Should Religious Morality Make Its Way Into Political Discourse...

[california boy]

This is such an egregious distortion that I must break my silence to correct it. Prop 8 doesn't force people to do anything. It simply prevents people from bastardizing the legal definition of marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are entitled to your opinion, but the truth of the matter is, Prop 8 takes away the right of gay couples to marry. The church based their involvement with Prop 8 as a "moral issue". Wiggle your way around those two facts all you want. The truth is the church was using the government to force people to follow it's "moral" belief.

[california boy]

One thing about this argument about SSM that I find so interesting what what Wade had posted in another thread. Specifically about Prop 8. That proposition really hadnothing to do with equality as in CA there were Civil Unions set up that gave gay couples the same rights from a governmental stand point as hetero couples. They wanted to win a different argument. So I am not so sure that anything has been refuted in the regards of SSM and that debate. I am not for gay marriage because you cannot give me one good reason to change the tradional definition of marriage. It is not and has never been about equal rights. I know many people think it is but the simple fact, and the evidence backs this up, it is not about rights.

In a wide-ranging interview with George Stephanopoulos to air on Nightline tonight , President Obama talks about marriage equality and the cases ahead at the Supreme Court. He addresses this issue for people like you that have this opinion of what gay marriage is all about.

My hope is that– the Court looks at the evidence and and in the California case, for example, the only reason presented for treating gays and lesbians differently was, “Well, they’re gay and lesbian.” There wasn’t– a real rationale beyond that. In fact you know, all the other rights and and responsibilities of a civil union were identical to marriage. It’s just you couldn’t call it marriage. Well, at that point, what you’re really sayin’ is “We’re just gonna treat these folks differently because of who they are.” And I do not think that’s who are as Americans. And frankly, I think American attitudes have evolved, just like mine have, pretty substantially and fairly quickly, and I think that’s a good thing.

Well, I’ve gotta tell you that in terms of practical politics, what I’ve seen is a healthy debate taking place state by state, and not every state has the exact same attitudes and cultural mores. And I you know, my thinking was that this is traditionally a state issue and that it will work itself out. On the other hand, what I also believe is that the core principle that people don’t get discriminated against – that’s one of our core values. And it’s in our constitution. It’s in the, you know, 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. And...from a legal perspective, the bottom line is, is that gays have historically been discriminated against and I do think that courts have to apply what’s called heightened scrutiny, where they take a careful look. If there’s any reason for gays and lesbians to be treated differently, boy, the government better....have a really good...what I believe is that if the states don’t have a good justification for it, then it probably doesn’t stand up to constitutional muster."

[Stone holm]

You are entitled to your opinion, but the truth of the matter is, Prop 8 takes away the right of gay couples to marry. The church based their involvement with Prop 8 as a "moral issue". Wiggle your way around those two facts all you want. The truth is the church was using the government to force people to follow it's "moral" belief.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with California Boy on this one. This wasn't merely a game of semantics. And, I have listened to some truly amazing verbal contortions to try to flip this issue on its head and somehow make it out that the gays were trying to coerce us, etc. The Church may have been justified because of fears as to where the protection of gay/lesbian rights might lead enemies of the Church to go, but to try and deny that religion wasn't at the bottom of this fight is kind of asking a little too much of anyone. The spokesman for the Church in the debate before the Vt legislature over the Civil Unions bill, made Mormons laughingstock all over the State. Fortunately, they have dropped the 12 Step Cure arguments that were made then and have since modified their views...but the opposition to Prop 8 does have a strong aroma of trying to establish a religious principle which we of all people should be wary of. I just hope that their was some inspired fear behind the move, and not just the cultural/political bias of the leadership.

[wenglund]

You are entitled to your opinion, but the truth of the matter is, Prop 8 takes away the right of gay couples to marry.

Yes, it prevents them from bastardizing the legal definition of marriage and distorting the longstanding right of marriage, just as I said. It doesn't deny homosexuals the right to marry (you were legally married long before prop 8 and Prop 22), and it doesn't prevent them from behaving perversely or from entering into other legalized relationships with the same rights and benefits as marriages. In short, it doesn't FORCE you to do anything. It simply KEEPS you from profaning the sacred.

