American Atheists Attack Church For Stance On Homosexuality

[california boy]

I'm not sure of the "far-off-results" that they "have further knowledge into"....are you referring to the church leadership's ability to see into the future (not meant sarcastically, but in reference to their ability {as believed by LDS members} to receive revelation regarding future events)?

Personally, I think that this particular stand is taken as much with regard to the LDS view of sin as it is with the church's desire to set themselves apart from the mainstream Christian community, which itself seems rather split on the debate (Episcopalians, Unitarians, etc. and similar faiths seem to be neutral on the issue, while LDS, Evangelicals, Catholics, etc. fight against gay marriage). The LDS church has has a history of being a "peculiar" church/religion, and it is often a stance that they embrace, as it sets them apart (things like WoW, temple, etc.). Their hard stand and political activity against gay marriage is not surprising, given the emphasis on family in the LDS church, but their level of political activeness regarding this issue does make them stand out from other large, mainstream religions....and when considering their previous, peculiar stands on things such as blacks and the priesthood, women's roles, etc., I think that drawing this political line in the sand adds to that mystique of peculiarity.

This does not answer my question either. There are plenty of sins that the church could take an equal stand against that would make them "pecular". In fact if they were this fanatical about EVERY sin they would stand out even more. Yet it is only gay marriage that they "build a tall wall against.

[california boy]

Waldon:

Many moons ago I was in a Stake in California where such was the case against porn.

Are you saying that many moons ago your stake in California supported legislation to take away the right for every person in California to view phonography? And that they asked all members in your stake to give their time and money to support such legislation?

I certainly get that the church speaks out against all sin. But that does not answer my question unless you are stating that they have a similar crusade to make viewing phonography illegal

[california boy]

Perhaps. I'm not sure. But I'm quite sure they received some sort of inspiration for doing something; they wouldn't have done something that serious without asking the Lord. Whether or not they saw the results, I don't know, but I'm sure they asked about it, and recieved some instruction concerning the issue; though what instruction they received, I know not.

Perhpas, perhaps not =).

No such revelation has ever been claimed or announced. If this comes by revelation from God don't you think that the membership as well as the whole world should be made aware of such a revelation? Other than a revelation from God it is just the GA doing what they THINK God possibly might want.

Do you really think that God wants his church known throughout the world as a homophobic church? Because like it or not, that is the perception many people have of the church because of prop 8, And they have that preception because it seems to be the only sin that the church feels it should crusade against.

[BlueDreams]

There are many churches who view homosexuality as a sin. But it is the crusade that the Mormon church has taken on that makes it stand out so strongly. What does the church have to gain by politically trying to impose its religious views on this one issue? What is the upside for the church? I realize that the church stands against what it feels are sins. But why this "tall wall against gay marriage"? Is it worth the price the church takes for its activism?

I'd agree with mark in that that's probably too strongly worded (the quoted question and these other ones). But I'll take a shot in the dark with it. I'd assume it would be about the absolute centrality of the family and gender in LDS theology. Coffee and tea aren't even close to the level of importance and significance as the family is. THere are underlying assumptions and principles to sex, gender, and family that are integral to LDS life, thought, and understanding of the world/eternities. They're among the most sacred of all relationships and are definitive to how we interact with each other.

With luv,

BD

[TAO]

No such revelation has ever been claimed or announced.

Well, I suppose it depends what you call revelation. Not revelation as in new material... but revelation as in what path the church should take. I'm sure you've heard of the story where all the apostles and the prophets recieved a sort of 'revelation' or 'inspiration' to get their funds out of the stock market in a certain area (for the for-profit branch of the church)... and then there was a crash. I think this is something similar. I don't know if they recieves specifics... like 'if you don't do this, that will happen', or if they just recieved an inkling, but it would be my guess that they prayed and recieved some sort of guidance before issuing a public letter like they did in Prop 8.

If this comes by revelation from God don't you think that the membership as well as the whole world should be made aware of such a revelation? Other than a revelation from God it is just the GA doing what they THINK God possibly might want.

Wasn't that the point of the letter?

Do you really think that God wants his church known throughout the world as a homophobic church? Because like it or not, that is the perception many people have of the church because of prop 8

No, I don't think he does. But God doesn't take away people's agency to call us homophobic, even though I don't really think we are. We'll move on, the gospel will move on, the work will move on, ever going forward. Joseph Smith once said, "

“The Standard of Truth has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. Persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame. But the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and dependent till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, until the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah will say, ‘The work is done.'” I think that's sort of what will happen. They will critique, but the work will move forward ever still.

