S.S.M Debate, Dissecting The Process And Strategies Of Disinformation

[Zeta-Flux]

The link contains a link to the actual brief. The fifteen states are: INDIANA, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, GEORGIA,IDAHO, KANSAS, MICHIGAN, NEBRASKA,OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS AND VIRGINIA

[DavidB]

As Congress and forty-two States recognize, the different procreative capacities of same-sex and opposite-sex couples support a constitutionally legitimate distinction for defining marriage and affording special benefits to its participants. Traditional marriage and benefit policies further state interests in responsible procreation by encouraging biological parents to remain together, a rationale that cannot extend to same-sex couples. Congress and the States may conclude that discarding a distinction so deeply rooted in history and social experience could carry undesirable consequences, particularly where such change would utterly negate any apparent rationale for the government to afford special recognition and benefits to a limited set of relationships as “marriages.”

[Hestia]

I seriously doubt you would do such, as your post already show. You insult me based on a spelling error. And you insult me and separately you do avoid a truth due a missing word, which word you knew or should have known was missing.

And you seem to be reading insults where they weren't intended. If you have a problem with a poster use the report function.

[wenglund]

The link contains a link to the actual brief. The fifteen states are: INDIANA, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, GEORGIA,IDAHO, KANSAS, MICHIGAN, NEBRASKA,OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS AND VIRGINIA

Excellent brief!! It coalesces and condenses the legal issue and cases in easy to understand language, and will make for a great resource for future discussions. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will listen.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Another strategy (#8 ) employed by gay activist to shepherd public opinions from abhorring to embracing, is to blur or obliterate important lines of distinctions through the use of vague and generalized labels like "homosexuality" and "gay" and "lesbian" and "gay lifestyle."

This strategy is particularly effective among uncritically minded sheeple.

These vague/general labels may refer to a variety of specific things like same-sex attractions (SSA) and/or SS desires and/or SS behaviors and/or SS relationships, as well as combinations thereof.

The trick is to at one point use a vague/general term such as "gay" in relation to something specific like SSA, and then later idiosyncratically use the same term, or conflate the term, in a more combined sense--SS attraction/desires/behaviors/relationships.

For example, gay activist may claim that being gay isn't a matter of choice, but that gays are born that way. And, whether one agrees with this assertion or not, a careful interpretation clearly suggests that the word "gay" is here referring specifically to SSA. However, it is too often conflated, particularly by the uncritically minded, to mean far more.

How this may work in moving minds from abhorring to embracing is to use one of these vague/general terms in a sense where there is already agreement, and then generalize that agreement to other connotations where there may be disagreement.

For example, most people would agree that it is inappropriate to stigmatize SSA, though many of us believe it quite appropriate to stigmatize destructive SS desires, behaviors, and relationships. However, by including each under the general label of "gays," and saying something along the lines that it is inappropriate to stigmatize gays, then some uncritically minded people who might have once abhorred certain SS behaviors, may no longer abhor them because they believe it inappropriate to stigmatize SSA, and because they now fail to draw a distinction between SSA and SS behaviors. A case in point is Tacenda's plaintiff appeal in her Podcast thread (see in particular post #85).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 15, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

wenglund,

So how do we counter the ideological bias of the press? How do we get them to cover the fact that 15 states have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, in favor of DOMA? And do so without calling it a bigoted effort, but represent that actual arguments made in the brief?

Interesting premise. Do you have any idea how many briefs have been filed opposing DOMA? It would be interesting to see what the press coverage was on these filings as well. That would certainly expose the media to being ideological bias. Love to hear what you find out.

[DavidB]

The link contains a link to the actual brief. The fifteen states are: INDIANA, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARIZONA, COLORADO, GEORGIA,IDAHO, KANSAS, MICHIGAN, NEBRASKA,OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS AND VIRGINIA

what do you think of the last paragraph? The Brief states misunderstands the application of Equal Protection, a Court is not required (the Brief suggest otherwise) to "provide a coherent for government recognition of the both". In Equal Protection the role of the Court is to decide whether there is sufficient basis (depending on the level of scrutiny) for the unequal application of the law.

