Music For Marriage Equality Campaign

[Lamanite]

Hmmm... (removes spectacles, gestures with them, phony Austrian accent) What things are you intolerant of? That might offer some insight.

Child Molesters. Pretty much anyone who abuses children.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

Child Molesters. Pretty much anyone who abuses children.

Good example--and that would be a factor in the incestuous example given earlier, where you indicated you would have "love and understanding and acceptance of a man who is romantically/sexually attracted to his mother or his daughter," a situation that in most cases is strongly associated with prior or current child molestation and abuse. At what point does one become tolerable and the other not?

(Not trying to psychoanalyze--that was a joke)

[california boy]

If I remove the influence gay propaganda has had on me would I still be so willing to accept them and their lifestyle? Not sure. Is it even possible to undo what's been done? Maybe.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Perhaps the reason you are having difficulty being on the bandwagon of discriminating against gays is because no one has ever given you a good enough reason to discriminate agaist gays. Maybe you can't figure out how their marriages will have any impact on you or your life or the life of any other member of the church. Maybe you have something in your soul telling you it is your job to love everyone and God's job to judge others and you feel uncomfortable taking over God's job.

[Lamanite]

Perhaps the reason you are having difficulty being on the bandwagon of discriminating against gays is because no one has ever given you a good enough reason to discriminate agaist gays. Maybe you can't figure out how their marriages will have any impact on you or your life or the life of any other member of the church. Maybe you have something in your soul telling you it is your job to love everyone and God's job to judge others and you feel uncomfortable taking over God's job.

That pretty much sums it up. I've tried to see if my tenderness and compassion for gays has been artificially influenced or enhanced by gay propaganda, and honestly I don't think it has, but I will continue to give it some thought. Perhaps stories like this one about Elder Jensen has also helped shaped my love for the gay community. link

In 2010, Jensen was the visiting LDS general authority to Mormon congregations in Oakland, Calif., which had been sharply divided over the Utah-based church’s support of California’s Proposition 8. He agreed to attend a special meeting, where gay members and their loved ones shared their stories of pain. After one particularly harrowing account, many in the room, including Jensen, wept, recounts Mormon author Carol Lynn Pearson.

The speaker said he felt the church owed him an apology. Jensen arose and, through his tears, assured the group he had heard their pleas and, "to the full extent of my capacity, I say that I am sorry."

Marriage as only between a man and a woman was a "bedrock of our doctrine and would not change," Jensen told the group that day. "However, I want you to know that as a result of being with you this morning, my aversion to homophobia has grown. I know that many very good people have been deeply hurt."

I also support Jensen when he describes the doctrinal position of the Church. But recognizing our (Mormons) views on marriage does not mean that I have to oppose marriage equality.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Tacenda]

That pretty much sums it up. I've tried to see if my tenderness and compassion for gays has been artificially influenced or enhanced by gay propaganda, and honestly I don't think it has, but I will continue to give it some thought. Perhaps stories like this one about Elder Jensen has also helped shaped my love for the gay community. link

I also support Jensen when he describes the doctrinal position of the Church. But recognizing our (Mormons) views on marriage does not mean that I have to oppose marriage equality.

Big UP!

Lamanite

So glad you linked this.

[blooit]

You probably didn't see it but one year during the MTV Video Music Awards Britney Spears kissed Madonna. And I remember thinking, "Oh brother, what a pathetic attempt at sensationalism. We've all seen girls kiss before....no big deal." And I realized at that moment that homosexual behavior was no big deal to me because I had been regularly exposed to it by the mainstream media. And yet, I haven't turned gay yet. And my marriage hasn't fallen apart. And it hasn't compromised my beliefs about the importance families play in God's plan of happiness. And so I wonder, what is so bad about "gay propaganda?" Should I be concerned about having gay friends over to the house where their very existence is a form of gay propaganda and is witnessed by my kids?

I know I'm being overly dramatic but I wonder if messages like the ones contained in the video I posted have a high percentage of nurturing love and understanding with a very low percentage for disintegrating core beliefs and sexual identities.

risk/reward analysis?