And they have that preception because it seems to be the only sin that the church feels it should crusade against.

Kind of like they feel they should have a crusade against the church no? ;-).

Nah, life isn't fair, and people don't see things clearly. The church is alot fairer to people who disagree with it than many think it is. And certainly alot fairer than they are to the church, much of the time =p. Alas, that's the way it is... the church needs to see further than the bitter quarrels people have =).

In any case, I think you'd find the Church has a similar crusade against pornography. And for that matter, many of the sexual sins. And it's greatest crusade is simply to try and get people to listen to the Spirit; because that makes the Chruch work; it makes it right. The effort the church puts twoards those things is not a bad thing in my point of view.

[california boy]

Well, I suppose it depends what you call revelation. Not revelation as in new material... but revelation as in what path the church should take. I'm sure you've heard of the story where all the apostles and the prophets recieved a sort of 'revelation' or 'inspiration' to get their funds out of the stock market in a certain area (for the for-profit branch of the church)... and then there was a crash. I think this is something similar. I don't know if they recieves specifics... like 'if you don't do this, that will happen', or if they just recieved an inkling, but it would be my guess that they prayed and recieved some sort of guidance before issuing a public letter like they did in Prop 8.

Wasn't that the point of the letter?

No, I don't think he does. But God doesn't take away people's agency to call us homophobic, even though I don't really think we are. We'll move on, the gospel will move on, the work will move on, ever going forward. Joseph Smith once said, "

“The Standard of Truth has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing. Persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame. But the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and dependent till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, until the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the Great Jehovah will say, ‘The work is done.'” I think that's sort of what will happen. They will critique, but the work will move forward ever still.

Kind of like they feel they should have a crusade against the church no? ;-).

Nah, life isn't fair, and people don't see things clearly. The church is alot fairer to people who disagree with it than many think it is. And certainly alot fairer than they are to the church, much of the time =p. Alas, that's the way it is... the church needs to see further than the bitter quarrels people have =).

In any case, I think you'd find the Church has a similar crusade against pornography. And for that matter, many of the sexual sins. And it's greatest crusade is simply to try and get people to listen to the Spirit; because that makes the Chruch work; it makes it right. The effort the church puts twoards those things is not a bad thing in my point of view.

There is no doubt that those supporting gay marriage have a crusade against the church. And it is prop 8 that brought on that crusade. Before the churches involvement, there was never any of the kind of push-back from supporters of SSM against the church. Sometimes I wonder what the church expected would happen because of their political involvement.

As far as other sins that you mentioned, there is nothing that the church has done addressing those sins like they did against homosexuality.

[california boy]

I'd agree with mark in that that's probably too strongly worded (the quoted question and these other ones). But I'll take a shot in the dark with it. I'd assume it would be about the absolute centrality of the family and gender in LDS theology. Coffee and tea aren't even close to the level of importance and significance as the family is. THere are underlying assumptions and principles to sex, gender, and family that are integral to LDS life, thought, and understanding of the world/eternities. They're among the most sacred of all relationships and are definitive to how we interact with each other.

With luv,

BD

So is it your belief that gay marriage is the biggest sin one can commit because it creates families of same sex couples? And do you think that gay marriage somehow effects what is integral to LDS life?

you may be right. I just have never heard this level of sin put on homosexuality.

[Calm]

you may be right. I just have never heard this level of sin put on homosexuality.

Knowing BD, I rather doubt you've heard this now. I suspect she thinks things such as murder and kidnapping are worst.

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying that many moons ago your stake in California supported legislation to take away the right for every person in California to view phonography? And that they asked all members in your stake to give their time and money to support such legislation?

I certainly get that the church speaks out against all sin. But that does not answer my question unless you are stating that they have a similar crusade to make viewing phonography illegal

Yes.

I don't have a problem with the Church speaking out against all sin. I do have a problem when it(or anyone else) tries to dictate how I vote.

[california boy]

Yes.

I don't have a problem with the Church speaking out against all sin. I do have a problem when it(or anyone else) tries to dictate how I vote.

I don't have a problem with the Church speaking out against all sin. In fact, I think it is a primary function of the church. I would just like to know why the church seems to be making such a political issue in regards to gay marriage as opposed to all the other sins in the world.

I would be inerested in learning more about the political action the church took in your stake with regards to ponography. Could you point me to more information?

Thanks

[USU78]

I don't have a problem with the Church speaking out against all sin. In fact, I think it is a primary function of the church.