[Zeta-Flux]

DavidB,

I think you are misunderstanding the last paragraph. Equal protection issues are dealt with earlier in the brief. In particular, this brief makes a rather convincing case that the recent ruling incorrectly created a new level of scrutiny, that rational basis review is the appropriate level, etc...

As I understand it, the last paragraph is saying something like the following: Many of the recent court rulings have relied on the fact that mutual dedication is an incident of marriage. However, that incident does not provide a coherent rationale for why "the state should care about that commitment between sexual partners anymore than it cares about other voluntary relationships of two, or even more, people." In other words, if we accept the rationale of the courts for opening up marriage to same-sex partners, we should similarly open it up to friendship-marriages and polyamorous-marriages. The courts have given no coherent rationale for accepting that the reasons government supports marriage reduces simply to the one incident, mutual dedication.

[wenglund]

Interesting premise. Do you have any idea how many briefs have been filed opposing DOMA? It would be interesting to see what the press coverage was on these filings as well. That would certainly expose the media to being ideological bias. Love to hear what you find out.

Huh? All the state and federal DOMA cases and other related cases were a product filings by those opposed to DOMA et. al. There would be no briefs filed by supporters of DOMA had there not been any legal challenges to DOMA.

Feel free to read up on how the major news outlets (NYTimes, Washington Post, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC) reported on those cases and the language that was used in the reporting. If you don't sense a bias, let alone strong bias, in favor of SSM, as with most other high profile liberal or democrat positions, then I can't help you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 15, 2012 by wenglund

[Grundelwalken]

Wade, et al,

Over the years I have watched the progression of acceptance for the "Gay" community (I hate that we have lost the true meaning of gay because someone decided to co-opt it to homosexuality) in the world around me. Admittedly, even I have found myself allowing some shifting in my opinions through the years. As a youth, I was very much opposed to those of the homosexual persuasion and was encouraged by those of my parents generation to develop a strong dislike for any who practiced its behaviors. Associations with individuals who struggle with SSA has given me a clearer picture of the world they inhabit and has tempered my feelings to a great degree. But, there are some parts of their agenda that cannot be accepted.

Many who struggle with SSA seem to have a genetic/innate/built-in desire for those of the same gender (I say many because there are also those who develop their leanings based on lifestyle, choice, training, etc.). I have great compassion for those who are in this state through no fault of their own. They have many competing camps vying for their attention and it becomes difficult for them to hear the truth that is out there. They fall prey to many of the things Wade has illustrated (just as many non-SSA folks do) and think they have no choice but to act on their feelings and desires. And there are even times when those steeped in the Gospel of Christ begin to wonder if certain parts of the SSA agenda might not be acceptable (note some who consider SSM as OK, even with revelation from living prophets).

I believe what Wade is doing is calling attention to some of the specific tactics (yes, many organizations use the same ones) used by SSM/SSA proponents so that we can be careful to not fall for their dogma. If we do not recognize their efforts for what they are and teach the doctrines and principles of the gospel that rebut their message, we will find our children and grandchildren unable to distinguish the truth from the error. Then we will have what Nephi warned about:

O that cunning plan of he evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God

. (2 Nephi 9:28-29)

This is not popular but it is true, nonetheless. Prophets have given counsel/commandment and we are counseled/commanded (truthfully, I don't know the difference between the two) to follow. The prophets are not old men with standards to rigid for the current generation. They are old (some not so much) men who have spent a lifetime practicing and learning the doctrines of Christ so they might help us better understand what to do.

We are to love all God's children and we are taught that even those who engage in sinfulness are God's children. We are not taught to despise them by letting them continue in sin without some warning that their behavior will affect their mortal state and the eternal state of their soul. And we are not taught to despise them and shun them because of their sins. But we are also taught that we must not accept the sin that is committed as they practice their "alternate lifestyle".

I'm with Wade and others on this issue and hope we can recognize the tactics and indoctrination that the world is using on this and other doctrines and principles of the Lord. Those simple truths, when incorporated in our personal lives, bring peace, comfort, truth, and everlasting life. Thanks for good men like Wade who stand for truth. MW

[wenglund]

On another thread, TAO reminded me of another strategy (see post #186) employed by gay activists. Let's call it:

Strategy #8: slippery slope (non-fallacious).

