue thinking problem. People are more than capable of hearing your side of the argument. This is a "we are no longer buying your distorted reasoning" issue.

You can cast doubt, vilify the press, lay out conspiracy theories, throw up bogus arguments, blame it on declining morals, but in the end, America believes in equality for everyone. It is time. And it will happen.

Thank you. Well said.

[Storm Rider]

I think SSM will happen and it will happen because of the cult of individuality found in the USA and the lack of any philosophy to counter the same argument of the 60's. If "I" want "it" then "I" should be able to have it. The United States has lost all sense of community and the rights of the individual to the community. The society, our community, should seek to have a moral, ethical standard. This entire topic is too often distorted into a gay person's "rights" to something.

I believe that there should be no barriers to obtaining insurance, visiting people in the hospital, leaving an inheritance to whomever I choose, and being taxed fairly. These are not gay issues and they are moral issues for our entire community. It is not appropriate to confuse society into thinking that we should support the SSM because these have been denied because our own laws are poorly written. The laws should change, not the concept of marriage.

What will not change is that the gay lifestyle, which is based upon the boundless passions of the individual, will be allowed to have free, complete, and total reign. It's dark underbelly is vast and pervasive and sick to its very core. It is this dark underbelly that is hidden from the majority of society. What our community will loose is any moral fiber because we will be condoning bathhouses, glory holes, countless sex partners, and the resulting gay suicides, depression, diseases, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, America will eventually allow its gay citizens to marry/have civil unions. However, what the United States cannot do is take away the guilt of sin. It cannot gain the favor of God by fiat. The Gay community is neither prepared nor capable of functioning as a moral group within society because their very nature is to hide what they know to be wrong within their own culture. They do not criticize themselves for perversion, hedonism; for being out of control. In fact, they not only condone but actively support these constant jaunts into debauchery.

What is the price of an individual surrendering totally to their own passions? This is not a gay question or a straight question, but a question about the self and about the community that supports such actions. What is evident is that the gay community is so much more active in celebrating the destruction of the individual through surrendering to whatever passion is felt.

Yes, the gay community will get what it wants, but then it will then have to live with the consequences of this new freedom. How will our community be able to survive condoning this culture's own destruction? Freedom comes with a price and with responsiblity. The mere concept of personal responsibility has not even come into focus within the gay community. Unfortunately, the society at large has lost its focus on personal responsibility also. There will be some very dark days ahead.

[california boy]

What will not change is that the gay lifestyle, which is based upon the boundless passions of the individual, will be allowed to have free, complete, and total reign. It's dark underbelly is vast and pervasive and sick to its very core. It is this dark underbelly that is hidden from the majority of society. What our community will loose is any moral fiber because we will be condoning bathhouses, glory holes, countless sex partners, and the resulting gay suicides, depression, diseases, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, America will eventually allow its gay citizens to marry/have civil unions. However, what the United States cannot do is take away the guilt of sin. It cannot gain the favor of God by fiat. The Gay community is neither prepared nor capable of functioning as a moral group within society because their very nature is to hide what they know to be wrong within their own culture. They do not criticize themselves for perversion, hedonism; for being out of control. In fact, they not only condone but actively support these constant jaunts into debauchery.

This part of your post is a pretty ugly diatribe. I wish you would rethink what you are saying here. To paint such a broad picture on one particular group sees well just a bit nasty.

I am not saying that there are SOME in the gay community that have moral problems. But you also have to remember that this is a group where SOME have been kicked out of their families, kicked out of their churches, told that they are going to hell, are an abomination and godless and are not worthy or capable of the loving stable relationship of marriage. When you get that kind of message over and over again throughout your life from the time you are a teenager, it can distort your eternal perspective a bit. Your type of diatribe is a good example of what SOME gay people hear on a regular basis. Tell a person often enough and eventaully they start believing what you are telling them. I just don't see this as a Christlike behavior.

[DavidB]

A very impassioned post. The laws of the United States are largely written for a secular society, and in a secular society what is moral or immoral is what a community says is moral or immoral. Beyond the principle of "each person is free to act so long as his acts do not infringe on the rights of another", there isn't a firm foundation for defining immorality. The United States has a legal standard of indecency, but that standard is, in part, defined by the community ask to determine if something is indecent.

As for societies "moral fiber", and condoning "bathhouses, glory holes, countless sex partners, ... , depression, diseases, etc., etc., etc.". Does the United States oppose or condone these things for heterosexuals? Can a society retain moral fiber whilst condoning those things for heterosexuals? Now, I realize saying "well the heterosexual have already brought us this low" is not a valid argument, and I do not make mention of this as justification for homosexual activities. It is a genuine question as to how much, if any, moral fiber the United States might have left, which remainder apparently would be lost with the legal recognition of gay marriages.