The church based their involvement with Prop 8 as a "moral issue". Wiggle your way around those two facts all you want. The truth is the church was using the government to force people to follow it's "moral" belief.

I am not trying to wiggle around those two "facts." I am simply pointing out that it is an egregious distortion, not to mention fallacious, for you to leap from those "facts" to your absurd conclusion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

The reason why I singled out Mormons in this statement is because Mormons have a unique view on the evils of forcing people to obey God's laws. So for a Mormon to resort to government force to prevent people from sinning, then they are ascribing to the plan that was rejected. Certainly other religious groups want to force people to live by morals that churches teach, but those churches lack the understanding of why God is against such a plan.

Lets see if this flies. The reason why I singled out Jews in this statement is because Jews have a unique view on the evils of forcing people to obey God's laws. So for a Jew to resort to government force to prevent people from sinning, then they are ascribing to the plan that was rejected. Certainly other religious groups want to force people to live by morals that churches teach, but those churches lack the understanding of why God is against such a plan.

PS; I have absolutely nothing against Jews. Don't you see how outrageous your statement is?

Edited March 13, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with California Boy on this one. This wasn't merely a game of semantics. And, I have listened to some truly amazing verbal contortions to try to flip this issue on its head and somehow make it out that the gays were trying to coerce us, etc. The Church may have been justified because of fears as to where the protection of gay/lesbian rights might lead enemies of the Church to go, but to try and deny that religion wasn't at the bottom of this fight is kind of asking a little too much of anyone. The spokesman for the Church in the debate before the Vt legislature over the Civil Unions bill, made Mormons laughingstock all over the State. Fortunately, they have dropped the 12 Step Cure arguments that were made then and have since modified their views...but the opposition to Prop 8 does have a strong aroma of trying to establish a religious principle which we of all people should be wary of. I just hope that their was some inspired fear behind the move, and not just the cultural/political bias of the leadership.

Unfortunately, you are as confused as cb about what is in dispute. No one is denying that the Church's involvement in Prop 8 was religious-based. It was. What is being denied is the asinine claim that the Church's involvement somehow was "forcing people to obey God's laws." It doesn't. Gays can still go on behaving as perversely as they were before and after Prop 8. They can still enter into state sanctioned relationships and have all the same rights and privileges as marriages. At most, all Prop 8 does is PREVENT them further corrupting one of the few remaining cultural sanctuaries--i.e. the definition of and the longstanding institution of marriage. That's it.

You and cb really need to learn, among other things, the basic, though important, difference between "forced to" and "prohibited from."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 13, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

Yes, it prevents them from bastardizing the legal definition of marriage and distorting the longstanding right of marriage, just as I said. It doesn't deny homosexuals the right to marry (you were legally married long before prop 8 and Prop 22), and it doesn't prevent them from behaving perversely or from entering into other legalized relationships with the same rights and benefits as marriages. In short, it doesn't FORCE you to do anything. It simply KEEPS you from profaning the sacred.

I am not trying to wiggle around those two "facts." I am simply pointing out that it is an egregious distortion, not to mention fallacious, for you to leap from those "facts" to your absurd conclusion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You see the religious overtone to your argument based on the words used "perverse" and "bastardized"? I am not a stickler for politically correct speech, but the term perverse when used in this context means the activities of perverts. Which is based upon a strictly religious view, Western Civilization owes much of its democratic thinking and notions of liberty to the Ancient Greeks, and many of those philosophers we also recognize would today under Christianity have been considered perverts. It is interesting that when Augustine engrafted Greek philosophy onto Christianity, he only took part of their culture. He apparently thought they could accurately describe God but couldn't otherwise get their act together.

[CV75]

The reason why I singled out Mormons in this statement is because Mormons have a unique view on the evils of forcing people to obey God's laws. So for a Mormon to resort to government force to prevent people from sinning, then they are ascribing to the plan that was rejected. Certainly other religious groups want to force people to live by morals that churches teach, but those churches lack the understanding of why God is against such a plan.

This is most interesting because you single out "Mormons" and other religious groups as the ones thinking "that they need government to force their morality on citizens," as if all members of the Mormon Church and whatever other of the religious groups you have in mind are the same. This sounds a bit bigoted to me.

