Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[wenglund]

The problem with his reasoning, is in part, he chooses what he thinks the government is trying to incentivise and then looks for examples to justify his choice. His choice is dictated by trying to come up with something that gays cannot do, so it usually falls back on the idea the government wants population growth. If you go by the idea that the government in a democracy should kind of want what the people want then things get a bit dicey since it is basically not at all evident that the people want more people. Course that never really deters a true ideologue whether a liberal or conservative from his intended goal.

I would call this sheer, unadulterated, and demonstrably false projection were it not that you don't even bother to provide evidence and reasoning to support you dogma. You just mindlessly respond with the propagandistic nonsense you have been indoctrinated with for years by pop culture.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Has shame and shunning worked with the gay community? We've been doing it for a long, long time.

Actually, popular culture has been undoing it for years, and, as I have indicated, it has worked in increasing STD's among homosexuals (who had a disproportionately more significant problem than heterosexuals to begin with). As Charlie Sheen would say, "WINNING!"

Were your kind of emoting not so unwittingly harmful to all parties, this might be funny.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Yeah, it has worked in the past, and it still works with some people these days. Haven't you heard news stories about teens who commit suicide rather than admit they have "gay" feelings? Coming out of the closet is still seen as a big deal and it's hoped that as more people fess up to their feelings more people will feel okay with it so there will be less suicides. Acceptance is a big part of the deal, apparently, for some people. Which is kinda weird for Americans, since most of us are free spirits who really couldn't care less about peer pressure, or at least when past the teen years.

I think several things happened which united the gays as a community and caused them to start working together and pooling their political resources. One was what they refer to as the plague years which exploded on the scene and people who hadn't intended to come out we're forced out because of AIDS and suddenly people who were brothers or aunts or good friends were wasting away and dropping dead. Then the political push for equality started and some of the old timers like my brother didn't even want the rights, but they got ticked off because of the religious stuff being thrown at them so it forced the gay community to unite and a united community can accomplish quite a bit especially if they have some affluence and are educated and the gay community is above average on both counts. It is interesting though that a minority in the gay community has been responsible for a lot of the litigation. The gay Republican group, known as the Log Cabin Republicans have been at the forefront of the litigation. But I think those two things are what fuelled the dramatic overcoming of the cultural taboos. Personally, I never thought they could do it so quickly. Course in my younger years I was militantly anti-gay and a very outspoken critic of homosexuals trying to flush them out of the school system. Some have suggested that they could never have done it so quickly without the LDS Church having opposed gay marriage, because our rhetoric and arguments irritated so many people who were only moderately anti-gay. I think that was very true here in Vermont.

[rockpond]

There are still some posts that I plan to respond to and still more I plan to say about procreation, but I think it is time to open discussion, for all the good it will do, about the government's interest in child-rearing as it pertains to marriage.

Do you agree that, as a general rule, rational governments, including the U.S., have an interest in the cultivation of their most valued resource--i.e. children.

Do you agree that, by and large, the interest of governments isn't in raising the children, themselves, but in having the children properly raised by those having the children, and having the children raised in a way that is best for the children and which will burden the governments (the people) the least. In other words, governments have an interested in promoting the ideal familial structure and not in PROMOTING familial structures that may, in some ways, work at cross purposes to the governments' interests, though the government may yet have an interest in providing some ASSISTANCE to alternative familial structures. Governments have an interest in PROMOTING, through marriage, stable and loving and healthy families, each with a biologically related father and mother, while yet also providing, through family and child protection laws, ASSISTANCE where necessary to children in non-ideal families.

Please note the important distinction between ideal and non-ideal, and the distinction between PROMOTE (through marriage) and ASSIST (through other laws).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree that the government has an interest in making sure that children are raised to be productive citizens. Which family structure is only relevant if certain structures can be shown to be significantly less effective.

But this ignores the constitutional issue of whether the government gets to pick which families are deserving of equal treatment.

[rockpond]

Actually, popular culture has been undoing it for years, and, as I have indicated, it has worked in increasing STD's among homosexuals (who had a disproportionately more significant problem than heterosexuals to begin with). As Charlie Sheen would say, "WINNING!"