As the name implies, this strategy is intended to change opinions by matters of small degrees over time (kind of like boiling a live frog to death by gradually increasing the temperature), and this at times by promising to go only so far, but no further.

TAO sited the example of how Californian's were persuaded to allow civil unions for gays, with the promise that SSM would not be put on the table. However, once gay civil union was legalized, gay activist and their legal councils began to raise issues over the distinction between CU's and marriage, until the California Supreme Court ruled the distinction unconstitutional, striking down prop 22--a law defining marriage in California as between a man and a women, and thus precipitating Prop 8 (a constitutional amendment to the same affect).

In short, getting Californians to accept gay civil unions was a necessary, and perhaps deceptively contrived step towards forcing Californians down the slippery slope towards SSM.

Perhaps you can think of other examples.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade, et al,

Over the years I have watched the progression of acceptance for the "Gay" community (I hate that we have lost the true meaning of gay because someone decided to co-opt it to homosexuality) in the world around me. Admittedly, even I have found myself allowing some shifting in my opinions through the years. As a youth, I was very much opposed to those of the homosexual persuasion and was encouraged by those of my parents generation to develop a strong dislike for any who practiced its behaviors. Associations with individuals who struggle with SSA has given me a clearer picture of the world they inhabit and has tempered my feelings to a great degree. But, there are some parts of their agenda that cannot be accepted.

Many who struggle with SSA seem to have a genetic/innate/built-in desire for those of the same gender (I say many because there are also those who develop their leanings based on lifestyle, choice, training, etc.). I have great compassion for those who are in this state through no fault of their own. They have many competing camps vying for their attention and it becomes difficult for them to hear the truth that is out there. They fall prey to many of the things Wade has illustrated (just as many non-SSA folks do) and think they have no choice but to act on their feelings and desires. And there are even times when those steeped in the Gospel of Christ begin to wonder if certain parts of the SSA agenda might not be acceptable (note some who consider SSM as OK, even with revelation from living prophets).

I believe what Wade is doing is calling attention to some of the specific tactics (yes, many organizations use the same ones) used by SSM/SSA proponents so that we can be careful to not fall for their dogma. If we do not recognize their efforts for what they are and teach the doctrines and principles of the gospel that rebut their message, we will find our children and grandchildren unable to distinguish the truth from the error. Then we will have what Nephi warned about:

O that cunning plan of he evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God

. (2 Nephi 9:28-29)

This is not popular but it is true, nonetheless. Prophets have given counsel/commandment and we are counseled/commanded (truthfully, I don't know the difference between the two) to follow. The prophets are not old men with standards to rigid for the current generation. They are old (some not so much) men who have spent a lifetime practicing and learning the doctrines of Christ so they might help us better understand what to do.

We are to love all God's children and we are taught that even those who engage in sinfulness are God's children. We are not taught to despise them by letting them continue in sin without some warning that their behavior will affect their mortal state and the eternal state of their soul. And we are not taught to despise them and shun them because of their sins. But we are also taught that we must not accept the sin that is committed as they practice their "alternate lifestyle".

I'm with Wade and others on this issue and hope we can recognize the tactics and indoctrination that the world is using on this and other doctrines and principles of the Lord. Those simple truths, when incorporated in our personal lives, bring peace, comfort, truth, and everlasting life. Thanks for good men like Wade who stand for truth. MW

I really appreciate your kind remarks. However, I can't rightly take credit because it all has nothing really to do with me, and much to do with countless hosts of loving and sensibly motivated servants of God--including you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Strategy #8: slippery slope (non-fallacious)....

...Perhaps you can think of other examples.

One of the more clear delineations of the SSM slippery slope comes from the gay activist's own premier legal organization, Lambdalegal.org, and the history they set forth, in which they lay out how since 1973 they have gradually and incrementally gained greater leverage and foothold in the law.

What they don't disclose, though it is quite obvious nevertheless, is that they were able to achieve their incremental successes, in large part, by taking great care in choosing, from across the nation, the most favorable jurisdictions and judges before which to file their cases.

