Prop 8 Myths Busted

[Robert F. Smith]

I have heard it said that the true final objective of the radical social engineers is NOT simply equality of marriages but to eventually eliminate any formal, legalistic, committed relationships. In the future, all children born as a result of two friends' togetherness (casual or otherwise) will be primarily the responsibility of the state with its ten thousand pages of regulations. In this new social order, anything goes. Another objective of the radicals is to drastically reduce the population of the earth.

This sounds like a myth but consider that many universities and colleges are overflowing with extremists like Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Bill Ayers, etc. They have no appreciation of protections afforded by the US Constitution (and Nature's God). They seriously believe in their "infinite" wisdom. They are actually persecuting and ridiculing conservative students right in the classroom. Many of their theories are being implemented before our eyes in the Obama administration. The people are like the frog in the pot that is slowly coming to a boil. It is only going to get worse.

I'd sure appreciate it if you could stay on the subject of this OP, rather than ranting in tune with your chosen ideological cult of the week.

[Daniel2]

There are clearly some that disagree with you on that very last part. I am beginning to suspect that even the SCOTUS is going to duck the question because right now I think Justice Kennedy is going to seize the day and the marriage cases are going to go down like this: Prop 8 case will get dismissed as jurisdiction having been improvidently granted because of the standing issue, and the DOMA will be struck down via a plurality decision with Justice Kennedy writing the opinion based on a Federalism argument that it interferes with the reserved exclusive control over marriage by the States this will be accompanied by a concurring opinion by the liberals on the Court who concur with the result but not the opinion. The net result will be California will have gay marriage, and the Feds will be a bit confused, but the IRS and Social Security will probably have to start recognizing gay marriage. Which means that those states with full gay marriage laws will quickly become marriage mills for gays and lesbians which will help the bed and breakfast businesses in Vermont.

I agree with your prediction here, Stone holm. From everything I've read, that will be the likely outcome of the two current cases. Subsequently, I believe several ballot measures will pass in various states recognizing same-sex marriage, and probably even overturning several states' previous constitutional amendments against it. There will probably several die-hard conservative states that will hold out against gay marriage, until they are in the minority, At which point, ultimately, means another case will eventually again make it's way to SCOTUS, having the proper standing, to re-examine the constitutionality of same-sex marriage prohibitions in the remaining hold-out states, which will then "be forced" to allow marriage equality (similar to the path of interracial marriage's ultimate ruling).

Edited March 30, 2013 by Daniel2

[Damien the Leper]

Well good. I have not tried to do that! Did you want me to try?

I apologize once again. You actually said that a family with same sex parents are legitimate families just as opposite sex parent families. And they provide homes of stability, love and nurture. I'm saying the exact same thing as you.

[CASteinman]

I apologize once again. You actually said that a family with same sex parents are legitimate families just as opposite sex parent families. And they provide homes of stability, love and nurture. I'm saying the exact same thing as you.

But they would not be Preferred Family Units.

[Stone holm]

OK, explain how they so so logically -- with reference to the Bill of Rights.

Remember, I was not talking about Marriage here.. although If you want, I will include that (Notice, by the way, that even the liberal members of the court are not talking about Prop 8 being an "equality" issue.)

Did you read a different copy of the Prop 8 debate than I did? Because it was pretty clear to me that Sotomayer and Kagan were treating it as an equal rights issue. Sotomayer boxed the counsel for the proponents into admitting that outside of the marriage issue he could not think of any right that should be denied gay or lesbian person by reason of their gender orientation and then she pounced on him that they were a class of people being denied equal protection. Kagan launched a similar attack. My personal view is that the law was defective for the reason it violated the first amendment, but the opponents were interested in an equal protection ruling so they didn't argue it, though it was clearly lurking in the background because the Church in its brief attempted to fend off the argument which was not actually made by the proponents. (I think they did that on purpose to lay the groundwork for a later religious clause defense against later lawsuits when SSM becomes pretty much the law of the land

[Robert F. Smith]

A freind posted on Facebook that they do not care what happens as long as it does not interfere with his life and beliefs. Yet he is also LDS. My response is that is does interefere. That type of Lifestyle is not accepted by God. Not only that but it clearly states it in The Family; A Proclamtion to the World. Now I am not going to say that should not be happy. If they feel this is their happiness than all the more power to them. Yet to say that they deserve to marraige legalized for homosexuals is absurd. Now if the states want to grant them civil unions and liberties as Heteorsexual couples have (Man and A Woman) than that is fine. But to change the definitation of marraige to include a bond between any two people, regardless of gender is wrong. The Family; Proclamation to the World, is not just for LDS it is for the world to follow. Not just LDS, not just Americans, EVERYONE, and as the scriptures so many times say, blessed is the nation whose God is Lord. Well once you start changing the definition of such Bonds and Rights of families to include those of same sex genders, than you no longer can pronounce yourself a nation to the Lord.