Were your kind of emoting not so unwittingly harmful to all parties, this might be funny.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Per the CDC, African Americans have a higher rate of STD infections (and increasing for some STDs) than Caucasians. Is that for a lack of shunning and shaming black people?

You've thrown a lot of statistics around but have failed to show a reasonable/logical link as to how encouraging committed, monogamous marriages among gay couples would increase STD infection rates.

[rockpond]

Not that it will do any good to say this to you (since you have obviously closed your mind to anything that doesn't comport with your self-serving and demonstrably irrational and ungodly position), but: 1) accurate descriptions are not insults, particularly when in response to seemingly intentional caricatures; and 2) there hasn't been a single opponent on this thread who has been willing to intelligently and open-mindedly engage what I have said. Instead, they, like you, have resorted to unwarranted dismissals and closed there eyes to and made false claims about lack of substantiation, and have but repeatedly regurgitated their cemented position. So, as indicated in the post above, there are no opponents for me to meaningful interact with here, and thus no vocal opponent to win. There is no amount of reason and evidence that I could bring to bear that will have the least impact on their pop-culture-indoctrinated, cemented, irrational and upside-down position. This has been clearly born out time and again on this thread, not the least of which by you.

The same could be said of you, Wade.

Declaring all of us as dismissive and irrational when we are the only ones who have shown a willingness to engage with you on your terms is not productive.

Also, your unfounded insults and repeated rhetoric do not move the discussion forward.

[california boy]

I think several things happened which united the gays as a community and caused them to start working together and pooling their political resources. One was what they refer to as the plague years which exploded on the scene and people who hadn't intended to come out we're forced out because of AIDS and suddenly people who were brothers or aunts or good friends were wasting away and dropping dead.

This was the start of gay activism, Ronald Reagan so ignored the AIDS epidemic and even refused to even mention the AIDS epidemic (the shunning approach Wade is advocating) caused the gay community to realize that if they were going to stop this epidemic, they were going to have to do it on their own without government help. When all your friends are dying around you and no one is really clear on why it is all happening, and the government is doing nothing to stop one of the worst epidemics in American history, it tends to motivate into action. Progress started to happen. Peoples lives started to be saved. Eventually the government did finally get involved, but not after the lives of thousands of gay citizens were lost.

Then the political push for equality started and some of the old timers like my brother didn't even want the rights, but they got ticked off because of the religious stuff being thrown at them so it forced the gay community to unite and a united community can accomplish quite a bit especially if they have some affluence and are educated and the gay community is above average on both counts. It is interesting though that a minority in the gay community has been responsible for a lot of the litigation. The gay Republican group, known as the Log Cabin Republicans have been at the forefront of the litigation. But I think those two things are what fuelled the dramatic overcoming of the cultural taboos. Personally, I never thought they could do it so quickly. Course in my younger years I was militantly anti-gay and a very outspoken critic of homosexuals trying to flush them out of the school system.

You are absolutely right. Until that point, gays were willing to live as second class citizens. That single event made them commit to become equal citizens and participate with the rest of America in securing their rights. They were no longer willing to be brutalized by the police and their own government. If wade thinks that there is any hope in shoving the gay population back to a time when just because they are gay, they were denied basic rights, he is delusional. The majority of Americans think that should never happen again.

Some have suggested that they could never have done it so quickly without the LDS Church having opposed gay marriage, because our rhetoric and arguments irritated so many people who were only moderately anti-gay. I think that was very true here in Vermont.

I started a thread about this a while back and it got shut down immediately as well as putting me into "time out" for taunting the church. I wasn't intentinally taunting the church, but rather wanted to have a discussion about this very issue. While I certainly believed that the church had every right to get involved in prop 8, I was very angry with the money going to a campaign that was filled with lies and half truths. I often got the answer that "the church does not control the advertising" which always seemed like a willingness to be dishonest without taking the responsibility for it. When an organization donated millions of dollars to a campaign, they do have a right to make sure that advertising is done honestly. It is for that reason I was very angry with the church's actions, not their participation.