In other words, we aren't talking about a small, hodge-podge, ad hock grassroots effort, but an increasingly prolific, highly organized, intelligently planned, well funded, and deftly executed strategy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

Wade, et al,

Over the years I have watched the progression of acceptance for the "Gay" community (I hate that we have lost the true meaning of gay because someone decided to co-opt it to homosexuality) in the world around me. Admittedly, even I have found myself allowing some shifting in my opinions through the years. As a youth, I was very much opposed to those of the homosexual persuasion and was encouraged by those of my parents generation to develop a strong dislike for any who practiced its behaviors. Associations with individuals who struggle with SSA has given me a clearer picture of the world they inhabit and has tempered my feelings to a great degree. But, there are some parts of their agenda that cannot be accepted.

Many who struggle with SSA seem to have a genetic/innate/built-in desire for those of the same gender (I say many because there are also those who develop their leanings based on lifestyle, choice, training, etc.). I have great compassion for those who are in this state through no fault of their own. They have many competing camps vying for their attention and it becomes difficult for them to hear the truth that is out there. They fall prey to many of the things Wade has illustrated (just as many non-SSA folks do) and think they have no choice but to act on their feelings and desires. And there are even times when those steeped in the Gospel of Christ begin to wonder if certain parts of the SSA agenda might not be acceptable (note some who consider SSM as OK, even with revelation from living prophets).

I believe what Wade is doing is calling attention to some of the specific tactics (yes, many organizations use the same ones) used by SSM/SSA proponents so that we can be careful to not fall for their dogma. If we do not recognize their efforts for what they are and teach the doctrines and principles of the gospel that rebut their message, we will find our children and grandchildren unable to distinguish the truth from the error. Then we will have what Nephi warned about:

O that cunning plan of he evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God

. (2 Nephi 9:28-29)

This is not popular but it is true, nonetheless. Prophets have given counsel/commandment and we are counseled/commanded (truthfully, I don't know the difference between the two) to follow. The prophets are not old men with standards to rigid for the current generation. They are old (some not so much) men who have spent a lifetime practicing and learning the doctrines of Christ so they might help us better understand what to do.

We are to love all God's children and we are taught that even those who engage in sinfulness are God's children. We are not taught to despise them by letting them continue in sin without some warning that their behavior will affect their mortal state and the eternal state of their soul. And we are not taught to despise them and shun them because of their sins. But we are also taught that we must not accept the sin that is committed as they practice their "alternate lifestyle".

I'm with Wade and others on this issue and hope we can recognize the tactics and indoctrination that the world is using on this and other doctrines and principles of the Lord. Those simple truths, when incorporated in our personal lives, bring peace, comfort, truth, and everlasting life. Thanks for good men like Wade who stand for truth. MW

I'm willing to agree to most of what you said, especially to this sentence...."Many who struggle with SSA seem to have a genetic/innate/built-in desire for those of the same gender (I say many because there are also those who develop their leanings based on lifestyle, choice, training, etc."

And agree that some people aren't always "gay" that choose the lifestyle but just want to try new things with someone of the same gender. And some youth that don't quite get it and are being told by the media that it's okay. And they may fall into the trap of it and actually start believing that they are "gay" and begin experimenting.

This example is not what my complaining has been about. It's the gay people out there and in my life that I know have fought their gayness. Tried suicide and even exhibit all the signs possible of being gay, take my niece for example she has always expressed/exhibited male qualities since childhood. I just feel for them and don't want others to say they are anything but beautiful children of God and have been given a raw deal, something that they've been biologically born with.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

I just feel for them and don't want others to say they are anything but beautiful children of God and have been given a raw deal, something that they've been biologically born with.

I understand that, even though there are a number of other issues that may be far more deserving of our public sympathy and attention because they are more pervasive within the general population (like alcohol-related deaths, substance abuse, domestic violence, sexual abuse, cancer, abject poverty in many areas of the world, terrorism, deadly viruses, etc.), I understand that sympathy for gays is quite the rage within pop culture (in part, for reasons that I previously explained), and so people who are easily swayed by pop culture will tend to make this their key sympathy as well.