ARTICLES OF FAITH

11 We claim the ^aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the ^bdictates of our own ^cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them ^dworship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being ^asubject to ^bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in ^cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the ^dlaw.

What is it about these two official LDS principles that you don't understand?

[Damien the Leper]

But they would not be Preferred Family Units.

Preferred according to whom? Certainly not the American majority. Americans are better and smarter than that.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just today I heard a commentator assert the "gay marriage" issue is merely the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. It was said that once ssm is made legal throughout the country, with the precident set and the definition of traditional marriage overthrown, the floodgates of change will be wide open with people like the "polyamorists" waiting in the wings to press for "marriages" of every kind.

Although I didn't view it myself, I understand the TV program "Wife Swap" just featured a "tea party" family and a polyamorous trio: a husband, his wife, and "their" mutual "girlfriend." If "love" is the only ingredient needed when it comes to determining what is necessary in order to allow for a legal marriage, it would seem to me the sky's the limit when it comes to what will be considered acceptable. It will be strange indeed when the Latter-day Saints live in societies where polygamus marriages are legal but will not be participants.

Your points are well taken, and Justice Hugo Black long ago predicted that Reynolds v US would be overturned eventually.

However, Mormons already live in societies in which polygyny is legal, on several continents. In one of those countries, there is even an LDS stake. There may be others.

[Stone holm]

Your points are well taken, and Justice Hugo Black long ago predicted that Reynolds v US would be overturned eventually.

However, Mormons already live in societies in which polygyny is legal, on several continents. In one of those countries, there is even an LDS stake. There may be others.

I don't think he is the only one, seems like Rehnquist may have asserted in one his concurring opinions that the majority had already done so. It is a very poorly reasoned opinion which if followed to its ultimate conclusion could strip us of about every civil liberty conceived of since the 17th century and elevate colonial culture to the level of sacrosanct

[Stone holm]

ARTICLES OF FAITH

11 We claim the ^aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the ^bdictates of our own ^cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them ^dworship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being ^asubject to ^bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in ^cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the ^dlaw.

What is it about these two official LDS principles that you don't understand?

Nicely put.

[CASteinman]

Did you read a different copy of the Prop 8 debate than I did?

Maybe. But I should have said "most" rather than implied all.

[CASteinman]

Preferred according to whom? Certainly not the American majority. Americans are better and smarter than that.

By the Government.

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................

Obama's handlers had a whole raft of priorities. They were careful to maintain their claims of moderation in the beginning of his first term. First they pushed ObamaCare which no one in the Congress had any part in drafting. Nobody knew what was in it! Nancy Pelosi actually said to "vote for it so we will find out what's in them!" My impression is that the 40 thousand pages of ObamaCare were cobbled together and coordinated by hundreds of federal agencies and radical departments in universities.

..............................

Ridiculous.

Yeh, your version of reality is definitely ridiculous and even a distraction from the OP.

One of the major criticisms of Pres. Obama has been that he failed to write and push good health care legislation. Instead, he allowed Congress and the health insurance companies to write the Affordable Health Care Act, and he allowed them to base it on Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care system. Had he put Dennis Kucinich (an actual radical) in charge of the effort, we would now have a one-payer system costing half of what we now pay per capita for health care. That's what all modern countries in the world have. Like Bush, Obama governs from the center, leaving us satisfied with neither. Neither political party appears prepared to do what needs to be done in any area of legislation.

If you really took the "long view," you'd know that.

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps you had not noticed but even the liberal members of the court are mostly not talking about this as an equal rights issue.

Indeed, and it will eventually be decided as a states' rights issue, if at all.

[Damien the Leper]

By the Government.

Never gonna happen. Americans are smarter than this and they'll never let the government dictate their families in such a manner.

[CASteinman]

Never gonna happen. Americans are smarter than this and they'll never let the government dictate their families in such a manner.

The Government is already dictating marriage in novel, bizarre ways. This should be easy. After all, it is in the State's interest.