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS- Did you like the song? Nice flow with a catchy hook, IMO. That's how they get ya!!!

I have an aunt and daughter who have embraced the homosexual lifestyle. My aunt was born with strong tendencies this way and then through sexual abuse, she never looked back.

My daughter on the other hand did not have strong tendencies this way, but started dabbling in it because it was "cool." Now she has fully embraced the lifestyle. It is unpopular to say it, but my daughter engaged in this lifestyle because of peer pressure. It enrages me that we accept that peer pressure can lead to drug addiction, violent behavior, etc., but often don't accept that it can lead to sexual addictions like homosexuality as well. My daughter (for now) is a casualty of our social acceptance of homosexuality, and probably only one of many to come.

My point... the propaganda works and is dangerous

[Lamanite]

I have an aunt and daughter who have embraced the homosexual lifestyle. My aunt was born with strong tendencies this way and then through sexual abuse, she never looked back.

My daughter on the other hand did not have strong tendencies this way, but started dabbling in it because it was "cool." Now she has fully embraced the lifestyle. It is unpopular to say it, but my daughter engaged in this lifestyle because of peer pressure. It enrages me that we accept that peer pressure can lead to drug addiction, violent behavior, etc., but often don't accept that it can lead to sexual addictions like homosexuality as well. My daughter (for now) is a casualty of our social acceptance of homosexuality, and probably only one of many to come.

My point... the propaganda works and is dangerous

My experience has been that homosexual men more often than lesbians tend to be "born that way". This is completely subjective self analysis on their part. Admittedly gay women in my life attribute their SSA to certain experiences in their life with no apologies. No one I know who is gay turned that way because of slick marketing by gays. But I will concede that the increasing social acceptance has made it easier or perhaps more acceptable to come out of the closet. That's my experience with gays in my life.

I have a question. I have four daughters and I've taught them a great many things at home that I hope they will honor and accept as part of their own religious beliefs and values. Unfortunately and expectedly they have begun to test their boundaries a little. (they are 12 under so no big issues yet) How can we ensure that the messages we teach at home about sexuality and eternal families will not become less important or valuable than gay propaganda?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[divinenature]

Just make sure your children always know that you are listening. That you will love and listen and not shame or judge. They need to know you are there to help them make the best choices for their lives.

Teach them about personal health and safety. Make sure they know that their bodies belong to them and that NOBODY has the right to touch them in ways they do not want to be touched. Make sure they know that if they are touched they can tell you and that it is NEVER, ever their fault.

Teach them that as they grow older it is normal, natural and healthy to be attracted to others.

Teach them that it is never okay to tease or pick on someone because they are different.

I can imagine nothing worse, as a mother, than having one of my children feel that I would reject them for being gay or getting pregnant single or deciding they never want to marry or have children of their own. I can imagine nothing worse than being forced to survive a child's suicide.

Embracing the message of equality means saving lives.

[Vanguard]

Hip Hop finally falls in love with homosexuality. A video for the song "Same Love" by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis feat. Mary Lambert was released yesterday and it deals with homosexuality and same sex marriage. For me, the fact that this message is being presented through Hip Hop indicates an increasingly rapid acceptance of homosexuals/homosexuality. This video in addition to another prominent R&B/Hip Hop artist (Frank Ocean) coming out of the closet prior to his album release this Summer represents a huge paradigm shift within Hip Hop and probably within its audience. This may or may not affect some of your kids, but my guess would be that either directly or indirectly it represents changes in many aspects of our society.

Does the type of message in this video pose a real threat to the traditional Mormon family? Or does it simply spread a message of love and acceptance?

