Lds Church Files Friend Of The Court Brief W/ Scotus Re: Prop 8, Doma

[california boy]

How about this one -- "you are using religion to deny me my rights", or even better, "that is racist."

Two very good examples of slippery slope arguments. Yes both sides love slippery slope arguements and should be called out for doing so. It is why religion is not part of the legal criteris for deciding prop 8. Slippery slope arguments do not hold up in court.

[jwhitlock]

I didn't realize that their "agenda" of full inclusion and acceptance was in doubt. Just as your desire to not have homosexual activity normalized in society is not in doubt (am I capturing that correctly, if not I apologize and hope you'll correct me).

The Supreme Court has stood on the side of the BSA in its right of association. And I agree completely agree with that decision even though I simultaneously feel that the BSA should not exclude based solely on orientation. It's their decision to make.

Similarly, I think that full marriage equality should be the law of the land. And yet, I have no concerns that our temple ceremonies will be untouchable due to the first amendment. We might lose the ability to have a temple sealing be recognized as a legal marriage but that's already the case in other areas of the world where I've lived and it doesn't make me lose any sleep. Our temple ceremonies are beautiful and deeply meaningful with our without government backing.

I still feel it was a mistake for the church to file the brief... I think our involvement in Prop 8 stands in contrast to the beliefs we espouse in D&C 134 and the 11th Article of Faith.

The agenda of full inclusion and acceptance that they have is unqualified. In other words, the rest of us are being demanded that we accept gays, gay behavior, gay lifestyles, etc. without any restriction or qualification. I know of no other group that has ever demanded such a broad spectrum of acceptance. The entire situation has caused the church and its members to more carefully define their perspective towards gays; hence, SSA in and of itself is not something we oppose or see as a sin. However, we've become much more careful to address gay lifestyles and behavior as something incompatible with the gospel and its values.

The danger here is that eventually the courts may determine that opposition or issues with gay behavior or lifestyles are something that is discriminatory in all cases. The BSA issue gives us a good look at what the intent of gay rights groups is, and that is to force all BSA units, regardless of religious concerns or association rights, to accept gays - and to do so without regard to their behavior or lifestyle. I find that dangerous on a variety of levels.

While the Supreme Court stood on the side of the BSA, that didn't stop sanctioning of the BSA by other government groups. If the BSA wants to exclude based on behavior - not just orientation - gay rights groups would oppose that.

I'm of the opinion that the church will be demanded - whether licensed for marriage or not - to seal gays at some point. I don't know how the church will respond at that point, but I do see it headed in that direction. The BSA situation is just one more indication of that. My opposition to SSM has always been that it won't stop there. The total inclusiveness demands of gay rights groups, without regard to behavior, and superseding religions and associative freedoms, make it necessary to oppose them at this point.

[california boy]

You need to re-read what I've posted. I've been clear in making the point that gay rights groups' responses to the BSA policy are revealing of what their ultimate agendas are. The BSA embodies two fundamental rights (as I outlined in my post above), and I see those rights as being attacked by gay groups who want inclusiveness of gay lifestyles to be forced upon all segments of society. That's where this is headed.

So what is your point? That gays want equality and inclusiveness? Is this a surprise to anyone?

What you haven't made the case for is that either the BSA or religion will be FORCED to do anything it does not want to.

Here is the problem that you have failed to support with ANY facts.

I see those rights as being attacked by gay groups who want inclusiveness of gay lifestyles to be forced upon all segments of society. That's where this is headed.

You haven't given a single example of force being used. You have no argument. You have no grounds for your slippery slope. Pressure? yes. Force? Nope.

[jwhitlock]

So what is your point? That gays want equality and inclusiveness? Is this a surprise to anyone?

What you haven't made the case for is that either the BSA or religion will be FORCED to do anything it does not want to.

Here is the problem that you have failed to support with ANY facts.

You haven't given a single example of force being used. You have no argument. You have no grounds for your slippery slope. Pressure? yes. Force? Nope.

I guess I need to repeat myself. Gays want acceptance without regard to their behavior. They want acceptance of their lifestyle. The BSA situation is an indication of that agenda. The demand for that level of acceptance is unique and creates a unique class of rights that overrides basic freedoms of religion and association.