[Storm Rider]

This part of your post is a pretty ugly diatribe. I wish you would rethink what you are saying here. To paint such a broad picture on one particular group sees well just a bit nasty.

I am not saying that there are SOME in the gay community that have moral problems. But you also have to remember that this is a group where SOME have been kicked out of their families, kicked out of their churches, told that they are going to hell, are an abomination and godless and are not worthy or capable of the loving stable relationship of marriage. When you get that kind of message over and over again throughout your life from the time you are a teenager, it can distort your eternal perspective a bit. Your type of diatribe is a good example of what SOME gay people hear on a regular basis. Tell a person often enough and eventually they start believing what you are telling them. I just don't see this as a Christlike behavior.

Cal, my objective is not to be nasty or mean, but to address something that is real and plays a significant role in the gay world, which has been swept under the rug. It is not healthy and it needs to be addressed by the gay culture itself.

When we are talking about consciously choosing to allow our passions to have free reign, we are talking about a very unhealthy choice. The problem is that it is just so common among this subset of our society. Do you disagree with that?

It would be better if we heard the gay culture talking about the need for chastity or at least to control one's passions. Silence is all we hear because they consciously choose and support not controlling one's passions. If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected.

Another ugly rant like the above will get you suspended.

That was no rant nor was it ugly. It was blunt and accurate and in keeping with our forum policies. I would really like to talk to you privately because I so strongly disagree with your position and your thought process. You may be a mod, but I strongly disagree with your position.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Storm Rider

[california boy]

Cal, my objective is not to be nasty or mean, but to address something that is real and plays a significant role in the gay world, which has been swept under the rug. It is not healthy and it needs to be addressed by the gay culture itself.

When we are talking about consciously choosing to allow our passions to have free reign, we are talking about a very unhealthy choice. The problem is that it is just so common among this subset of our society. Do you disagree with that?

It would be better if we heard the gay culture talking about the need for chastity or at least to control one's passions. Silence is all we hear because they consciously choose and support not controlling one's passions. If I am wrong, I would like to be corrected.

I guess if I was really wanting to change this behavior, the first thing I would push for is to allow and actually encourage gays to marry and form more committed relationships. Just think what morals the straight population would have if they were not allowed to marry. Statistically those that do not marry in the straight community have many of the same problems with immorality and the effects of that as the gay community. There is a very parallel comparison for many of the same reasons. The current structure is definitely a major contributor to this issue.

From someone who is gay and i guess lives in that community, I can tell you that there is a lot of distortion about "the gay lifestyle". All of my gay friends live pretty normal lives. They all have jobs. They are well educated. A couple of them are doctors. One works for the state government in a very high capacity, one is the CEO of a bank until recently. He just retired after 15 years as CEO. One works for HBO in a executive level position. A couple work for high tech companies. One of them is an accountant. One is an architect. One is a department manager at Macy's. All of them are actually very responsible members of society. None of them have any drug problems. Their behavior is not self destructive. They are all very comfortable with who they are. None of them have adopted children. One couple is thinking about it. None of them go to church. Most of them have faith in God, but have no use for organized religion. Only one of them smokes. Quite a few of them volunteer regularly at food bank type kitchens and have found community service to be their religion. Most drink alcohol. Quite a few smoke marijuana occasionally. None do hard drugs. None go to rave parties and drop ecstasy. Some are active in gay political policies. Most are not. Only two couples are legally married. Some are in long term relationships. The longest is 40 years. His partner just died within the last couple of months of heart failure. He was in his 80's. Yeah these are just my friends and maybe I am a bit picky about who I want as my friends. This is the "gay community" to me.

I do think things are changing quite dramatically within the gay culture. More young people seem to have more hope of forming family units and more solid relationships. They are not so susceptible to the labeling that past generations of gay men have endured. They think of themselves more equal to straight couples and have not been pushed away so much from traditional values. Some churches are beginning to welcome gays into their congregations and include them more in constructive faith environments. Things will change, but a lot of damage has been done.

Thanks for asking. I think it is a legitimate issue to bring up. Since you are probably against gay marriage, what concrete steps do you see to change this behavior?

[happy]

Is everyone so frustrated and desperate that they are willing to throw up on the wall any superficial argument they can think of in HOPES that one of them will stick. Most of these ridiculous statements have been around since prop 8. Fortunately people have had enough time to think about them that they no longer are buying into their faulty premise. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." And that is the core of your problem in this debate.