Yes, it does. Any divergence from the ideal lands somewhere on the "threat continuum". Is it the largest threat to the traditional family Mormon or otherwise? That remains to be seen. No fault divorce had/has a pretty large impact. One difference between the two, however, is that gay marriage is a redefining of what our culture has long accepted as the ideal for rearing children. This "rearing ideal for children" argument should not be taken lightly though is seems now to take a back seat to the argument for equality. We had to allow no fault divorce as there were simply too many instances when abuses were perpetuated due to the woman's inability to leave the relationship. But a worm in a bad apple does not change the fact that it's still an apple. Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions is to call an apple a pear. This sends a message to the next generation of potential spouses that a mom & dad union is simply a matter of taste and nothing else. This I believe lays the seeds for relegating the divine mandate to bring children into the world as a matter of taste and nothing more.

Does the video spread a message of love and acceptance? It sure does and should be rightly applauded. Ostracizing homosexuals should be discouraged at any cost though the video conflates this important stance to mean that gay unions should be on equal ground.

Does the message embedded in this artistic expression lack the power necessary to corrode our eternal families, or should it be embraced as a vehicle for spreading love and understanding?

Alone, it does lack the power. But taken in concert with everything else will indeed make the difference. Does it represent a corrosion? If the end game is marriage equality then, unfortunately, yes. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time that our reality has fallen short of the ideal mark. There have already been numerous corrosive effects to the traditional family over eons.

Solutions?

At the national level? Probably not beyound simply voting your conscience in the ballot box though the tide is turning against those who would vote against gay marriage and is simply a matter of time. Within our own homes and faith community? There is still so much to be done. This should give us hope. Don't forget - we already wrestle with the malaise of corrosive influences that tear down successful marital unions with our without the addition of gay marriage. Will we lose ground? Yep. But don't kid yourself, we've been losing ground for more years than I can remember. This is simply one more challenge.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Vanguard

[The Grimace]

That you would ask, is evidence in itself of the effectiveness of gay propaganda.

There is no such thing as gay propaganda. I can't really be bothered to listen to the song, truthfully, because I don't like hip-hop. But I liked 'Lola' by The Kinks, and I like 'Smalltown Boy' by Bronski Beat, and 'Go West' by The Pet Shop Boys.

Still straight.

[Lamanite]

Does the type of message in this video pose a real threat to the traditional Mormon family? Or does it simply spread a message of love and acceptance?

Yes, it does. Any divergence from the ideal lands somewhere on the "threat continuum". Is it the largest threat to the traditional family Mormon or otherwise? That remains to be seen. No fault divorce had/has a pretty large impact. One difference between the two, however, is that gay marriage is a redefining of what our culture has long accepted as the ideal for rearing children. This "rearing ideal for children" argument should not be taken lightly though is seems now to take a back seat to the argument for equality. We had to allow no fault divorce as there were simply too many instances when abuses were perpetuated due to the woman's inability to leave the relationship. But a worm in a bad apple does not change the fact that it's still an apple. Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions is to call an apple a pear. This sends a message to the next generation of potential spouses that a mom & dad union is simply a matter of taste and nothing else. This I believe lays the seeds for relegating the divine mandate to bring children into the world as a matter of taste and nothing more.

Does the video spread a message of love and acceptance? It sure does and should be rightly applauded. Ostracizing homosexuals should be discouraged at any cost though the video conflates this important stance to mean that gay unions should be on equal ground.

Does the message embedded in this artistic expression lack the power necessary to corrode our eternal families, or should it be embraced as a vehicle for spreading love and understanding?

Alone, it does lack the power. But taken in concert with everything else will indeed make the difference. Does it represent a corrosion? If the end game is marriage equality then, unfortunately, yes. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time that our reality has fallen short of the ideal mark. There have already been numerous corrosive effects to the traditional family over eons.

Solutions?

At the national level? Probably not beyound simply voting your conscience in the ballot box though the tide is turning against those who would vote against gay marriage and is simply a matter of time. Within our own homes and faith community? There is still so much to be done. This should give us hope. Don't forget - we already wrestle with the malaise of corrosive influences that tear down successful marital unions with our without the addition of gay marriage. Will we lose ground? Yep. But don't kid yourself, we've been losing ground for more years than I can remember. This is simply one more challenge.