It's irrelevant as to whether the BSA is being forced to do anything or not. The single interesting point of all this is the agenda gay rights groups are displaying in how they want the BSA to change. It is acceptance of everything gay, including behavior, without reservation. Do you honestly thing that particular agenda is just confined to the BSA situation? I'm not so naive as to think it is.

With that agenda being rather clearly demonstrated in the BSA situation. it's not unreasonable to think that the same agenda will drive SSM. Since the agenda subordinates freedom of religion and association to demands for inclusiveness without regard to gay behavior or lifestyle - again, as demonstrated by the BSA situation - I think it is not unreasonable to foresee that religious exemptions in SSM laws will eventually be challenged by gay rights groups and overturned.

Again, the key here is that the agenda of gay rights groups is TOTAL inclusion. There's nothing partial about it, and it demands acceptance of anything and everything gay, including behaviors and lifestyles that the principles of the gospel proscribe.

You're free to simply deny it all and say it will never happen. They way things are headed, and the increasing demands gay rights groups have at each step are clear evidence that support my assertions.

[Storm Rider]

So what is your point? That gays want equality and inclusiveness? Is this a surprise to anyone?

What you haven't made the case for is that either the BSA or religion will be FORCED to do anything it does not want to.

Here is the problem that you have failed to support with ANY facts.

You haven't given a single example of force being used. You have no argument. You have no grounds for your slippery slope. Pressure? yes. Force? Nope.

It is not that they want equality and inclusiveness, but they demand acceptance of every perversion known to man. You and I both know full well that this is not, and never has been, about one individual's love for another and seeking acceptance and equality. This is a full blown assault on any shred of moral dignity. We both know that the gay life style is not simplistic or uplifting; many parts of it are as detrimental to good health as one can get. You and I can agree on some things, but I would really like for some honesty in the conversation. There has been no effort on the part of the gay community to draw boundaries for behavior and that is what is significant. They do not want boundaries; they want a no holds barred, complete acceptance of perversion. I challenge any straight person to sit down with a gay men in their community and discuss exactly what is entailed in their lifestyle and then tell me with a straight face that we should not be alarmed, not seek some restraint, some degree of condemnation of perversion. This entire conversation would be more healthy if the gay community had any inkling of backbone to condemn parts of what goes on. It angers me that they smile in my face and look at be with benign innocence all they while they cross their fingers and pray that no one is willing to pull the curtain back and see how sick some of this lifestyle is for its participants. If this was only limited to Tom and Joe getting married, then I cannot see any way to stop it as a free society; however, it goes to far when they demand complete acceptance. We should not accept it and you should not accept it. No sane individual should accept it. I apologize for the rant, but it sort of busts out of me every know and then. Let's just be honest about what will happen and what is being demanded of the rest of society.

You are out of the thread.

[california boy]

I know of no other group that has ever demanded such a broad spectrum of acceptance.

LOL. Here are a few you might have missed. The Irish, the Catholics, the Jews, the latino, the blacks etc. You must not have been around in the 60's where the black population in some cities rioted and burned parts of the city to the ground over this issue of equality. What the heck do you think black power was all about? What were they fighting for?

The danger here is that eventually the courts may determine that opposition or issues with gay behavior or lifestyles are something that is discriminatory in all cases. The BSA issue gives us a good look at what the intent of gay rights groups is, and that is to force all BSA units, regardless of religious concerns or association rights, to accept gays - and to do so without regard to their behavior or lifestyle. I find that dangerous on a variety of levels.

What is the danger to the church of a group demanding equality? They can't force the church or the BSA to be inclusive. Religious freedom is very clearly defined in this country.

While the Supreme Court stood on the side of the BSA, that didn't stop sanctioning of the BSA by other government groups. If the BSA wants to exclude based on behavior - not just orientation - gay rights groups would oppose that.

The BSA may choose to discriminate against any group it so chooses including Mormons. But that doesn't mean that the government or any other group is forced to make donations or support them in their discrimination.

I'm of the opinion that the church will be demanded - whether licensed for marriage or not - to seal gays at some point. I don't know how the church will respond at that point, but I do see it headed in that direction. The BSA situation is just one more indication of that. My opposition to SSM has always been that it won't stop there. The total inclusiveness demands of gay rights groups, without regard to behavior, and superseding religions and associative freedoms, make it necessary to oppose them at this point.