Besides.. This was my proposal to you when you suggested Government should not recognize marriage at all. Which I would go for if they would support Best Family Structures for Raising Children.

Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

The Government is already dictating marriage in novel, bizarre ways. This should be easy. After all, it is in the State's interest.

Besides.. This was my proposal to you when you suggested Government should not recognize marriage at all. Which I would go for if they would support Best Family Structures for Raising Children.

Yeah the problem with that is that on average the SSM couples seem to be out performing the heterosexual couples with the whole child rearing thing, but give them time and if enough of them get into the act, I think that eventually their performance rating will get as bad as the rest of us.

[CASteinman]

Yeah the problem with that is that on average the SSM couples seem to be out performing the heterosexual couples with the whole child rearing thing

Only if you take flaky and overtly biased research as a guide.

Edited March 30, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

Only if you take flaky and overtly biased research as a guide.

No actually that is a better description of the studies thus far presented by the opponents. Mind you I believe that ideally the heterosexual couple is better. Right now, however, I think the studies are being skewed by the fact that SSM couples on average are more affluent and better educated. Mind you we are talking about averages, so heterosexual averages are being influenced by the fact all we need to become parents is a wiling partner so any illiterate drunken druggie can become a parent, whereas gays have to get cleared through adoption agencies.

[Nathair/|\]

Do we not usually agree on things? It's because I'm a Mormon Communist Homosexual isn't it?

Mostly the middle one. I'm as heretical as you can get while still accepting the actual official teachings of the church. I don't see why the latter one should have that strong of an influence on most important issues. FWIW, you do come across as a person of intelligence and integrity, even when I think you are in error.

[CASteinman]

I think the studies are being skewed by the fact that SSM couples on average are more affluent and better educated.

That is what I meant by flaky. At this point, we are starting to venture into an area that I know something about: Statistics. I work with statistics and analysis a lot and have done so for years. The studies (I use that term loosely because its not really quite right to use the plural) that show what you claim fail to compensate for (or control for) variables like that. It is a fundamental error of methodology. It really should have caused the paper to be thrown right out.

On the other hand, the studies regarding children of traditional families have a bit more statistical heft and validity to them.

But I hate arguing studies. Its always arguing by proxy and science has become subverted sufficiently that given enough time you can find science to support almost anything (reprehensible) and most people cannot easily detect the bad from the good. So I hate that stuff.

[Stone holm]

That is what I meant by flaky. At this point, we are starting to venture into an area that I know something about: Statistics. I work with statistics and analysis a lot and have done so for years. The studies (I use that term loosely because its not really quite right to use the plural) that show what you claim fail to compensate for (or control for) variables like that. It is a fundamental error of methodology. It really should have caused the paper to be thrown right out.

On the other hand, the studies regarding children of traditional families have a bit more statistical heft and validity to them.

But I hate arguing studies. Its always arguing by proxy and science has become subverted sufficiently that given enough time you can find science to support almost anything (reprehensible) and most people cannot easily detect the bad from the good. So I hate that stuff.

The thing is even if you controlled for that kind of stuff, the fact is that many SSM couples make better parents than the others, and that is likely to remain true unless we start sterilizing some of the morons who right now are multiplying like rabbits and methinks we as a people would not welcome having eugenics being reintroduced so you will continue to have teenagers making babies in the backseat and SSM couples going through adoption agencies its just the way it all works, it makes you wonder if we really should have put the Shakers out of the foster care business...lol

[CASteinman]

The thing is even if you controlled for that kind of stuff, the fact is that many SSM couples make better parents than the others

There is precisely zero legitimate evidence of that. And no, I do not want to argue studies.

[Damien the Leper]

Mostly the middle one. I'm as heretical as you can get while still accepting the actual official teachings of the church. I don't see why the latter one should have that strong of an influence on most important issues. FWIW, you do come across as a person of intelligence and integrity, even when I think you are in error.

I know I'm radical...we're a better breed than liberals. I can't stomach the thought of perceiving things over simplistically. The gray area on so many issues outweigh the black and white by a ridiculous weight. For me, its not enough to accept things at face value. Because scripture teaches this, because the prophets say that, because someone I don't know says God said that...these just don't hold enough water. There is so much more to consider.

[Damien the Leper]

There is precisely zero legitimate evidence of that. And no, I do not want to argue studies.

Is that because the studies done may actually disagree with you? It is better to consider possible evidence than to dismiss it because it might be biased. News flash! All studies are biased in some form or fashion.