Thank you for you thoughtful comments. Well said.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[california boy]

Does the type of message in this video pose a real threat to the traditional Mormon family? Or does it simply spread a message of love and acceptance?

Yes, it does. Any divergence from the ideal lands somewhere on the "threat continuum". Is it the largest threat to the traditional family Mormon or otherwise? That remains to be seen. No fault divorce had/has a pretty large impact. One difference between the two, however, is that gay marriage is a redefining of what our culture has long accepted as the ideal for rearing children. This "rearing ideal for children" argument should not be taken lightly though is seems now to take a back seat to the argument for equality. We had to allow no fault divorce as there were simply too many instances when abuses were perpetuated due to the woman's inability to leave the relationship. But a worm in a bad apple does not change the fact that it's still an apple. Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions is to call an apple a pear. This sends a message to the next generation of potential spouses that a mom & dad union is simply a matter of taste and nothing else. This I believe lays the seeds for relegating the divine mandate to bring children into the world as a matter of taste and nothing more.

Does the video spread a message of love and acceptance? It sure does and should be rightly applauded. Ostracizing homosexuals should be discouraged at any cost though the video conflates this important stance to mean that gay unions should be on equal ground.

Can you explain how not allowing a gay family to marry helps the children of that family? Are you objecting to gay marriage or are you objection to gay adoption?

Have you considered not allowing a divorced person to every marry again? After all, they have a real history of destroying marriage and leaving children without a mother and father in the home. Love to hear your thoughts about these issues, since they seem to be the basis for your objection to gay marriage.

[wenglund]

I understand. I'm only trying to identify the source of my tolerance for Same Sex Marriage. Is it that I feel compassion because I believe it's a genetic condition or is my tolerance and compassion a result of slick marketing by gays. Big UP! Lamanite

Part of the slick marketing is to duped well-meaning souls into believing the misnomer that the question of genetics has been adequately answered and that is meaningfully relevant to public policy matters on homosexuality, like SSM. So, in your case, it is both.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Perhaps the reason you are having difficulty being on the bandwagon of discriminating against gays is because no one has ever given you a good enough reason to discriminate agaist gays. Maybe you can't figure out how their marriages will have any impact on you or your life or the life of any other member of the church. Maybe you have something in your soul telling you it is your job to love everyone and God's job to judge others and you feel uncomfortable taking over God's job.

Maybe he is as confused as you in thinking that loving everyone entails loving and accepting everyone sins. This is exactly backwards. True love is concerned with the health and welfare of souls, and moves us to protect against the harm and ravages of sin.

Perhaps he, like you, has bought the demonstrably false notion that mankind can't distinguish between what right and wrong or what is or isn't a sin, because that somehow amounts to judgments that are reserved only to God. Whereas, the judgment that is reserved to God is in assessing and exacting punishment for sin, and God has endowed his children with the capacity and the moral imperative to distinguishing what is or isn't sin.

And, maybe he, like you, has failed to correctly understand that the issue of SSM isn't so much about the possible negative impact SSM may have on traditional marriage, but rather whether the states have a rational interest to incur the added cost in giving its seal of approval and promote relationships that are based on and defined by sexual sin, and which are devolutionary and far less than the ideal in terms of promiscuity, infidelity, durability, and health.

Perhaps he, like you, has been persuaded by the inverted thinking and harmful propaganda of the gay agenda.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

Maybe he is as confused as you in thinking that loving everyone entails loving and accepting everyone sins. This is exactly backwards. True love is concerned with the health and welfare of souls, and moves us to protect against the harm and ravages of sin.

Perhaps he, like you, has bought the demonstrably false notion that mankind can't distinguish between what right and wrong or what is or isn't a sin, because that somehow amounts to judgments that are reserved only to God. Whereas, the judgment that is reserved to God is in assessing and exacting punishment for sin, and God has endowed his children with the capacity and the moral imperative to distinguishing what is or isn't sin.