Fear is a powerful blinder that alows some to throw out reason and facts. Thanks for reminding us of that.

[rockpond]

The agenda of full inclusion and acceptance that they have is unqualified. In other words, the rest of us are being demanded that we accept gays, gay behavior, gay lifestyles, etc. without any restriction or qualification. I know of no other group that has ever demanded such a broad spectrum of acceptance. The entire situation has caused the church and its members to more carefully define their perspective towards gays; hence, SSA in and of itself is not something we oppose or see as a sin. However, we've become much more careful to address gay lifestyles and behavior as something incompatible with the gospel and its values.

The danger here is that eventually the courts may determine that opposition or issues with gay behavior or lifestyles are something that is discriminatory in all cases. The BSA issue gives us a good look at what the intent of gay rights groups is, and that is to force all BSA units, regardless of religious concerns or association rights, to accept gays - and to do so without regard to their behavior or lifestyle. I find that dangerous on a variety of levels.

While the Supreme Court stood on the side of the BSA, that didn't stop sanctioning of the BSA by other government groups. If the BSA wants to exclude based on behavior - not just orientation - gay rights groups would oppose that.

I'm of the opinion that the church will be demanded - whether licensed for marriage or not - to seal gays at some point. I don't know how the church will respond at that point, but I do see it headed in that direction. The BSA situation is just one more indication of that. My opposition to SSM has always been that it won't stop there. The total inclusiveness demands of gay rights groups, without regard to behavior, and superseding religions and associative freedoms, make it necessary to oppose them at this point.

Didn't we demand full, unqualified inclusion and acceptance of Blacks? Cause I think that's been a good thing.

In what ways have government groups sanctioned the BSA?

I'd prefer we try to limit the enmity by supporting marriage equality now (or at least not working against it). That way, if the day ever comes that a court tries to force us to violate our religious principles, we'll be able to stand on firm moral footing knowing that we fought for the rights of others.

[california boy]

I guess I need to repeat myself. Gays want acceptance without regard to their behavior. They want acceptance of their lifestyle. The BSA situation is an indication of that agenda. The demand for that level of acceptance is unique and creates a unique class of rights that overrides basic freedoms of religion and association.

It's irrelevant as to whether the BSA is being forced to do anything or not. The single interesting point of all this is the agenda gay rights groups are displaying in how they want the BSA to change. It is acceptance of everything gay, including behavior, without reservation. Do you honestly thing that particular agenda is just confined to the BSA situation? I'm not so naive as to think it is.

With that agenda being rather clearly demonstrated in the BSA situation. it's not unreasonable to think that the same agenda will drive SSM. Since the agenda subordinates freedom of religion and association to demands for inclusiveness without regard to gay behavior or lifestyle - again, as demonstrated by the BSA situation - I think it is not unreasonable to foresee that religious exemptions in SSM laws will eventually be challenged by gay rights groups and overturned.

Again, the key here is that the agenda of gay rights groups is TOTAL inclusion. There's nothing partial about it, and it demands acceptance of anything and everything gay, including behaviors and lifestyles that the principles of the gospel proscribe.

You're free to simply deny it all and say it will never happen. They way things are headed, and the increasing demands gay rights groups have at each step are clear evidence that support my assertions.

Does this mean that you are no longer supporting your statement that those who support gay equality is FORCING anyone to do anything? FINALLY. It took a while, but we finally got there.

[cdowis]

Two very good examples of slippery slope arguments. Yes both sides love slippery slope arguements and should be called out for doing so. It is why religion is not part of the legal criteris for deciding prop 8. Slippery slope arguments do not hold up in court.

But religion principles can be part of the public discourse.

Speaking of slippery slope, I noted that the issue of voter ID at least partially revolves around potential massive voter fraud, so it is not completely absent from legal discourse.