I question this, ca, but perhaps that's because I'm misremembering. I have a pretty clear recollection of you joining Dan'l and a couple of others in savaging Elder Packer regarding the "little factories" talk in Priesthood Session back about '76.

That's speaking out against sin.

Yet it's universally decried amongst practicing homosexuals who are aware of it.

How do you square this?

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

While any/all sin will separate us from God, so must be repented of. There are some sins that are more damaging than others. IE; If I say something stronger than of "Oh goshy darn" when I hurt myself that is something different than if I walk up to stranger and punch them in the nose for no legitimate reason. The Church sees homosexual actions as a grievous sin, next to murder itself. For the State to give its imprimatur to it redefines a basic principle of society/community itself.

Myself; I would like to see the State get out the marrying business all together, and make all of them Civil Unions and let the churches perform whatever marriage ceremony they, and their adherents prefer.

As I said it was many moons ago, and I have forgotten a lot of the details. However it seemed at the time it was just that Stake and not the Church as a whole was doing it.

[sheilauk]

There are many churches who view homosexuality as a sin. But it is the crusade that the Mormon church has taken on that makes it stand out so strongly. What does the church have to gain by politically trying to impose its religious views on this one issue? What is the upside for the church? I realize that the church stands against what it feels are sins. But why this "tall wall against gay marriage"? Is it worth the price the church takes for its activism?

The Church is responding to an issue which is being campaigned for by others. That is not a crusade. Perhaps if there were a strong campaign to legalise drugs, the Church would speak out about that. Has the Church begun any campaign? I'm not aware of any. Does it speak out on moral issues of the day? Yes. It is not the only Church to take a strong stance, isn't the Catholic church equally against it? Did the Catholic Church support or oppose prop 8? In the UK, there is also a campaign to bring in same sex marriages and the Anglican Church (the State Church of England and Wales) has spoken out against it in exactly the same way as the LDS church and receives the same criticisms. The Church is not political. There is no "upside" to campaign for. It is stating its views and asking members to act as they think fit. Is the Church not allowed to join in the debate? There are people who aren't church goers who oppose same sex marriage, though I grant not the majority. The issue for the Church? perhaps its "mission creep". In the UK, we have civil partnerships, brought it to give homosexuals in a partnership the same rights as married heterosexuals (heterosexuals in a partnership still have limited rights). This was supposed to be acceptable and stop the calls for marriage, but it didn't. The campaigners say that churches will able to refuse to marry homosexuals. How long before they campaign to disallow that? In the UK, the Anglican Church has a real problem because it is the state church so how can it refuse, even if it is against their beliefs? Campaigners don't want the church beliefs imposed on them, but want to impose their beliefs on the Church. Is it worth putting up a wall to prevent that?

[Stargazer]

Are you saying that many moons ago your stake in California supported legislation to take away the right for every person in California to view phonography? And that they asked all members in your stake to give their time and money to support such legislation?

I certainly get that the church speaks out against all sin. But that does not answer my question unless you are stating that they have a similar crusade to make viewing phonography illegal

On the contrary, I certainly believe that everyone has the right to view phonography any time they want. Problem is, it's the deaf who are discriminated against when it comes to phonography. And you simply cannot find reasonably priced phonographs any more. It's a serious problem. I think the government should intervene.

Just couldn't resist, CB. Sorry for the diversion! Now back to the thread...

As it turns out, gay marriage is not a sin. Homosexual acts are sinful, but you don't see the Church out there campaigning to recriminalize this behavior.

Proclaiming that a man can marry a man and that a woman can marry a woman is a significant modification to the societal fabric, and you don't think that the Church should have a concern over it? If some well-meaning person came to the conclusion that parents were not qualified to raise their own children, and that a government agency should do it instead, well, can you name the sin that taking children from parents would be? I certainly can't find it in the scriptures. But should the Church also not fight against it, regardless of who is for it? Your likely position on the issue of gay marriage is probably something like "It can't hurt, so why not?" The Church's position is probably something like "You don't know it can't hurt, and civil unions have all or most of the likely benefits for same-sex couples, so why not just stop there?" Which is my position.

[RobertAC]

It is rather extreme to call it a crusade. The Church's comments have been balanced and even-tempered.

As for why the Church takes the stand it does and what it has to gain, look at it this way. The Church's mission is to bring people to Christ and to make available the saving ordinances such as baptism. Baptism is available to all on condition of repentance. Homosexual behavior is sinful in LDS theology.