And, maybe he, like you, has failed to correctly understand that the issue of SSM isn't so much about the possible negative impact SSM may have on traditional marriage, but rather whether the states have a rational interest to incur the added cost in giving its seal of approval and promote relationships that are based on and defined by sexual sin, and which are devolutionary and far less than the ideal in terms of promiscuity, infidelity, durability, and health.

Perhaps he, like you, has been persuaded by the inverted thinking and harmful propaganda of the gay agenda.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Extending this line of thinking to all forms of sin....where does that leave us in terms of our relationships with the rest of humanity? We could easily not extend privileges to all types of people based on sinful behavior. Is it case by case that we discriminate against sinners or should we severely limit the rights of anyone who sins?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Bikeemikey]

Maybe he is as confused as you in thinking that loving everyone entails loving and accepting everyone sins. This is exactly backwards. True love is concerned with the health and welfare of souls, and moves us to protect against the harm and ravages of sin.

Perhaps he, like you, has bought the demonstrably false notion that mankind can't distinguish between what right and wrong or what is or isn't a sin, because that somehow amounts to judgments that are reserved only to God. Whereas, the judgment that is reserved to God is in assessing and exacting punishment for sin, and God has endowed his children with the capacity and the moral imperative to distinguishing what is or isn't sin.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The above is an abbreviated quotation from Wade Englund...

Is it the govts role to provide "true love" to its citizens? That is, is it the role of govt to care for peoples salvation?

Also. based on your comment above. It seems that you believe that God is responsible for punishing sin, not mankind. If that is the case should the govt punish/legislate based on sin.

I am not convinced the govt. ought to be concerned with our salvation nor that they should legistalte based on sin.

It seems to be more practical that govts, run by people, ought to limit themselves to matters of "Harm".

Edited October 7, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

Extending this line of thinking to all forms of sin....where does that leave us in terms of our relationships with the rest of humanity? We could easily not extend privileges to all types of people based on sinful behavior. Is it case by case that we discriminate against sinners or should we severely limit the rights of anyone who sins?

Big UP! Lamanite

Of course, practicality advises that we as a nation prioritize and pick our battles.

However, your question incorrectly presuppose that the SSM debate is about restricting peoples rights. It isn't--your presupposition is one of those misnomers perpetrated by gay propaganda. Rather, it is about whether the fundamental right of marriage (defined as between a man and a woman), should be selectively and irrationally altered so as to give the governments endorsement to the sin of sex between homosexual couples.

The government has rightly gotten out of the business of restricting what homosexual may chose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms, bars, and bathhouses. Sadly, though, gay activists haven't been satisfied with that, and they now wish to go much further and bring the government back into their business, though this time by way of fabricating a new right and having the governments give its seal of approval.

And while the government has the ability to extend privileges to people based on their various sins, reason would suggest that this only be done if, from a cost/benefit analysis, it would be in the people's best interest to do so. Gay advocates have failed to make their case for state interest presumably because they have no rational case. If other people wish to privilege other sins by garnering state approval (typically in the form of licensing), then let them make their respective cases for state interest. Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 7, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Is it the govts role to provide "true love" to its citizens? That is, is it the role of govt to care for peoples salvation?

No. The role of the people as a government, is to act in their own best interest within the parameters of their respective constitutions. God's business is spiritual and eternal punishment for sins. The government's business is punishment for physical and temporal violation of the law.

Also. based on your comment above. It seems that you believe that God is responsible for punishing sin, not mankind. If that is the case should the govt punish/legislate based on sin.

No. It should be based on public morality and reason (which may rightly be influenced by religious beliefs).

I am not convinced the govt. ought to be concerned with our salvation nor that they should legistalte based on sin.

I agree with you to a point.

It seems to be more practical that govts, run by people, ought to limit themselves to matters of "Harm".