[california boy]

It is not that they want equality and inclusiveness, but they demand acceptance of every perversion known to man. You and I both know full well that this is not, and never has been, about one individual's love for another and seeking acceptance and equality. This is a full blown assault on any shred of moral dignity. We both know that the gay life style is not simplistic or uplifting; many parts of it are as detrimental to good health as one can get. You and I can agree on some things, but I would really like for some honesty in the conversation. There has been no effort on the part of the gay community to draw boundaries for behavior and that is what is significant. They do not want boundaries; they want a no holds barred, complete acceptance of perversion. I challenge any straight person to sit down with a gay men in their community and discuss exactly what is entailed in their lifestyle and then tell me with a straight face that we should not be alarmed, not seek some restraint, some degree of condemnation of perversion. This entire conversation would be more healthy if the gay community had any inkling of backbone to condemn parts of what goes on. It angers me that they smile in my face and look at be with benign innocence all they while they cross their fingers and pray that no one is willing to pull the curtain back and see how sick some of this lifestyle is for its participants. If this was only limited to Tom and Joe getting married, then I cannot see any way to stop it as a free society; however, it goes to far when they demand complete acceptance. We should not accept it and you should not accept it. No sane individual should accept it. I apologize for the rant, but it sort of busts out of me every know and then. Let's just be honest about what will happen and what is being demanded of the rest of society.

I guess you like to stereotype gays into one inclusive category. Perhaps you can point out exactly what gays are doing that is not also done by straights? Give me just ONE thing that a gay person does that is different than what a straight person also does. Do we not allow those that fornicate to be married, join the BSA, attend church, teach school, be a police officer, or stop them from participating in an legal activity? How about an adulterer? Or someone who has one night stands, or what ever else you think gays are doing that you don't agree with. How is this group any different than any other group?

Gays are also doctors, lawyers, politicians, artists, writers, faithfully married, raise families, attend church, play sports, do laundry, provide for their parents, donate to charity, and live happy and fulfilled lives. Quit demonizing an entire group of people.

[california boy]

But religion principles can be part of the public discourse.

Speaking of slippery slope, I noted that the issue of voter ID at least partially revolves around potential massive voter fraud, so it is not completely absent from legal discourse.

But religion principles can be part of the public discourse.

Speaking of slippery slope, I noted that the issue of voter ID at least partially revolves around potential massive voter fraud, so it is not completely absent from legal discourse.

Of course. I think that there are many religious principles that transend religious beliefs.

[jwhitlock]

LOL. Here are a few you might have missed. The Irish, the Catholics, the Jews, the latino, the blacks etc. You must not have been around in the 60's where the black population in some cities rioted and burned parts of the city to the ground over this issue of equality. What the heck do you think black power was all about? What were they fighting for?

You continue to ignore my point that gay acceptance is demanded of their BEHAVIOR - something which no other group has ever demanded to the extent they are. It is intended to supersede rights to religious freedom and association, as clearly shown by the BSA situation. Until you address that point, and quite dancing around it, the rest of what you posted is irrelevant.

[jwhitlock]

Didn't we demand full, unqualified inclusion and acceptance of Blacks? Cause I think that's been a good thing.

In what ways have government groups sanctioned the BSA?

I'd prefer we try to limit the enmity by supporting marriage equality now (or at least not working against it). That way, if the day ever comes that a court tries to force us to violate our religious principles, we'll be able to stand on firm moral footing knowing that we fought for the rights of others.

Blacks did not demand unqualified acceptance of all blacks without regard to behaviors. Different situation.

Governments have denied public access to venues by the BSA because they "discriminate". Localities in California have been especially active in doing so.

I have taken the opportunity lately to read through Affirmation's web site and get a feeling for where they're coming from. They're fairly accurate as a barometer of the more activist gay attitudes towards the church. While on the surface, they claim they don't hate the church and its members, reading through what's on the site gives a very different picture, an anti-Mormon sentiment that doesn't give me any indication that they're willing to compromise or work together with the church. Were the church to stay out of the way, so to speak, of the issue, that would not be acceptable to gay rights groups. They want nothing less than the full capitulation and punishment of the church and its members for the wrongs they claim have been committed against them. it's pretty vicious stuff.

I'll make it clear that I'm not lumping all gays or those with SSA into this category. My concern is with gay rights activists and organizations who are pushing an agenda to curtail our freedoms in the name of inclusiveness. They want a level of inclusiveness that doesn't exist with any other group, where gays are not excluded from anything at all. Everyone else is excluded from certain things for various reasons, but gay rights groups want no restrictions. Period. The BSA situation, gain, is an indication of that attitude.

[rockpond]

Blacks did not demand unqualified acceptance of all blacks without regard to behaviors. Different situation.

Really? Which behaviors did they say would allow us to permission discriminate against them?

And yeah, I agree that government entities do not need to provide venues to groups who exclude minorities.