It also seems a bit myopic, since any organized group uses the government when trying to pass laws that all citizens must abide by. As indicated in several posts above, no legislative action that binds all citizens to a common standard is without a moral component, or passed without moral considerations, regardless of the quality or source of the moral standard applied. You might as well say that groups espousing amoral or immoral principles "think they need government to force their morality on citizens," when seeking to pass laws. Do they really?

It is also seems a bit ignorant of the difference between "forcing people to obey God's laws" and the principle of organized efforts to use government to pass laws as well as of what is actually going on in the USA, where there are obviously no laws that force people to obey God's laws, and none on the table.

Now using God's laws as a basis for evaluating and voting on legislation is perfectly appropriate, as are other moral standards that might be chosen. Where else do you think the expression "vote your conscience" came from?

Citizens are not forced to obey laws of any kind when the inherent obligation is that, as citizens, they are beholden to abide by the laws that are passed according to the will of the people. They have every incentive (from birthright to community spirit and patriotism to enforcement and punishment) to do so, but they are not forced to obey.

Edited March 13, 2013 by CV75

[wenglund]

You see the religious overtone to your argument based on the words used "perverse" and "bastardized"?

I am not denying the religious overtones, even though the two words you focused on also have secular overtones. I intended both.

I am not a stickler for politically correct speech, but the term perverse when used in this context means the activities of perverts. Which is based upon a strictly religious view, Western Civilization owes much of its democratic thinking and notions of liberty to the Ancient Greeks, and many of those philosophers we also recognize would today under Christianity have been considered perverts. It is interesting that when Augustine engrafted Greek philosophy onto Christianity, he only took part of their culture. He apparently thought they could accurately describe God but couldn't otherwise get their act together.

You are free to interpret those words as narrowly as you wish. However, the generally accepted definition (dictionary) are more broadly applicable. For example : "Perverse:

1. (of a person or their actions) Showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often...
   
2. Contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice.
   

As previously indicated, it was this generally accepted and more broadly applicable definition that I intended.

But, this is all beside the point I have been making: that the Church's involvement in Prop 8 can't rationally be interpreted as "forcing people to obey God's law."

It also doesn't directly address the topic of this thread. At best it suggest that the Church's position on Prop 8 may have been based on religious morals, and no one is arguing against that. What is being argued against are liberty-infringing notions like what you proposed earlier about religious-based morals shouldn't be allowed as arguments in legislation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 13, 2013 by wenglund

[california boy]

Yes, it prevents them from bastardizing the legal definition of marriage and distorting the longstanding right of marriage, just as I said. It doesn't deny homosexuals the right to marry (you were legally married long before prop 8 and Prop 22), and it doesn't prevent them from behaving perversely or from entering into other legalized relationships with the same rights and benefits as marriages. In short, it doesn't FORCE you to do anything. It simply KEEPS you from profaning the sacred.

I am not trying to wiggle around those two "facts." I am simply pointing out that it is an egregious distortion, not to mention fallacious, for you to leap from those "facts" to your absurd conclusion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sigh. And you wonder why you are kicked out of threads. When backed in a corner you start using words like "bastardizing the legal definition of marriage" to try and inflame the issue and mask your lack of an intelligent case. Pretending that you now don't understand what the issue is by using the tired "they already have the right to marry" argument is ridiculous coming from someone like you that clearly understands what the issues are.

[california boy]

Lets see if this flies. The reason why I singled out Jews in this statement is because Jews have a unique view on the evils of forcing people to obey God's laws. So for a Jew to resort to government force to prevent people from sinning, then they are ascribing to the plan that was rejected. Certainly other religious groups want to force people to live by morals that churches teach, but those churches lack the understanding of why God is against such a plan.

PS; I have absolutely nothing against Jews. Don't you see how outrageous your statement is?

OK maybe i was wrong. I thought Mormons had the belief that Satan tried to push through a plan of salvation that would force mankind to obey God. I didn't know this doctrine has changed since my involvement with the church. I also didn't realize that Joseph Smith's "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" has been thrown under the bus in favor of let's pass laws forcing our moral views on those that have not yet found the Mormon Church.