Mark, I would tend to agree with California's characterization. In the past, the LDS Church leadership's treatment of gay and lesbian people has been abysmal, and its fixation on gay marriage has been -- how can I say this -- odd in its intensity.

The LDS' mission may be to bring people to Christ, but not all are going to accept Christ while they are alive. A church that meddles in legal and civil affairs is fair game for criticism much like a politician would be for taking a political position. People who had no knowledge of Mormonism, and no desire to convert to Christianity, were affected by the church's stance on homosexuality. They were justified in their anger, and their should be no sympathy to cries of victimization by Mormon leadership after Prop 8 passed. If you role in the political mud, you get dirty.

That said, since Prop 8, the LDS Church leadership has improved its relationship with the gay community in big leaps and bounds. It's noticed, but not by everyone. However, that will change with time. The past is the past. Hopefully, LDS leadership will continue to move into a more positive direction.

[Walden]

Proclaiming that a man can marry a man and that a woman can marry a woman is a significant modification to the societal fabric, and you don't think that the Church should have a concern over it? If some well-meaning person came to the conclusion that parents were not qualified to raise their own children, and that a government agency should do it instead, well, can you name the sin that taking children from parents would be? I certainly can't find it in the scriptures. But should the Church also not fight against it, regardless of who is for it? Your likely position on the issue of gay marriage is probably something like "It can't hurt, so why not?" The Church's position is probably something like "You don't know it can't hurt, and civil unions have all or most of the likely benefits for same-sex couples, so why not just stop there?" Which is my position.

Your analogy falls flat in the scenario that you describe, in comparing the government taking away children from their parents to the plight of gay couples seeking the same rights as heterosexual couples. In your scenario, the government is directly perpetrating harm to families by physically taking children from their parents. In the gay marriage debate, the government is extending rights to homosexual couples that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples....the government is not separating families and nobody's rights are being infringed upon (how does the fact that the gay couple next door is married take away any rights in your hetero marriage?).

And I can't speak for everyone, but as a supporter of gay marriage, my attitude is not "It can't hurt, so why not?" My support comes from my belief that even though I have my own moral code and beliefs about "right and wrong," my personal moral code should not be imposed on all of society, especially when the activities that I oppose do not infringe on my own liberties, freedoms, safety or my own pursuit of happiness.

[Mark Beesley]

Do you support legislation prohibiting alcohol, tea, coffee, tobacco, unnecessary drugs, premarital/nonmartial sex, pornography, swearing, and bikini bathing suits?

No, and the attempt to try and draw some kind of analogy between these activities and what we are talking about is rather silly.

For as long as I can remember, a significant characteristic of marriage was that it legitimized sexual relationships between a man and woman. Not all married persons could necessarily have children, but they shared a societal (and divine) acceptance of the legitimacy of their sexual relationship. Sure, you could have sex outside of marriage, but it was frowned upon. That began to change in the 60s, and is no longer viewed by society as negatively (though I suspect God's view has remained consistent); however, government has not taken affirmative action to imbue people engaged in extra-marital sex with some kind of official legitimacy. (Look at taxes, for example.) A similar analysis can be made with regard to the other things on your list.

Now, let's take a look at homosexual behaviors. While homosexual behavior may not be viewed by society at large as being deviant to the degree it was 40 or 50 years ago, it remains a behavior that is viewed as sinful in LDS theology. At the same time, marriage is held sacrosanct in the Church as an institution ordained of God. For a government that has already unwisely involved itself in regulating this divine institution, to then turn it on its head and offer the same level of sexual legitimacy to a group that is involved in behaviors that are anathema to the Plan of Salvation is an act that the Church cannot help but to oppose.

[Stargazer]

Your analogy falls flat in the scenario that you describe, in comparing the government taking away children from their parents to the plight of gay couples seeking the same rights as heterosexual couples. In your scenario, the government is directly perpetrating harm to families by physically taking children from their parents. In the gay marriage debate, the government is extending rights to homosexual couples that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples....the government is not separating families and nobody's rights are being infringed upon (how does the fact that the gay couple next door is married take away any rights in your hetero marriage?).

My analogy suffers from the fact of uniqueness: there is little in the way of analogous situations that I can use.

If I try to compare gay marriage to a man that is so in love with his car that he wants to marry it, it fails because a car is not a person. There are other analogies that would likewise fail, and some which would be considered lewd to even suggest.