[jwhitlock]

Does this mean that you are no longer supporting your statement that those who support gay equality is FORCING anyone to do anything? FINALLY. It took a while, but we finally got there.

Your narrow focus on FORCING within the BSA missed my point entirely. I had to remind you of that several times, yet you still harped on it.

However, since you're still bringing it up, gay rights groups do use a variety of methods to try to force people and organizations to submit to their agendas. To say that they're just benignly lobbying the BSA for a policy change would be dishonest; they're using tactics such as pressuring corporate donors to quite contributing and pressuring government entities to deny Scouting access to public venues, which amount to efforts to force the BSA - and us - to submit to their agenda. And their agenda is very, very clear. They want all units to be REQUIRED to accept gays, without regard to behavior. There are no exemptions for religious or associative reasons / rights.

If, through their campaign, they can force a private organization to implement such policies, there can be no doubt they will redouble their efforts legally to require those same changes publicly when it comes to marriage. They don't "just" want the right to marry. They want those marriages recognized be everyone, including religious organizations, and they will eventually demand that even religious organizations perform those marriages or include gays in all religious rituals without regard to gay lifestyles or behavior.

I don't detect any indication in what I read that there is any desire for compromise in this respect. The lines are being drawn quite clearly.

[rockpond]

It is not that they want equality and inclusiveness, but they demand acceptance of every perversion known to man. You and I both know full well that this is not, and never has been, about one individual's love for another and seeking acceptance and equality. This is a full blown assault on any shred of moral dignity. We both know that the gay life style is not simplistic or uplifting; many parts of it are as detrimental to good health as one can get. You and I can agree on some things, but I would really like for some honesty in the conversation. There has been no effort on the part of the gay community to draw boundaries for behavior and that is what is significant. They do not want boundaries; they want a no holds barred, complete acceptance of perversion. I challenge any straight person to sit down with a gay men in their community and discuss exactly what is entailed in their lifestyle and then tell me with a straight face that we should not be alarmed, not seek some restraint, some degree of condemnation of perversion. This entire conversation would be more healthy if the gay community had any inkling of backbone to condemn parts of what goes on. It angers me that they smile in my face and look at be with benign innocence all they while they cross their fingers and pray that no one is willing to pull the curtain back and see how sick some of this lifestyle is for its participants. If this was only limited to Tom and Joe getting married, then I cannot see any way to stop it as a free society; however, it goes to far when they demand complete acceptance. We should not accept it and you should not accept it. No sane individual should accept it. I apologize for the rant, but it sort of busts out of me every know and then. Let's just be honest about what will happen and what is being demanded of the rest of society.

That's a fairly broad brush you are painting with. Remember that as Mormons our lifestyle was once on the receiving end of that brush. I don't think it felt particularly good for my ancestors back then either.

I think that when heterosexuals stop committing debauchery, then we can throw the first stone.

Until then, we should give homosexuals the right to enter into the same covenant relationships that we have. Something that has, for me, been a very positive influence on my life.

[jwhitlock]

Really? Which behaviors did they say would allow us to permission discriminate against them?

And yeah, I agree that government entities do not need to provide venues to groups who exclude minorities.

Who said anything about discriminating against them? Did blacks tell us as a church when we changed the priesthood policy that we had to accept any black into the priesthood, without regard to lifestyle or behavior? Has that demand ever been made? Yet that's exactly what gay rights groups are demanding. We cannot use their gay lifestyle or behavior as a reason to restrict them or deny them from anything.

Why is it so hard for gay rights proponents to comprehend the fact that rest of us might have a bit of a problem being told what behaviors we have to tolerate and embrace? Blacks have never done anything of the sort, to my knowledge.

[Storm Rider]

I guess you like to stereotype gays into one inclusive category. Perhaps you can point out exactly what gays are doing that is not also done by straights? Give me just ONE thing that a gay person does that is different than what a straight person also does. Do we not allow those that fornicate to be married, join the BSA, attend church, teach school, be a police officer, or stop them from participating in an legal activity? How about an adulterer? Or someone who has one night stands, or what ever else you think gays are doing that you don't agree with. How is this group any different than any other group?

Gays are also doctors, lawyers, politicians, artists, writers, faithfully married, raise families, attend church, play sports, do laundry, provide for their parents, donate to charity, and live happy and fulfilled lives. Quit demonizing an entire group of people.