In retrospect, I have to thank the church for their involvement in Prop 8. Winning Prop 8 was the best thing that could have ever happen to the gay rights movement. It started a national discussion. Countless news segments have been aired where both sides got to present their case. The lies got exposed, and people realized that it was wrong. Since Prop 8, the rise of support for gay marriage is nothing more than spectacular. And it is all happened with educating the public about the issues and showing the fallacies of the arguments against gay marriage. America has come to realize that it is only religious belief that is denying equal rights to gay Americans. Wade's thread is a perfect example of how tortured one has to put together unrelated facts to try desperately to find an argument against gay marriage. The more people talk about the reasons to not have gay marriage, the more people look at those reasons and decide for themselves that there is no real argument against gay marriage. And that is what is wining this debate.

[Stone holm]

This was the start of gay activism, Ronald Reagan so ignored the AIDS epidemic and even refused to even mention the AIDS epidemic (the shunning approach Wade is advocating) caused the gay community to realize that if they were going to stop this epidemic, they were going to have to do it on their own without government help. When all your friends are dying around you and no one is really clear on why it is all happening, and the government is doing nothing to stop one of the worst epidemics in American history, it tends to motivate into action. Progress started to happen. Peoples lives started to be saved. Eventually the government did finally get involved, but not after the lives of thousands of gay citizens were lost.

You are absolutely right. Until that point, gays were willing to live as second class citizens. That single event made them commit to become equal citizens and participate with the rest of America in securing their rights. They were no longer willing to be brutalized by the police and their own government. If wade thinks that there is any hope in shoving the gay population back to a time when just because they are gay, they were denied basic rights, he is delusional. The majority of Americans think that should never happen again.

I started a thread about this a while back and it got shut down immediately as well as putting me into "time out" for taunting the church. I wasn't intentinally taunting the church, but rather wanted to have a discussion about this very issue. While I certainly believed that the church had every right to get involved in prop 8, I was very angry with the money going to a campaign that was filled with lies and half truths. I often got the answer that "the church does not control the advertising" which always seemed like a willingness to be dishonest without taking the responsibility for it. When an organization donated millions of dollars to a campaign, they do have a right to make sure that advertising is done honestly. It is for that reason I was very angry with the church's actions, not their participation.

In retrospect, I have to thank the church for their involvement in Prop 8. Winning Prop 8 was the best thing that could have ever happen to the gay rights movement. It started a national discussion. Countless news segments have been aired where both sides got to present their case. The lies got exposed, and people realized that it was wrong. Since Prop 8, the rise of support for gay marriage is nothing more than spectacular. And it is all happened with educating the public about the issues and showing the fallacies of the arguments against gay marriage. America has come to realize that it is only religious belief that is denying equal rights to gay Americans. Wade's thread is a perfect example of how tortured one has to put together unrelated facts to try desperately to find an argument against gay marriage. The more people talk about the reasons to not have gay marriage, the more people look at those reasons and decide for themselves that there is no real argument against gay marriage. And that is what is wining this debate.

I have always felt it was an unfortunate move for the Church to have publicly encouraged members to get involved with Prop 8. Our very high profile in the anti-SSM battles was something akin to the Pope banning a book which normally makes them a best seller. I have come, however, to rationalise that period of intense political activity and the Proclamation on Family as a legal strategy to clearly stake out a doctrinal position so that it can be used as a Constitutional shield later on. In that respect, I think that the activism may simply have been a somewhat hamfisted approach at implementing inspiration. The Lord does not always micro manage His Leaders

[ERayR]

I have always felt it was an unfortunate move for the Church to have publicly encouraged members to get involved with Prop 8. Our very high profile in the anti-SSM battles was something akin to the Pope banning a book which normally makes them a best seller. I have come, however, to rationalise that period of intense political activity and the Proclamation on Family as a legal strategy to clearly stake out a doctrinal position so that it can be used as a Constitutional shield later on. In that respect, I think that the activism may simply have been a somewhat hamfisted approach at implementing inspiration. The Lord does not always micro manage His Leaders

And I have always felt it was exactly the right thing for the Church to have publicly encouraged members to get involved with Prop 8. Our very high profile in the anti-SSM battles was and is the right place to be. What good is having principles and ideals if they are buried and never come to light?

[Stone holm]

And I have always felt it was exactly the right thing for the Church to have publicly encouraged members to get involved with Prop 8. Our very high profile in the anti-SSM battles was and is the right place to be. What good is having principles and ideals if they are buried and never come to light?