Even still, I have no problem with what you say as long as you are referring solely to SSA and not to destructive SS desires/behaviors/relationships. Sympathy and compassion for the latter is insipid and demonstrably counter-productive (as evinced, in part, by the rise in SS suicides, SS substance abuse, SS domestic violence. etc. along with the rise in sympathy for gays).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 16, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

I just feel for them and don't want others to say they are anything but beautiful children of God and have been given a raw deal, something that they've been biologically born with.

Nobody is saying any different. It is you that seems to have trouble separating the person from the action. Nobody is deriding the person only questioning the actions. Most people don't identify themselves by their sexuality. I have never heard anybody say Hi I;m___and I'm heterosexual.

Edited August 17, 2012 by ERayR

[DavidB]

As this thread is disinformation in the ssm debate, then it is open to discussion as to both groups and disinformation.

I heard a radio show with Karl Rove, in the show he was asked if he opposed ssm, he would not answer yes or no rather he answered he supported traditional marriage.

Is it disinformation to answer the question "Do you oppose ssm?" with "I support the traditional definition of marriage."

Is it disinformation to state that a person or group who only support traditional or Biblical marriage are opposed to ssm.

[wenglund]

As this thread is disinformation in the ssm debate, then it is open to discussion as to both groups and disinformation.

I heard a radio show with Karl Rove, in the show he was asked if he opposed ssm, he would not answer yes or no rather he answered he supported traditional marriage.

Is it disinformation to answer the question "Do you oppose ssm?" with "I support the traditional definition of marriage.

No. A person can reasonably be undecided about, indifferent to, or even not mindful of SSM while also being supportive of traditional marriage.

Also, given the potential for over reactions and the risk of being misconstrued in answer to the first question (as evinced recently in the Chick-Fil-A firestorm), prudence suggest answering indirectly in a potentially less inflammatory way. This isn't disinformation, but tact.

Is it disinformation to state that a person or group who only support traditional or Biblical marriage are opposed to ssm.

It depends upon whether they are actually opposed to SSM or not. As with your previous question, a person or group can be undecided about or indifferent to SSM or not even have thought about SSM, and yet only support traditional or biblical marriage. Such was invariably the case for people supportive of traditional marriage prior to 1970 when the issue of SSM first surfaced. Logically, one's support for something doesn't necessarily mean one is against other options (known or unknown).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 16, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Thus far in the thread we have talked about the means by which gay activists have facilitated changes in our culture from the early 70's to now--how we as a society have slipped to where we are at on the slope.

It may now be instructive to consider where this is all intended to go. And, the best place to find this out is to go to the source and see what leading gay activist groups have set as their end goals. Please take a look at at the Gay Liberation Manifesto. The alarming things disclosed therein not only give explanation for how we got to where we are today, but also clearly state that the gay movement isn't going to be satisfied with legal reforms (like what we have seen so far), but that they are out to revolutionize and even do away with certain fundamental aspect of society, like the traditional family, monogamous relationships, the cultural distinction between men and women, etc. They are out to create a whole new lifestyle for one and all. Ultimately, they are not looking for acceptance, but to promote gays as the premier model for advanced societies.

The manifesto is as astonishing in its audacity as it is in its forthrightness.

Here were the demands they made at the time (1970's). See how many have already been met.

• that all discrimination against gay people, male and female, by the law, by employers, and by society at large, should end.
  
• that all people who feel attracted to a member of their own sex be taught that such feeling are perfectly valid.
  
• that sex education in schools stop being exclusively heterosexual.
  
• that psychiatrists stop treating homosexuality as though it were a sickness, thereby giving gay people senseless guilt complexes.
  
• that gay people be as legally free to contact other gay people, though newspaper ads, on the streets and by any other means they may want as are heterosexuals, and that police harassment should cease right now.
  
• that employers should no longer be allowed to discrim inate against anyone on accou nt of their sexual preferences.
  
• that the age of consent for gay males be reduced to the same as for straight.
  