The prospect of a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman is bereft of reason. For all of human history "marriage" has meant a relationship between a man and a woman. Calling the unisex couple next door "married" does not change the nature of my marriage, but does violence to the language and reason itself. In my humble opinion. And stamps that unisex relationship as equal to a heterosexual marriage, which it most certainly is not.

And I can't speak for everyone, but as a supporter of gay marriage, my attitude is not "It can't hurt, so why not?" My support comes from my belief that even though I have my own moral code and beliefs about "right and wrong," my personal moral code should not be imposed on all of society, especially when the activities that I oppose do not infringe on my own liberties, freedoms, safety or my own pursuit of happiness.

As for the "plight" of gay couples seeking the same rights as heterosexual couples. Balderdash. There is no "plight". Under civil union laws such partners can (and do) inherit from each other, act in pretty much all ways as if they were a heterosexual married couple, without perhaps the "dignity" of calling it marriage. And it isn't marriage! Calling it marriage maligns the word. Calling a marigold a rose does not improve the marigold, nor the rose. Calling a gay relationship a marriage does nothing to make it a marriage.

But apparently your personal moral code, namely your attitude that there should be this contradiction-in-terms called "gay marriage", is currently in the process of being stuffed down the throats of society; quite actively in the case of my own state of Washington. Referendum R74 on the ballot. The newspaper here is all in favor of it and is crowing that the polls show that it will pass. And maybe it will.

There was some bill in the Kentucky legislature (or was it Tennessee) many years ago that attempted to change the value of Pi to some rational value. If they had succeeded in making that a law, it still would not have changed the value of Pi. It would have created a legal fiction; much as "gay marriage" would be a legal fiction.

[Mark Beesley]

By that logic, pornography is sinful in LDS theology. I have yet to see the LDS church take an active, political role in trying to enforce legislation against pornography for those who are not LDS. I mean, I realize that it might be harder to obtain in Utah (thus leading to the high internet pornography rates in Utah), but I have never seen the LDS church campaign here in California against laws that allow citizens to view such material.

If it simply about sinful behavior, then what makes homosexuality worth a political fight, but not pornography?

If there was a traditional requirement for a licence in order to publish pictures, and pictures published without such a license were looked upon with derision, and pornographers had never been granted such a license, and then the government decided to license pornographers and give them the same level of respectability as previously licensed works, then your question might be relevant. But non-pornographic literature has not traditionally been subject to governmental legitimization through licensing, so I fail to see your point.

[Mark Beesley]

I clearly understand both the policy of including gay members if they are celebate as well as the belief that a person has to repent of sins to be baptized. And that actually is my question.

Why the tall wall against gay marriage? What does the church gain by demonizing it?

As far as I am aware homosexuality is not the only sin a person is required to repent from. Yet this is the one sin the church has decided to crusade about. Yes, it is a crusade when you do what the church did to take away the rights of gay couples to marry. Maybe if you could name just one sin that the church and its members have crusaded against in a similar way I would understand your position.

Gay marriage is not a sin. Homosexual behavior is a sin. Marriage is ordained of God as between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is an artificial construct to legitimize sin.

The "right" of gays to marry was also an artificial construct created by courts out of whole cloth.

Taking away artificial sweeteners is a time-honored American tradition.

[Mark Beesley]

Mark, I would tend to agree with California's characterization. In the past, the LDS Church leadership's treatment of gay and lesbian people has been abysmal, and its fixation on gay marriage has been -- how can I say this -- odd in its intensity.

Do you have specific, verifiable examples of how "the LDS Church leadership's treatment of gay and lesbian people has been abysmal" in the past?

Thanks.

[Mark Beesley]

And I can't speak for everyone, but as a supporter of gay marriage, my attitude is not "It can't hurt, so why not?" My support comes from my belief that even though I have my own moral code and beliefs about "right and wrong," my personal moral code should not be imposed on all of society, especially when the activities that I oppose do not infringe on my own liberties, freedoms, safety or my own pursuit of happiness.

I do not share your insulated view of your place in society.

We know from scripture that the Lord causes it to rain on the just as well as the unjust. We also know from scripture that when the voice of the people chooses unrighteousness, then the people are ripe for the judgments of God.

Thus, I believe that if we, as a people, ever vote to legitimize homosexual behaviors by recognizing gay marriage as a institution worthy of the same level respect as traditional marriage, then I think we will be ripe for the judgments of God, and I don't want myself, my wife, my children, my grandchildren, or any of my extended family or friends to get caught in the ensuing rain.

But I only think that way because I am a Christian socialist and believe we are all responsible for each other's well-being.