Can't argue with your opinion, as I at one time held the same opinion a few decades back. I personally do not condone homosexuality, and even have some reservations with the notion that it can't be overcome. My problem is not with our having denounced homosexuality or stating our position with regards to gay marriage. Where I have concern especially with Prop 8 is the very strong appearance we gave of trying to impose our religious beliefs on others. I think it was that which in part triggered the momentum that gays are seeing in acceptance. They were clearly seen as being a minority being persecuted by religious believers. I think the common Facebook meme which goes "The problem is not your religious beliefs, the problem is that you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on me." The problem with Prop 8 is that it was in part strictly a battle of semantics and the semantic battle was over the definition of a word and whether the definition should be restrained to a religious meaning or not. The Catholic Church and our Church led the fight against Civil Unions here in Vermont. Some of the arguments used by the Church representative were ill-considered -- even if they were correct which was a matter of debate -- and painted us in a very bad light, as did the use of Mormon children as pamphleteers. Fortunately, our Ward missed out on most of the political activism because we are a Ward whose chapel is located in Vermont but which is in a New Hampshire Stake. So when the mailing went out from Salt Lake to the Vermont Wards and Stakes they missed us, later when the battle in Vermont ended and then erupted in New Hampshire -- it almost missed us again because our chapel was located in Vermont. We did lose members over the political activism including some very prominent leaders, but for the most part the political activism coming from the Stake got shut down by the Relief Society. A High Councilor was directed by the Stake to read a letter encouraging activism from the Stake and basically got read the riot act by the Sisters and told to leave their meeting. The political activism has hampered missionary efforts amongst a large swathe of college educated people in New England which is unfortunate and it may take years to regain our momentum there, it isn't helping that the high profile battle within the BSA continues or that a law professor from BYU was involved in the proponents brief regarding Prop 8 with the SCOTUS. But these things will pass, and the Kingdom will roll forth.

[wenglund]

After 15 pages of argumentation it may be time to recap and bring the discussion back on topic.

History and common sense strongly suggest that the primary and predominate reason that people throughout the ages have gotten married is to have kids, and the reason that societies and religions in general, and governments in particular, have become involved in marriage is likewise to encourage responsible procreation.

There are two key reasons responsible procreation (i.e. marriage) is in the governments (the people) interest. First, with few exceptions, and for a variety of reasons, governments/people benefit from growing and maintaining their populations through procreation--that is, as long as procreation occurs in ways that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the cost of procreation. Irresponsible procreation can have high cost to the government/people. whereas responsible procreation through marriage has lower costs. Therefore, it is in the governments interest to promote population growth and maintenance through marriage.

Second, and more important, since the sexual or procreative drive of heterosexuals is so strong, governments haven't always needed to promote procreation. However, because of the high cost of irresponsible procreation, it has been in the governments interest to channel the strong heterosexual drive into responsible procreation (i.e. marriage). It has been in the governments interest to encourage marriage so as to avoid the potentially high costs of irresponsible procreation.

So vital has responsible procreation/marriage been to governments throughout the ages, that it forms the basis for which marriage is considered a civil right. Judges in both state and federal supreme courts in the U.S have indicated that marriage is a civil right because of its long tradition and because it is fundamental to our existence and survival.

Now, my gay advocacy friends will try and poo poo this, and in spite of all the compelling evidence and reasoning I have presented to the contrary, they will claim there is no support for my claims. Of course they need to say this because accepting the compelling reasoning and evidence would mean they would have to reject their baseless SSM position because it is rendered senseless. SSM is not primarily or predominately in the government's/people's interest. And, since they have been so strongly indoctrinated by pop culture into unwittingly cheering for mangling the legal definition of marriage and promoting harmful sexual behaviors, to the point of being cemented in that emotive position, they have no choice but to close their eyes, repeat the propaganda mantras, and dismiss my arguments out of hand, leaving the world increasingly in an upside-down state.