You are avoiding the reality and I think you know it. Are you seriously telling me that you cannot fairly critique the gay culture as a whole? This board is not the place, nor would it be allowed, for anyone to draw the distinctions that you know very well exist. I am not talking about the entire culture, but I am most definitely addressing the dark, evil underbelly that you know exists. Why deny it? It always surprises me that you dodge this very issue repeatedly. You have seen my posts before, you know that I support SS marriage, but that does not mean and should not be interpreted to indicate that I support the gay culture "carte blanche". This whole issue would be very different if we were only discussing Tom and John getting married; that is not what is being asked for (dang, this sounds like a broken record and you seemed to have blanked it the first time); it is not. Tom and John have friends that cannot keep from having thousands of partners doing a broad range of things that any sane doctor would shout STOP. I do not need to list them; you know them yourself and it is highly deceitful for you to play the word game when you know we will not list them here.

[california boy]

You are avoiding the reality and I think you know it. Are you seriously telling me that you cannot fairly critique the gay culture as a whole? This board is not the place, nor would it be allowed, for anyone to draw the distinctions that you know very well exist. I am not talking about the entire culture, but I am most definitely addressing the dark, evil underbelly that you know exists. Why deny it? It always surprises me that you dodge this very issue repeatedly. You have seen my posts before, you know that I support SS marriage, but that does not mean and should not be interpreted to indicate that I support the gay culture "carte blanche". This whole issue would be very different if we were only discussing Tom and John getting married; that is not what is being asked for (dang, this sounds like a broken record and you seemed to have blanked it the first time); it is not. Tom and John have friends that cannot keep from having thousands of partners doing a broad range of things that any sane doctor would shout STOP. I do not need to list them; you know them yourself and it is highly deceitful for you to play the word game when you know we will not list them here.

I guess simply because I feel like I live in that gay world you so want to demonize and while I know it exists, I emphatically disagree that the image you portray is THE gay world. My friends are like how I describe them to you. Most of them are in long term stable relationships. They have jobs, are professionals for the most part and enjoy life with the person they love. Is the gay population as stable as the straight population? NO. I have never said it was. But every study has shown that single adults that are not married are not as stable as those that are married either. When you do not allow gay couples to marry aren't you by the very nature of what marriage brings to increased stability denied? Combine that with gays being kicked out of most churches because of their relationship of those they love and then you are surprised by the decrease in morality. Are you not willing to acknowledge that the very nature of how society has been treating the gay population has at least contributed to the increased immorality in the gay population?

If you want an honest discussion about this issue, then yes, I acknowledge that the gay population may very well participate in more immoral behavior than the general population. Certainly everyone agrees that since gays can not marry, they are forced to live in sin by the very nature of their relationship with same sex partners. But it is also my opinion that the immorality amongst unmarried straight adults may very well be similar to the unmarried gay population. Studies certainly confirm that adults that are not married have a much higher number of sex partners than married couples.

By the very nature of gay relationships, most gays have been kicked out of their churches for their relationship with same sex partners.

I think most would also agree that those who attend church on a regular basis are more moral than those who do not attend church on a regular basis. Excommunicating people tends to discourage gays from attending sunday services.

So here we have you blanketly condemning an entire group for their actions. Can you be truthful enough to admit that a large contributing factor in this behavior is caused by the very churches that now condemn them for that behavior? Most people do not find the option of celibacy and living a life without a soulmate to be unacceptable. Is there any part of you that can understand that? I hope so. And I would hope that you would be less condemning of others especially given the situation they have been placed in.

[jwhitlock]

Most people do not find the option of celibacy and living a life without a soulmate to be unacceptable.

I don't see what the problem is, then.

[rockpond]

Who said anything about discriminating against them? Did blacks tell us as a church when we changed the priesthood policy that we had to accept any black into the priesthood, without regard to lifestyle or behavior? Has that demand ever been made? Yet that's exactly what gay rights groups are demanding. We cannot use their gay lifestyle or behavior as a reason to restrict them or deny them from anything.

Why is it so hard for gay rights proponents to comprehend the fact that rest of us might have a bit of a problem being told what behaviors we have to tolerate and embrace? Blacks have never done anything of the sort, to my knowledge.