This seems a very self serving commentary. More commentary that seems out of "Rules for Radicals".

There is a fundamental reason why you are loosing this battle. It is simply this. People in America do not support or like discrimination. Sometimes it takes a long time for the country to realize that all the superficial reasons for discriminating are not enough to continue this practice, but eventually America gets it right. It took almost 100 years from the time women started pushing for the vote for them to get that vote. It took decades from the time blacks pushed back that they were no longer legally treated as second class citizens. It is taking a much shorter time for the discrimination against gays to be corrected. As Martin Luther King said "We shall overcome because the arc of a moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Again, so self serving. Just cast all the arguments as superficial so you are not obligated to argue against them. You can follow it by simply calling anyone who disagrees with you as homophobic and bigoted.

Just how fast is this switch to support equality coming? Look at these numbers from a recent Pews poll. In EVERY category, support for gay marriage has increased just since the last election. What you are seeing is the MORE people look at this issue, the MORE in favor they are of eliminating this travesty of discrimination. This isn't a critical issue thinking problem. People are more than capable of hearing your side of the argument. This is a "we are no longer buying your distorted reasoning" issue.

You get all that from the polls? I don't think that question was asked. I read your Pews Poll page. Was there a section that asked "Are you buying into their distorted reasoning?"

You can cast doubt, vilify the press, lay out conspiracy theories, throw up bogus arguments, blame it on declining morals, but in the end, America believes in equality for everyone. It is time. And it will happen.

That is a dramatic statement. But even Jon Stewart admitted on Fox that a lot of this debate has been unfair. That conservatives have been unfairly labeled as bigots and homophobes by the liberal press.

Word games are a very real phenomenon. Often it is easy to sway an opinion by just wording things in a particular way. If I ask someone "do you support baby killing?" to get an understanding of a person's position on abortion, that is a manipulative way to get a response. This is similar to "do you support equal rights for gays?" as opposed to "do you support redefining marriage to include gays?". It is easy to manipulate the response you want or attempt to use shaming to influence opinion.

Comparing it to blacks or women is so dishonest. A black man does not have to come out to his parents that he is black. There is no doubt being black is not a choice. Its a skin coloring passed on from parents. Homosexuality does not have that easy reality. It is a behavior. It is a behavior that counters the basic laws of human sexuality and reproduction from a very basic, non-emotional view. It also doesn't help that a vast majority of the people involved in psychology/mental health are liberal. And since liberals have taken on homosexuality as their special pet project, one can reasonably wonder if their isn't some bias in that field. And gay pride parades do not help break stereotypes of homosexuality being an immoral activity.

What I fear is that there is a pendulum that swings in our society. And right now that pendulum is almost violently bent into the liberal side of things. And what I fear is when it finally breaks and swings back the other way. I worry there will be a backlash that even normal conservatives will be shocked by.

[Deborah]

People in America do not support or like discrimination.

What an interesting statement because all of us discriminate everyday. We are discriminating about the food we eat, the movies we see, the people we choose to associate with. We should discriminate. I hate how this word has been abused to mean someone who doesn't agree with me. Racial discrimination isn't even a correct term because the correct term is prejudice.

Prejudice:

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Discrimination:

The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions

At least these are the traditional distinctions. "He was a man of discriminating taste." Prejudice is a negative form of discrimination and implies no reason behind it's action. Discrimination implies one has considered the evidence and deliberately chosen. On that basis I continue to discriminate between what I deem to be appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Prejudice where someone is mistreated just because of who they are is not acceptable. Applying moral standards is discriminatory not prejudicial as it is applied to behavior, that no matter what your attraction, is controllable.

[california boy]

Comparing it to blacks or women is so dishonest. A black man does not have to come out to his parents that he is black. There is no doubt being black is not a choice. Its a skin coloring passed on from parents. Homosexuality does not have that easy reality. It is a behavior. It is a behavior that counters the basic laws of human sexuality and reproduction from a very basic, non-emotional view. It also doesn't help that a vast majority of the people involved in psychology/mental health are liberal. And since liberals have taken on homosexuality as their special pet project, one can reasonably wonder if their isn't some bias in that field. And gay pride parades do not help break stereotypes of homosexuality being an immoral activity.

You are right. There are some arguments against ssm that are so ridiculous and have been tried so may times in the past that I am unwilling to go another round. Often they just lead to contention. I would however like to comment on the one part of what I said that you actually responded to.