[california boy]

I question this, ca, but perhaps that's because I'm misremembering. I have a pretty clear recollection of you joining Dan'l and a couple of others in savaging Elder Packer regarding the "little factories" talk in Priesthood Session back about '76.

That's speaking out against sin.

Yet it's universally decried amongst practicing homosexuals who are aware of it.

How do you square this?

I have never had a problem with anyone in the church calling homosexuality a sin including Elder Packer. But if this is the talk where he said it was ok to physically attack someone that you think mingt be coming on to you, yeah, I am agaisnt that kind of physical violence when simply saying I am not gay usually works just fine. Maybe that is what you remember.

[california boy]

CB:

While any/all sin will separate us from God, so must be repented of. There are some sins that are more damaging than others. IE; If I say something stronger than of "Oh goshy darn" when I hurt myself that is something different than if I walk up to stranger and punch them in the nose for no legitimate reason. The Church sees homosexual actions as a grievous sin, next to murder itself. For the State to give its imprimatur to it redefines a basic principle of society/community itself.

Myself; I would like to see the State get out the marrying business all together, and make all of them Civil Unions and let the churches perform whatever marriage ceremony they, and their adherents prefer.

As I said it was many moons ago, and I have forgotten a lot of the details. However it seemed at the time it was just that Stake and not the Church as a whole was doing it.

Murder involves killing someone without their concent. It is ending a life on this earth. Homosexuality is between two consenting people. Gay marriage is the coming together of two adults that love each other and want to share a life together. I think it is pretty twisted if what you say is true, that homosexuality is second only to murder. Is this really what members are taught? If so, I can certainly understand why the church would make such a crusade against gay marriage. In fact, I am surprised the church is not activally calling members to arms over the states that are voting to legalize gay marriage in this election cycle. Don't you think it should be if this is such a grevious issue??

[Walden]

My analogy suffers from the fact of uniqueness: there is little in the way of analogous situations that I can use.

If I try to compare gay marriage to a man that is so in love with his car that he wants to marry it, it fails because a car is not a person. There are other analogies that would likewise fail, and some which would be considered lewd to even suggest.

The prospect of a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman is bereft of reason. For all of human history "marriage" has meant a relationship between a man and a woman. Calling the unisex couple next door "married" does not change the nature of my marriage, but does violence to the language and reason itself. In my humble opinion. And stamps that unisex relationship as equal to a heterosexual marriage, which it most certainly is not.

As for the "plight" of gay couples seeking the same rights as heterosexual couples. Balderdash. There is no "plight". Under civil union laws such partners can (and do) inherit from each other, act in pretty much all ways as if they were a heterosexual married couple, without perhaps the "dignity" of calling it marriage. And it isn't marriage! Calling it marriage maligns the word. Calling a marigold a rose does not improve the marigold, nor the rose. Calling a gay relationship a marriage does nothing to make it a marriage.

But apparently your personal moral code, namely your attitude that there should be this contradiction-in-terms called "gay marriage", is currently in the process of being stuffed down the throats of society; quite actively in the case of my own state of Washington. Referendum R74 on the ballot. The newspaper here is all in favor of it and is crowing that the polls show that it will pass. And maybe it will.

There was some bill in the Kentucky legislature (or was it Tennessee) many years ago that attempted to change the value of Pi to some rational value. If they had succeeded in making that a law, it still would not have changed the value of Pi. It would have created a legal fiction; much as "gay marriage" would be a legal fiction.

Regarding your disdain for the use of the term "plight" in gays seeking the right to marry....you do know that there are still a number of restrictions related to civil unions versus heterosexual marriages, right? Namely, since civil unions are granted at the state level, and not permitted by all states, couples may not be able to retain their benefits when they cross state lines. Also, federal protections such as tax and social security benefits are unavailable to the civilly united. The immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse are greater for married couples than for civil union couples. Etc, etc. The deception that you continue to spout, that marriages and civil unions are different in name only is just not true.

With regard to your argument that gay marriage is "currently in the process of being stuffed down the throats of society; quite actively in the case of my own state of Washington. Referendum R74 on the ballot"....are you an enemy of democracy as well? If that referendum is approved by the majority of voters, who is stuffing anything down the throats of society? The matter is being voted on democratically. Sorry to tell you, but that's how democracy works. For those who want to chime in, "what about the Prop 8 vote in California," well, the difference is that the referendum in Washington does not infringe upon anyone's constitutional rights. How are your federally protected rights as a heterosexual married couple infringed upon if a homosexual couple is "married?"