The secondary reason that governments have become involved in marriage is related to responsible procreation, and it has to do with the government's interest in the procreated children being raised in a way that maximizes the benefits of children, while minimizing the costs or burden to the government or the children of children. Social evolution and common sense suggests that the most ideal familial structure, and the one that produces the greatest benefits and the least amount of costs, is a two-parent home, with a biological father and mother. As such, governments have become involved in marriage because it is in their interest to promote the ideal family structure, though it also has an interest in assisting children in non-ideal familial homes, but through family and child protection laws, and not marriage law, since doing so through the latter would run contrary to the secondary reason governments became involve in marriage to begin with.

Again, my gay advocacy friends will poo poo this as well because it, too, renders their position senseless. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 8, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

After 15 pages of argumentation it may be time to recap and bring the discussion back on topic.

History and common sense strongly suggest that the primary and predominate reason that people throughout the ages have gotten married is to have kids, and the reason that societies and religions in general, and governments in particular, have become involved in marriage is likewise to encourage responsible procreation.

I would agree that the predominant reason is to start a family. But it isn't the only reason. Not even close. And you have not established that governments became involved in marriage to encourage procreation.

There are two key reasons responsible procreation (i.e. marriage) is in the governments (the people) interest. First, with few exceptions, and for a variety of reasons, governments/people benefit from growing and maintaining their populations through procreation--that is, as long as procreation occurs in ways that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the cost of procreation. Irresponsible procreation can have high cost to the government/people. whereas responsible procreation through marriage has lower costs. Therefore, it is in the governments interest to promote population growth and maintenance through marriage.

So now we are back to government having an interest in population growth? Okay.

Second, and more important, since the sexual or procreative drive of heterosexuals is so strong, governments haven't always needed to promote procreation. However, because of the high cost of irresponsible procreation, it has been in the governments interest to channel the strong heterosexual drive into responsible procreation (i.e. marriage). It has been in the governments interest to encourage marriage so as to avoid the potentially high costs of irresponsible procreation.

So vital has responsible procreation/marriage been to governments throughout the ages, that it forms the basis for which marriage is considered a civil right. Judges in both state and federal supreme courts in the U.S have indicated that marriage is a civil right because of its long tradition and because it is fundamental to our existence and survival.

You have not established that marriage is a civil right *because* of the government's interest in procreation.

Now, my gay advocacy friends will try and poo poo this, and in spite of all the compelling evidence and reasoning I have presented to the contrary, they will claim there is no support for my claims. Of course they need to say this because accepting the compelling reasoning and evidence would mean they would have to reject their baseless SSM position because it is rendered senseless. SSM is not primarily or predominately in the government's/people's interest. And, since they have been so strongly indoctrinated by pop culture into unwittingly cheering for mangling the legal definition of marriage and promoting harmful sexual behaviors, to the point of being cemented in that emotive position, they have no choice but to close their eyes, repeat the propaganda mantras, and dismiss my arguments out of hand, leaving the world increasingly in an upside-down state.

Keep up the rhetoric Wade, soon enough you'll be alone on this thread.

The secondary reason that governments have become involved in marriage is related to responsible procreation, and it has to do with the government's interest in the procreated children being raised in a way that maximizes the benefits of children, while minimizing the costs or burden to the government or the children of children. Social evolution and common sense suggests that the most ideal familial structure, and the one that produces the greatest benefits and the least amount of costs, is a two-parent home, with a biological father and mother. As such, governments have become involved in marriage because it is in their interest to promote the ideal family structure, though it also has an interest in assisting children in non-ideal familial homes, but through family and child protection laws, and not marriage law, since doing so through the latter would run contrary to the secondary reason governments became involve in marriage to begin with.

This is your opinion and you are fond of repeating it but you have not established it as fact.

Again, my gay advocacy friends will poo poo this as well because it, too, renders their position senseless. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If the government has an interest in promoting population growth through the responsible birth and raising of children than you have not established a reason why it would not provide the same benefits to a gay couple who wishes have a child through surrogacy or sperm donation or to adopt a child out of the foster care system. The net result would be the same: a child being raised by two parents.

[wenglund]

I would agree that the predominant reason is to start a family. But it isn't the only reason. Not even close. And you have not established that governments became involved in marriage to encourage procreation.

So now we are back to government having an interest in population growth? Okay.

You have not established that marriage is a civil right *because* of the government's interest in procreation.