Edited March 13, 2013 by california boy

[california boy]

It also doesn't directly address the topic of this thread. At best it suggest that the Church's position on Prop 8 may have been based on religious morals, and no one is arguing against that. What is being argued against are liberty-infringing notions like what you proposed earlier about religious-based morals shouldn't be allowed as arguments in legislation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You do realize that this very issue is why Prop 8 is before the Supreme Court. When the courts rule that it is a liberty-infringing notion I hope you will realize the legal reasoning behind repealing Prop 8.

[wenglund]

You do realize that this very issue is why Prop 8 is before the Supreme Court. When the courts rule that it is a liberty-infringing notion I hope you will realize the legal reasoning behind repealing Prop 8.

Consistently wrong again. For you to intelligently grasp and discuss this issue, you need to, in addition to learning the basic and important difference between "forced to" and "prohibited from," also learn the difference between "liberty-infringement" and "extending state privileges." You repeatedly conflate the two.

Furthermore, you need to grasp that this isn't a liberty issue (not only do you have the same privilege as heterosexuals--i.e. to marry someone of the opposite sex, you also have the additional privilege to enter into a state-sanctioned, legal relationship with someone of the same sex). But, that isn't enough for you. Even still, all that is at issue with Prop 8 is terminological--i.e. changing the legal designation for homosexual relationships from "domestic partnerships" to "marriages"--or, in other words, whether or not to pervert and bastardize the longstanding definition of marriage (sorry if you can't handle straight talk--pun intended).

Now, you can fog things up thick with your fallacious propaganda about liberty and rights and equality, but all it really boils down to is terminology. That's it.

However, you can take comfort in the fact that an increasing majority of the country is awash in that fog, and so you will likely get your selfish way, and the rest of us will just have to learn to live with being subjected to your inane immorality.

I have said more than I intended to, and will now laps back into silence, say whatever you will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

You do realize that this very issue is why Prop 8 is before the Supreme Court. When the courts rule that it is a liberty-infringing notion I hope you will realize the legal reasoning behind repealing Prop 8.

Well California Boy let's not get too cocky here, we have at least one clear homophobe on the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS has gone off the rails before as we should know from the Dred Scott decision and the U.S. v. Reynolds decision. But I do have faith in the liberalism that this country was founded upon and that the arguments being employed to defend Prop 8 thus far are inconsistent with that liberalism, and as a result such laws will eventually fall whether in this generation or in the next.

[Stone holm]

Consistently wrong again. For you to intelligently grasp and discuss this issue, you need to, in addition to learning the basic and important difference between "forced to" and "prohibited from," also learn the difference between "liberty-infringement" and "extending state privileges." You repeatedly conflate the two.

Furthermore, you need to grasp that this isn't a liberty issue (not only do you have the same privilege as heterosexuals--i.e. to marry someone of the opposite sex, you also have the additional privilege to enter into a state-sanctioned, legal relationship with someone of the same sex). But, that isn't enough for you. Even still, all that is at issue with Prop 8 is terminological--i.e. changing the legal designation for homosexual relationships from "domestic partnerships" to "marriages"--or, in other words, whether or not to pervert and bastardize the longstanding definition of marriage (sorry if you can't handle straight talk--pun intended).

Now, you can fog things up thick with your fallacious propaganda about liberty and rights and equality, but all it really boils down to is terminology. That's it.

However, you can take comfort in the fact that an increasing majority of the country is awash in that fog, and so you will likely get your selfish way, and the rest of us will just have to learn to live with being subjected to your inane immorality.

I have said more than I intended to, and will now laps back into silence, say whatever you will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That semantical argument fails. We could as easily say well women and men are should be treated as having equal rights, therefore as a man I have the right to marry a woman, then why shouldn't a woman have a right to marry a woman. Trying to pretend that Prop 8 is just an exercise in semantics is a ridiculous farce. What is actually going on here is that certain religions including ours, belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, and we are trying to impose our beliefs upon others in that regard. We may well be doing it because we believe that to allow the sanctioning of such behavior in what we think is one of our most holy ordinances is a mockery of God. I personally believe that a person who enters into such a union may well be mocking God. But I also believe that we have no business forcing others to conform to our beliefs -- most non-conformity to our beliefs could also be considered a mockery of God, but it would be, in my humble opinion, a much greater mockery of God to try and legislate and coerce others to conform to our religious beliefs. If the Constitution is in fact an inspired document, which I believe it is -- at the very least it was intended to protect that.