I thought we were talking about societal equality, not religious acceptance. If I understood you correctly, you were saying that the civil rights movement differed from gay rights in that the Blacks didn't fight for acceptance of behaviors. I was trying to understand your position on that. Maybe I missed it.

So if you'd like to clarify, I'll try to understand.

As to your continued references about which groups are demanding what and from whom, I won't go too far down that rabbit hole. We live in a society that is filled with all kinds of people demanding all kinds of things. And I don't foresee that changing. Hardly a day goes by that my young kids don't make some demand that I promptly ignore. I'm more concerned with 1) constitutionality here in our great republic, and 2) trying to follow our commission in the church to be disciples of Christ and how that fits in with this issue.

[jwhitlock]

I thought we were talking about societal equality, not religious acceptance. If I understood you correctly, you were saying that the civil rights movement differed from gay rights in that the Blacks didn't fight for acceptance of behaviors. I was trying to understand your position on that. Maybe I missed it.

With gay rights groups, social and religious acceptance are one and the same; they are not to be separated. Comparison with Blacks and their fights for civil rights are different from gay rights groups demands, because gay rights groups have expanded the demands for inclusion and acceptance to include gay behaviors. That goes beyond anything I know of that was part of Black civil rights issues.

[rockpond]

With gay rights groups, social and religious acceptance are one and the same; they are not to be separated. Comparison with Blacks and their fights for civil rights are different from gay rights groups demands, because gay rights groups have expanded the demands for inclusion and acceptance to include gay behaviors. That goes beyond anything I know of that was part of Black civil rights issues.

What "black behaviors" were not accepted?

As I recall, they fought for education rights, the ability to sit anywhere on the bus, or in a restaurant, and the right to vote. As I recall, there was also a court case regarding their ability to marry the person they love (Loving v Virginia).

If you are going to make the case that the civil rights movement was not about inclusion and acceptance to include behaviors than I'd like to know what behaviors were not accepted.

[jwhitlock]

What "black behaviors" were not accepted?

As I recall, they fought for education rights, the ability to sit anywhere on the bus, or in a restaurant, and the right to vote. As I recall, there was also a court case regarding their ability to marry the person they love (Loving v Virginia).

If you are going to make the case that the civil rights movement was not about inclusion and acceptance to include behaviors than I'd like to know what behaviors were not accepted.

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Blacks were not accepted because of their skin color. It wasn't about different behavior that blacks engage in; there isn't any, to my knowledge.

To be clear for you, behavior wasn't an issue with the black civil rights movement.

Gays currently have the same rights as everyone else as far as acceptance is concerned. That's where any comparison to black civil rights ends. Gays now want some of their behaviors, which are different from those straight people engage in, to be accepted without qualification. That's a significant difference.

Your last sentence, frankly, appears to be a blatant attempt to misrepresent what I was saying. It is only gay rights groups that are making the demand that gay behaviors be accepted. Other civil rights movements that I am aware of have not made acceptance of behaviors an issue in their movements.

[rockpond]

You are avoiding the reality and I think you know it. Are you seriously telling me that you cannot fairly critique the gay culture as a whole? This board is not the place, nor would it be allowed, for anyone to draw the distinctions that you know very well exist. I am not talking about the entire culture, but I am most definitely addressing the dark, evil underbelly that you know exists. Why deny it? It always surprises me that you dodge this very issue repeatedly. You have seen my posts before, you know that I support SS marriage, but that does not mean and should not be interpreted to indicate that I support the gay culture "carte blanche". This whole issue would be very different if we were only discussing Tom and John getting married; that is not what is being asked for (dang, this sounds like a broken record and you seemed to have blanked it the first time); it is not. Tom and John have friends that cannot keep from having thousands of partners doing a broad range of things that any sane doctor would shout STOP. I do not need to list them; you know them yourself and it is highly deceitful for you to play the word game when you know we will not list them here.

Just outside the city where I live, there is a large army base. And just outside the main gate of that army base there is a seedy strip club & bar that is frequented by the straight soldiers on that base. There are poor behaviors all across the spectrum of sexual orientation. So, I'm not quite getting your point. Is someone suggesting that every segment of gay culture be accepted? Allowing heterosexual marriage doesn't endorse any of the sick behaviors that some straight people engage in. Allowing homosexual marriage won't endorse any of the sick behaviors gay people engage in.