I think they should also be concerned with, to a limited extent, promoting what is in the people's best interest. The people as a government have a fundamental interest in securing their survival, not just in terms of protecting against their harm and death by way of war and otherwise, but also in terms of promoting the birth of new citizens and encouraging those children be raised in the ideal family structure, where there is a father and mother.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 7, 2012 by wenglund

[Vanguard]

Can you explain how not allowing a gay family to marry helps the children of that family? Are you objecting to gay marriage or are you objection to gay adoption?

That is a solid point and I had not sufficiently considered the issue as it relates to adoption. And I agree this in turn negatively affects the stability of that family & the children involved. The argument that therefore gays should not be allowed to adopt seems wrong on its face as well.

Have you considered not allowing a divorced person to every marry again? After all, they have a real history of destroying marriage and leaving children without a mother and father in the home. Love to hear your thoughts about these issues, since they seem to be the basis for your objection to gay marriage.

No one knows for sure the capacity of someone who has been divorced to make the needed changes to insure a more stable future marrriage. It's always possible and in fact happens daily throughout America where past wrongs are made right. To answer your question, just because the history of heterosexual marital unions have in their midst horrific examples of what not to do is not a sufficient argument for preventing the possiblity of making the needed improvement the next time around. Changing the parameters to include homosexual unions is not a commentary on improving the quality of marital unions but a complete change its definition.

Do you have any concerns with this definitional change?

Edited October 7, 2012 by Vanguard

[Lamanite]

Of course, practicality advises that we as a nation prioritize and pick our battles.

And why is it that marriage equality be one of those issues for American as a country? (Or a state if you're a states rights type of a guy) What verifiable realistic harm is threatening us? A list would be nice, then I can pick and choose which one's I would benefit from discussing.

However, your question incorrectly presuppose that the SSM debate is about restricting peoples rights. It isn't--your presupposition is one of those misnomers perpetrated by gay propaganda. Rather, it is about whether the fundamental right of marriage (defined as between a man and a woman), should be selectively and irrationally altered so as to give the governments endorsement to the sin of sex between homosexual couples.

So to me, you, and the Church- marriage is defined as a man and a women. (I actually think that a case could be made for arguing that any marriage that is not performed by the priesthood in a Temple is not a marriage but a perversion of something sacred God instituted beginning with Adam and Eve, but I'd rather not delve into that now)

So what if other people call their perverse behaviors and unions the same thing. I think that for a couple of reasons, most of which are emotional for me, we should embrace and extend marriage equality to homosexual. Of course as a people we need to figure out what our boundaries are and what behaviors we are willing to peacefully ignore, tolerate, or embrace. Can I extend marriage rights to a brother and sister wishing to get married. Nope. Can I extend marriage rights to A women and her cat? Nope. Why? Because in the case of the sister and brother I think that's horribly twisted and sick. That's a line I'm gonna draw. As for the women and the cat, both silly and sickening..

I don't know man. Keep it coming. I'm trying real hard to be cautious and open minded. Trying real hard to see this through the lens of faith and discipleship.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 7, 2012 by Lamanite

[CV75]

Can you explain how not allowing a gay family to marry helps the children of that family?

Marriage is primarily for procreation and the protection of children, since intimate relationships can be enjoyed without it. Its purpose is not for people to somehow lay claim to some sort of veneer of moral legitimacy to their sexual intimacy without procreating and protecting children.

In the case of male-female couples that cannot procreate, it at least supports society’s model for its ideal procreative and protective environment. Same sex “marriage” by its very nature is not a model for procreation and does not protect children by asserting this “experiment” as a legitimate alternative social model for them to adopt.

Adoption follows suit--the primarly issue should be the best interest of the child, as reflected above, not the self-interests of the adopting party(ies), no matter how noble he/she thinks they may be outside the model of legitimate marriage.

[RobertAC]

Marriage is primarily for procreation and the protection of children, since intimate relationships can be enjoyed without it. Its purpose is not for people to somehow lay claim to some sort of veneer of moral legitimacy to their sexual intimacy without procreating and protecting children.