[thesometimesaint]

OK maybe i was wrong. I thought Mormons had the belief that Satan tried to push through a plan of salvation that would force mankind to obey God. I didn't know this doctrine has changed since my involvement with the church. I also didn't realize that Joseph Smith's "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" has been thrown under the bus in favor of let's pass laws forcing our moral views on those that have not yet found the Mormon Church.

Houston we have a problem if you don't see the inherent bigotry of your statement. Of course every religion, non religion, thinks it is the correct one.

You are wrong in its application. See Articles of Faith 11 and 12.

We're not forcing anyone. We're just too small of an organization for that. We have every right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and to ally ourselves with other like minded individuals and groups. What I object to is the redefinition of words. Disassociating marriage from the State and making them all domestic partnerships seems to me a more rational and equatable way of solving those grievances than singling out any particular religion for censure, making false claims about it, let alone violating the law by attacking them as individuals or their property.

[Stone holm]

Houston we have a problem if you don't see the inherent bigotry of your statement. Of course every religion, non religion, thinks it is the correct one.

You are wrong in its application. See Articles of Faith 11 and 12.

We're not forcing anyone. We're just too small of an organization for that. We have every right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and to ally ourselves with other like minded individuals and groups. What I object to is the redefinition of words. Disassociating marriage from the State and making them all domestic partnerships seems to me a more rational and equatable way of solving those grievances than singling out any particular religion for censure, making false claims about it, let alone violating the law by attacking them as individuals or their property.

I agree with you on the idea of disassociating marriage from the State. Unfortunately, I think the window of opportunity to have taken that route is quickly closing, if it has not already closed, and as a practical political route, it may never have been open in the first place. Had we as a Church stayed aloof from the fight, then we would not be fair targets for censure. Rightly or wrongly, however, the Church leadership jumped directly into the fray. In some States like Vermont where there was opposition to even Civil Unions -- we and the Catholics led the fight with appointed representatives. Priesthood quorums turned into mini political action committees which organized families to send out their children to pamphlet cars. Our representative argued that it was a disease and that we had a 12 step program to cure it, etc. It was ugly. Under such circumstances, we can't really easily stand back and say don't censure us -- sure the lgbt community has a right to fight back and defend itself, and it has. Unfortunately, all Mormons wound up getting painted as bigots because of this activity -- some like the Marriots quickly took steps to distance themselves from the Church's action -- most liberals just sighed and asked themselves why, why, why.

[USU78]

There is a difference between allowing religionists a seat at the political table and giving weight to religious beliefs when proposing laws which are aimed at conforming the actions of non-believers to those religious beliefs. I have no quarrel with people using religious beliefs as a shield either. For example, I would expect the Courts to shield the Church from being required to perform SSMs. But, I have a problem with us saying to the local Universalist Church , you can't perform SSMs, or to a justice of the peace that you can't perform such marriages. When it comes to using religion as a sword, then I believe that the original poster is correct. You would most always find me advocating to protect the ability of individuals and groups to conform themselves to their religious convictions. It's when those groups or individuals attempt to force others to conform by legislative means that I see a problem. If you don't believe in SSMs well then don't get or perform one.

So . . . we may speak, but nothing we say may matter?

Are you actually listening to what you're saying? You would disenfranchise nearly all of the board participants, just so you don't have to listen to us.

You, moreover, are 100% outcome-oriented in your approach: so long as you get what you want (children adopted into SS couple units whether it's a good idea or not and wholly without real conversation on the subject), you are fine with others speaking. You just don't want us to matter, or what we say to have a fair chance of carrying the day.

Truly horrifying.

[thesometimesaint]

So . . . we may speak, but nothing we say may matter?

Are you actually listening to what you're saying? You would disenfranchise nearly all of the board participants, just so you don't have to listen to us.

You, moreover, are 100% outcome-oriented in your approach: so long as you get what you want (children adopted into SS couple units whether it's a good idea or not and wholly without real conversation on the subject), you are fine with others speaking. You just don't want us to matter, or what we say to have a fair chance of carrying the day.