• that gay people be free to hold hands and kiss in public, as are heterosexuals.
  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

For those who may suppose that the radical intents of the 70's Gay Liberation Manifesto (linked above) died out along with the hippie movement, may I suggest reading what Michael Swift had to say as late as 1987, in the Gay Community News article called, "Michael Swift, 'Gay Revolutionary'." It is a deeply disturbed and disturbing piece, and in light of our discussion about the gay abhor-to-embrace process and strategies, Swift had this to say (note how well it fits with what has been disclosed thus far):

"...We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens.

"We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

"Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

"We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

"There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence--will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

"All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

"The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

"We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man...."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 16, 2012 by wenglund

[DavidB]

No. A person can reasonably be undecided about, indifferent to, or even not mindful of SSM while also being supportive of traditional marriage.

Also, given the potential for over reactions and the risk of being misconstrued in answer to the first question (as evinced recently in the Chick-Fil-A firestorm), prudence suggest answering indirectly in a potentially less inflammatory way. This isn't disinformation, but tact.

It depends upon whether they are actually opposed to SSM or not. As with your previous question, a person or group can be undecided about or indifferent to SSM or not even have thought about SSM, and yet only support traditional or biblical marriage. Such was invariably the case for people supportive of traditional marriage prior to 1970 when the issue of SSM first surfaced. Logically, one's support for something doesn't necessarily mean one is against other options (known or unknown).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

thanks for the response. I question the reasoning though. I tend to doubt that the majority of those who espouse Biblical marriage or traditional marriage are indifferent (not caring one way or an other) to ssm, or that they have not given the idea of ssm much thought and therefore have not formed an opinion.

[DavidB]

Some more disinformation; which is the disinformation. These three are a few of the rally cries against ssm.

Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close shop because of SSM

vs.

Catholic adoption agencies closed because they could not operate without State or Federal funding - a condition of receiving said funding was abiding by State laws.

A Church in New Jersey was penalized for standing true to its religious beliefs against SSM.

vs.

A Church in New Jersey, which held it property open for public use as a condition for receiving tax exemption on the property, lost its tax exempt status for refusing to hold the property open to the public i.e. a homosexual couple.

Student in Mass. were forced to read a book about a homosexual Prince.

vs.

Student in Mass. were sent home with a list of books for reading. The parents of said children were to review the list are were permitted to object. Parents did not review the list and thus did not object to a book about a homosexual prince.

Students in Ca. were forced to attend a SSM wedding.

vs.

Parents of students in Ca. arranged for their children to attend the ssm of their teacher.

[Maestrophil]

I do not see how Wade's points originally were inflammatory at all. They are simply means used by many groups to further an agenda.

The spirit of his post, from what I can see, is that as a proponent of traditional marriage, one needs to recognize that these means are being employed so one can be aware of them and thus potentially lessen the effectiveness. (just as an advocate of SSM would encourage his/her peers to learn to recognize the same from the other camp.

Nothing wrong with the strategies employed... just empowering to recognize them.

That said:

"All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough." <---- this is the kind of rhetoric that reduces my ability to relate to the SSM community (not that all hold this radical of a view - I simply hear A LOT of similar language)

[wenglund]

thanks for the response. I question the reasoning though. I tend to doubt that the majority of those who espouse Biblical marriage or traditional marriage are indifferent (not caring one way or an other) to ssm, or that they have not given the idea of ssm much thought and therefore have not formed an opinion.

Even if I grant your speculation, my reasoning stands given that you allow for a minority of people for whom it may apply.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I am pleased to have just recently discovered that much of the work I have been doing for this thread has already been completed. It may be found in a book titled, "The Triumphant Gay Revolution--". And, while it appears to be written in a gay-friendly manner, it is seems to be an excellent resource for the history of the gay movement to date. For those of us who don't have direct access to the book, here is a 3-page synompsis: How the Gay Rights Movement Won.

If or when I have the time, it would be interesting to compare and contrast this book with a book on the same subject and published more than a decade earlier, called: "We Are Everywhere," and another book written in the late 80's, "The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement.

Here are some other on-line resources:

Timeline for the Gay Rights Movement

HIstory of the Gay Rights Movement

PBS: Milestones in the American Gay Rights Movement

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 16, 2012 by wenglund