I was NOT comparing being gay to being black. What my post is about is discrimination. You don't have to be black to be discriminated against. Women have been discriminated against by a large segment of the American population, Catholics have been discriminated against by a large segment of the American population, Jews have been discriminated against by a large segment of the American population. Even Mormons have a period of their history where they were discriminated against by a large segment of American population. And yes, all too often the persecuted become the persecutors. The current flavor of the decade is gays. Each of these groups were eventually given equality under the laws of this country. With those laws, the discrimination on a large scale greatly diminished. It is no longer socially acceptable to discriminate against blacks, women, Jews, Mormons, Catholics and a number of other minority groups. Thank goodness. Eventually it will no longer be socially acceptable to discriminate against gays. Already the majority of Americans think such discrimination is wrong. Like I said, over time American has always ended up supporting equality. It will again.

[california boy]

What an interesting statement because all of us discriminate everyday. We are discriminating about the food we eat, the movies we see, the people we choose to associate with. We should discriminate. I hate how this word has been abused to mean someone who doesn't agree with me. Racial discrimination isn't even a correct term because the correct term is prejudice.

Prejudice:

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Discrimination:

The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions

At least these are the traditional distinctions. "He was a man of discriminating taste." Prejudice is a negative form of discrimination and implies no reason behind it's action. Discrimination implies one has considered the evidence and deliberately chosen. On that basis I continue to discriminate between what I deem to be appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Prejudice where someone is mistreated just because of who they are is not acceptable. Applying moral standards is discriminatory not prejudicial as it is applied to behavior, that no matter what your attraction, is controllable.

This is the definition I am using of discrimination. If you want to call it prejudice, then go ahead. It is not a point I am going to argue about.

discrimination |disˌkriməˈnā sh ən|noun1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex : victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.

It is interestng to me that my electronic definition of discrimination specifically denotes discrimination against homosexuals. I did not add that point. I must have a liberal computer. lol.

Your definition more closely fits the second usage of the word.

2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another : discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations.• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste :those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination.• Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli : [asadj. ] discrimination learning.

[happy]

You are right. There are some arguments against ssm that are so ridiculous and have been tried so may times in the past that I am unwilling to go another round. Often they just lead to contention. I would however like to comment on the one part of what I said that you actually responded to.

I was NOT comparing being gay to being black. What my post is about is discrimination. You don't have to be black to be discriminated against. Women have been discriminated against by a large segment of the American population, Catholics have been discriminated against by a large segment of the American population, Jews have been discriminated against by a large segment of the American population. Even Mormons have a period of their history where they were discriminated against by a large segment of American population. And yes, all too often the persecuted become the persecutors. The current flavor of the decade is gays. Each of these groups were eventually given equality under the laws of this country. With those laws, the discrimination on a large scale greatly diminished. It is no longer socially acceptable to discriminate against blacks, women, Jews, Mormons, Catholics and a number of other minority groups. Thank goodness. Eventually it will no longer be socially acceptable to discriminate against gays. Already the majority of Americans think such discrimination is wrong. Like I said, over time American has always ended up supporting equality. It will again.

Seems it is currently quite acceptable to bash on the religious. Ask Penn Julliette. And Mormon Bashing with Bill Mahr is quite agreeable it seems.

[happy]

I hate to break it to you, California Boy, but many of the pro-gay arguments are strained and repetitive. You seem to look at your side with rose colored glasses.

Edited August 8, 2012 by happy

[wenglund]

What I find instructive about this exercise is just how vulnerable certain segments of our society are to accepting layer upon layer of nonsense.

Even more amazing is that it is not just your average naive Joe and mindless celebrity who seems to have taken leave of their senses, but educators, high governmental officials, judges and justices have also been bamboozled by the propaganda.

More amazing still is that these good and well intending people have not only been persuaded by the layers of nonsense, but they seem intractable in their views. You can drop round after round of bunker-busting logical and informative bombs on them and it seems not to even phase their cemented position. They appear impervious to common sense and functionally in denial.

Why this is, is anyone's guess, but I believe it is due, in part, to one of the most significant myths.

Myth #27: Supporting the gay agenda is all about compassion and fairness; whereas, in actual fact, if these good people really cared about gay people, and weren't just going along with a popular cultural movement and what has inanely become politically correct, then they would devote themselves to rationally diminishing the disproportional amount of mental/emotional illness, suicides, substance abuse, domestic abuse, infidelity, and nondurable relationships among homosexuals, rather than insipidly giving the government seal of approval and promoting the behaviors which may well contribute to those disproportional problems.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2012 by wenglund