Truly horrifying.

I don't believe that is what he is saying. There is a difference between having a say and having the last say.

[wenglund]

That semantical argument fails. We could as easily say well women and men are should be treated as having equal rights, therefore as a man I have the right to marry a woman, then why shouldn't a woman have a right to marry a woman. Trying to pretend that Prop 8 is just an exercise in semantics is a ridiculous farce.

I am quite certain that you don't correctly understand my argument, particularly since you describe it as "semantic." But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and let you prove otherwise. To do so, you will need to go beyond vacuous assertions and actually spell my argument out (using my words), and then try and plug your "marry a woman" analogy into my alleged argument to see if it fits. It won't. But, it will at least provide some amusement seeing you try, and it will prove out who really is being farcical.

What is actually going on here is that certain religions including ours, belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, and we are trying to impose our beliefs upon others in that regard.

Speak for yourself. All I am trying to do is rationally exercise my first amendment rights and constitutional voting privileges to prevent the "imposition" (your word, not mine) of perverse and inane beliefs unto me and my country, but even more so to attempt to prevent actions that are not only unnecessary, but which inanely run counter to the best interest of the people as a whole. All I am trying to do is prevent the inane bastardization of a longstanding and valuable legal definition of a valued word.

We may well be doing it because we believe that to allow the sanctioning of such behavior in what we think is one of our most holy ordinances is a mockery of God.

We may think it a mockery of God and a perversion of the most evolved fundamental institution of society. However, I am opposing it because it is asinine and contrary to the best interest of the state.

I personally believe that a person who enters into such a union may well be mocking God. But I also believe that we have no business forcing others to conform to our beliefs -- most non-conformity to our beliefs could also be considered a mockery of God,

If anything, you have it exactly backwards. The mockery of God, as you call it, is being "forced" (your word, not mine) unto us as a society. Not the other way around. The essential definition of marriage has been with us for several millennial, and served us well. We traditionalists aren't the one's trying to bastardize the definition or our collective beliefs about it, You and the other gay activist are--whether intentionally or not.

Be that as it may, as someone else explained earlier in thread, which you apparently didn't grasp, you need to understand that by voting we each attempt to subject others to our beliefs (religious or political or economic or otherwise), It is unavoidable. I didn't believe in or vote for the current president, and yet I am subject to him. I respect the democratic process, and so I will just have to live with the majority decision, just as I would expect them to live with mine were I in the majority.

Now, I suppose if you, personally, for whatever reason, don't wish your beliefs to have an equal say in the marketplace of ideas or even in public discourse and policy, and you prefer to privilege opposing beliefs, then you are certainly free to vote against your beliefs and for opposing beliefs, regardless whether is makes sense to do so or not, and have them "forced" on others. To me, that would be asinine, and so I will choose otherwise. I prefer not to just roll over and let others "force" their opposing views on me, but I wish instead to at least put up a fight.

...but it would be, in my humble opinion, a much greater mockery of God to try and legislate and coerce others to conform to our religious beliefs.

Well...you managed to reach the zenith of backwards thinking with that one. What you are essentially suggesting is that it is a greater mockery of God for us religionists to exercise our divinely inspired, Constitutional right to vote according to the dictates of our conscience, just like everyone else. in an attempt to prevent the profaning of a divine institution. Are you serious?

Sadly, I believe you are. And, it appears that more and more people these days feel the same way, and so that inane belief will be "forced" on the rest of us. It's very discouraging seeing seemingly well-intended people uncritically sucking up this kind of nonsense, even in the face of well-reasoned counter argumentation. That is why I have tossed my hands in the air and prayed that God help us.

If the Constitution is in fact an inspired document, which I believe it is -- at the very least it was intended to protect that.

Stunning! Just stunning! It is hard to imagine how things could get so twisted backwards...that is until I remember that this nation has been indoctrinating our youth for decades with this kind is nonsense. Again, God help us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 13, 2013 by wenglund

[ERayR]

I don't believe that is what he is saying. There is a difference between having a say and having the last say.

yes. It is.