Keep up the rhetoric Wade, soon enough you'll be alone on this thread.

This is your opinion and you are fond of repeating it but you have not established it as fact.

If the government has an interest in promoting population growth through the responsible birth and raising of children than you have not established a reason why it would not provide the same benefits to a gay couple who wishes have a child through surrogacy or sperm donation or to adopt a child out of the foster care system. The net result would be the same: a child being raised by two parents.

Around and around and around we go...

Truth is, I have gone over these things with you multiple times and pointed out the logical substantiations. I have gone so far as to painstakingly connect the dots for you. And, I have even CAPITALIZED various words in order to help you see what to me are obvious distinctions. I have thoughtfully answered questions you have asked that, to me, are stunningly myopic. I have also asked you insightful questions, and even given you hints as to the answers, and when for the life of you you couldn't answer the questions--except to repeat what you have been saying all along, and then couldn't even grasp a whit of the obvious answer after I had spelled them out to you, it finally became clear to me that no matter how hard I try, or no matter how adept my teaching and reasoning skills, you won't get it or see the substantiating evidence because you literally can't. You are so invested in your current position that you are blinded to anything else. Nothing, not God or his prophets, or the smartest people on the planet, could make you see things differently because you can't see anything but what you believe.

So, when you say that I may soon be alone on this thread, the fact of the matter is, I have been alone all along. You haven't really been here with me--at least not in open mind.

This doesn't mean I don't like you. I do. It doesn't mean I think you are a bad person. I don't. I actually think you are a pretty nice guy. It just means that, metaphorically speaking, it is pointless to try and show a blind person a beautiful sunset regardless of how highly I may think of that blind person.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Around and around and around we go...

Truth is, I have gone over these things with you multiple times and pointed out the logical substantiations. I have gone so far as to painstakingly connect the dots for you. And, I have even CAPITALIZED various words in order to help you see what to me are obvious distinctions. I have thoughtfully answered questions you have asked that, to me, are stunningly myopic. I have also asked you insightful questions, and even given you hints as to the answers, and when for the life of you you couldn't answer the questions--except to repeat what you have been saying all along, and then couldn't even grasp a whit of the obvious answer after I had spelled them out to you, it finally became clear to me that no matter how hard I try, or no matter how adept my teaching and reasoning skills, you won't get it or see the substantiating evidence because you literally can't. You are so invested in your current position that you are blinded to anything else. Nothing, not God or his prophets, or the smartest people on the planet, could make you see things differently because you can't see anything but what you believe.

So, when you say that I may soon be alone on this thread, the fact of the matter is, I have been alone all along. You haven't really been here with me--at least not in open mind.

This doesn't mean I don't like you. I do. It doesn't mean I think you are a bad person. I don't. I actually think you are a pretty nice guy. It just means that, metaphorically speaking, it is pointless to try and show a blind person a beautiful sunset regardless of how highly I may think of that blind person.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Your repetition, capitalization, and endlessly copy/pasting from the internet does not make a case. You declined to answer my question regarding what benefits the government pays for with our tax dollars that promotes normative heterosexual conception. That's a key element of your argument.

If you believe that you've connected the dots so well, than why can you not coherently explain why the government has an interest in promoting only births through normative heterosexual conception and not through medically aided conception.

If I recall correctly, it was about the time that I began asking those questions that you started your cries of nobody understands me even though I am so obviously clear, everyone is just so blinded by gay advocacy, and "stop mangling the definition of marriage".

Now you are trying to say that the government only has an interest in promoting the raising of children by heterosexual parents. And assisting those being raised in other situations. But you've left out the key piece: why. Why would the government have such an interest?

I enjoy discussing with you, Wade, but only when you discuss. Not when you result to insults and rhetoric. So if you want to continue, then please try to respond to the three questions I've brought up in this post (in response to my spending many days following the case you have laid out).

But if you are done, that's fine too.

[Daniel2]

After 15 pages of argumentation it may be time to recap and bring the discussion back on topic.

History and common sense strongly suggest that the primary and predominate reason that people throughout the ages have gotten married is to have kids, and the reason that societies and religions in general, and governments in particular, have become involved in marriage is likewise to encourage responsible procreation.