Is procreation really necessary? We are at a state of humanity where the population explosion is going to threaten the survival of the world. I can understand why responsible parents who are interested in child-rearing should be allowed to do so, but shouldn't we tell everyone else to put the brakes on having kids unless they are willing to make the commitment to raising children properly?

And yes folks, I realize this question may result in the following:

Edited October 7, 2012 by RobertAC

[The Grimace]

However, your question incorrectly presuppose that the SSM debate is about restricting peoples rights. It isn't--your presupposition is one of those misnomers perpetrated by gay propaganda. Rather, it is about whether the fundamental right of marriage (defined as between a man and a woman), should be selectively and irrationally altered so as to give the governments endorsement to the sin of sex between homosexual couples.

And your response presupposes that marriage is a fundamental right without showing that it actually *is* a fundamental right (or a right at all).

[wenglund]

So what if other people call their perverse behaviors and unions the same thing. I think that for a couple of reasons, most of which are emotional for me, we should embrace and extend marriage equality to homosexual. Of course as a people we need to figure out what our boundaries are and what behaviors we are willing to peacefully ignore, tolerate, or embrace. Can I extend marriage rights to a brother and sister wishing to get married. Nope. Can I extend marriage rights to A women and her cat? Nope. Why? Because in the case of the sister and brother I think that's horribly twisted and sick. That's a line I'm gonna draw. As for the women and the cat, both silly and sickening. I don't know man. Keep it coming. I'm trying real hard to be cautious and open minded. Trying real hard to see this through the lens of faith and discipleship.

First of all, "marriage equality" is a farcical catch-phrase that perpetuates many of the misnomers of gay propaganda. Gay activists aren't advocating for marriage equality per se. Instead, they want the government to discriminate in their favor, and arbitrarily and capriciously included their sinful sexual relationships under the legal definition of marriage--whether it make sense to do so or not (see below).

And, in the most fundamental sense, it is physically impossible for so-called marriages of same-sex couples to be equal with those of heterosexual couples since the same-sex couple can't biologically produce their own families.

In a way, though, you are right. Why should we care what people wish to call themselves and their relationships? We shouldn't. If people want to consider themselves a cars, or trees, or planets, or Jello salad, or pretend their relationships as glue, or peanut butter, or marriage, or whatever, what is that to us? It is their business.

However, that isn't what the SSM issue is about. Gay advocates are going beyond asking us to let them call themselves whatever they want, to also asking us to call them whatever they want.

And, again, you are looking at this issue exactly backwards on several levels. It might help you to understand why our government got into the heterosexual marriage business to begin with. It wasn't with the intent to let heterosexual call themselves "married" since they were already doing so by way of religious and cultural ceremonies. Instead, our government got involved in heterosexual marriage for the same principle reason it got involved in discriminatory licensing of businesses, doctors, lawyers, teachers, pilots, auto drivers, etc., and the same principle reason it has enacted most all legislation--i.e. in terms of cost/benefit, it was in the people's interest to do so.

Our government thought it worthwhile to regulate and promote (via government sanction) heterosexual marriage because even given the enormous costs of the ongoing promotion, it was determined that the benefits in so doing exceeded the costs. It was deemed in the people's interest for the government to encourage legally solemizing the only natural type of pro-creative relationship and to promote the ideal fundamental structure of society--i.e the two-biological-parent family.

It makes sense, then, if gay advocates wish to go beyond calling themselves "married," to arbitrarily having the government and people call them "married," that they likewise demonstrate that it is in the people's interest to do so. They need to demonstrate that the huge cost incurred from extending legal marriage to homosexual couple is surmounted by the benefits derived from so doing. As indicated previously, they haven't made their case because the opposite is likely true--the cost far outweigh the benefits.

In other words, it is actually against the people's interest for the government to incur the cost of promoting and encouraging non-reproductive, devolutionary, delitarious (in various ways), sinful, sexual relationships and non-ideal familial structures. Doing so would be contrary to sound reason.

Does this help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 8, 2012 by wenglund

[CV75]

Is procreation really necessary?

Where would you be without it?