[Stone holm]

What I am saying is that you cannot use religion as a trump card in order to stop debate. If the sole argument is that God said so then you should not expect to win. With regards to the adoption argument the studies that were considered most credible showed that children raised by same sex couples were as well or better adjusted than those by heterosexual couples. The upshot has been that state after state has authorized adoption by same sex couples. That has in turn pretty much shut the door on that argument. Personally, I suspect that the studies were probably impacted by the fact that on average same sex couples are better educated and more affluent than your average heterosexual couple-- and that is an established fact. So by objective standards probably what the studies showed was that better educated and more affluent couples produce more objectively successful kids than poor uneducated couples. I would hope, however, the studies had some kind of statistical control for that, but I don't know. What I do know is the traditionalists have consistently lost on that argument when the empirical evidence duels started. As I understand it now some of the Prop 8 supporters have made the argument that marriage is inextricably tied to procreation and same sex couples cannot accidentally get pregnant. That should be an argument dead on arrival because we allow 80 year olds to marry each other and shotgun weddings are a pretty lame support for discrimination laws. The problem is the supporters have not been able to come up with a convincing argument that doesn't essentially come down to either we think they are perverts or God told me so.

[TAO]

Stone-holm, why not? There is no difference between political morality and religious morality. They are one and the same. Why should someone be able to force taxes on another and not be able to press other things that are morality related?

[wenglund]

What I am saying is that you cannot use religion as a trump card in order to stop debate. If the sole argument is that God said so then you should not expect to win. With regards to the adoption argument the studies that were considered most credible showed that children raised by same sex couples were as well or better adjusted than those by heterosexual couples. The upshot has been that state after state has authorized adoption by same sex couples. That has in turn pretty much shut the door on that argument. Personally, I suspect that the studies were probably impacted by the fact that on average same sex couples are better educated and more affluent than your average heterosexual couple-- and that is an established fact. So by objective standards probably what the studies showed was that better educated and more affluent couples produce more objectively successful kids than poor uneducated couples. I would hope, however, the studies had some kind of statistical control for that, but I don't know. What I do know is the traditionalists have consistently lost on that argument when the empirical evidence duels started. As I understand it now some of the Prop 8 supporters have made the argument that marriage is inextricably tied to procreation and same sex couples cannot accidentally get pregnant. That should be an argument dead on arrival because we allow 80 year olds to marry each other and shotgun weddings are a pretty lame support for discrimination laws. The problem is the supporters have not been able to come up with a convincing argument that doesn't essentially come down to either we think they are perverts or God told me so.

I understand exactly what you are saying. And, even though it can be, and has been, shown to be nonsense every which way from Sunday, it is clear from your responses that you, and others like you, won't see it, but are intent on trotting out the same inane and irrelevant and somewhat none-responsive retorts. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Trying to understand what is non-responsive here. Normally when you speak of forcing conformity. You would be speaking of forcing an individual to conform to the beliefs of the majority. Are the LGBT community forcing me a married heterosexual male Mormon to believe that SSM is not a sin? No. Are they forcing me to enter into such a relationship? No. If I weren't already married would they be trying to prevent me from marrying? No. There are Churches in the US which perform SSMs. How is it that any majority of voters have the right under the Constitution to say they lack the right to do so simply because we think that sodomy is a sin. Bearing in mind that our SCOTUS with its current very conservative majority has ruled sodomy laws between consenting adults unconstitutional? God selected the US for the restoration of the Gospel not because we were somehow super righteous, but because this was the one country where real religious tolerance and freedom was sufficient that we wouldn't get snuffed out at inception...and even then it was a near thing and the Prophet Joseph's life was forfeit? Why? In substantial part because he revealed a vision that challenged the traditional views on marriage which had dominated Western Civilization since Constantine had Romanized Christianity. And we now argue that traditional marriage is so set in concrete that it defies all secular arguments to the contrary because our God has told us don't do it? And because the other major religion which is leading the opposition says no, when they don't even allow their clergy to even marry?

Don't get me wrong I personally don't support or condone SSM, but that is strictly because of my religious beliefs which I hold dear and sacred. I want to continue to practice my beliefs, and because I hold that right dear, I must defend the right of others to hold differing views. And, not infringe upon their rights without a just and defensible secular basis for doing so otherwise I am exercising unrighteous dominion.