There are two key reasons responsible procreation (i.e. marriage) is in the governments (the people) interest. First, with few exceptions, and for a variety of reasons, governments/people benefit from growing and maintaining their populations through procreation--that is, as long as procreation occurs in ways that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the cost of procreation. Irresponsible procreation can have high cost to the government/people. whereas responsible procreation through marriage has lower costs. Therefore, it is in the governments interest to promote population growth and maintenance through marriage.

Second, and more important, since the sexual or procreative drive of heterosexuals is so strong, governments haven't always needed to promote procreation. However, because of the high cost of irresponsible procreation, it has been in the governments interest to channel the strong heterosexual drive into responsible procreation (i.e. marriage). It has been in the governments interest to encourage marriage so as to avoid the potentially high costs of irresponsible procreation.

So vital has responsible procreation/marriage been to governments throughout the ages, that it forms the basis for which marriage is considered a civil right. Judges in both state and federal supreme courts in the U.S have indicated that marriage is a civil right because of its long tradition and because it is fundamental to our existence and survival.

Now, my gay advocacy friends will try and poo poo this, and in spite of all the compelling evidence and reasoning I have presented to the contrary, they will claim there is no support for my claims. Of course they need to say this because accepting the compelling reasoning and evidence would mean they would have to reject their baseless SSM position because it is rendered senseless. SSM is not primarily or predominately in the government's/people's interest. And, since they have been so strongly indoctrinated by pop culture into unwittingly cheering for mangling the legal definition of marriage and promoting harmful sexual behaviors, to the point of being cemented in that emotive position, they have no choice but to close their eyes, repeat the propaganda mantras, and dismiss my arguments out of hand, leaving the world increasingly in an upside-down state.

The secondary reason that governments have become involved in marriage is related to responsible procreation, and it has to do with the government's interest in the procreated children being raised in a way that maximizes the benefits of children, while minimizing the costs or burden to the government or the children of children. Social evolution and common sense suggests that the most ideal familial structure, and the one that produces the greatest benefits and the least amount of costs, is a two-parent home, with a biological father and mother. As such, governments have become involved in marriage because it is in their interest to promote the ideal family structure, though it also has an interest in assisting children in non-ideal familial homes, but through family and child protection laws, and not marriage law, since doing so through the latter would run contrary to the secondary reason governments became involve in marriage to begin with.

Again, my gay advocacy friends will poo poo this as well because it, too, renders their position senseless. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In all seriousness, I LOVE this thread, and want to publically applaud and sincerely express my profound support for individuals like Wade for so compellingly and convincingly advancing the cause of same-sex marriage.

The more arguments like those he makes in this thread are promoted, the more myopic, baseless, and irrationally intolerant they appear, and marriage equality wins.

Keep it up, Wade. I applaud your efforts.

Daniel2

Edited May 9, 2013 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Around and around and around we go...

Actually, at 11 states and counting (with DE and RI recently on board, and MN potentially joining by next week, and the Supreme Court's impending decision likely to strike down DOMA, and uphold the unconstitutionality of Prop 8, and the list goes on and on...), we aren't merely going round and around--we're making substantial progress. :-)

Daniel2

[wenglund]

Wade,

Your repetition, capitalization, and endlessly copy/pasting from the internet does not make a case. You declined to answer my question regarding what benefits the government pays for with our tax dollars that promotes normative heterosexual conception. That's a key element of your argument.

If you believe that you've connected the dots so well, than why can you not coherently explain why the government has an interest in promoting only births through normative heterosexual conception and not through medically aided conception.

If I recall correctly, it was about the time that I began asking those questions that you started your cries of nobody understands me even though I am so obviously clear, everyone is just so blinded by gay advocacy, and "stop mangling the definition of marriage".

Now you are trying to say that the government only has an interest in promoting the raising of children by heterosexual parents. And assisting those being raised in other situations. But you've left out the key piece: why. Why would the government have such an interest?

I enjoy discussing with you, Wade, but only when you discuss. Not when you result to insults and rhetoric. So if you want to continue, then please try to respond to the three questions I've brought up in this post (in response to my spending many days following the case you have laid out).

But if you are done, that's fine too.

See what I mean (this is a rhetorical question since I am quite certain that you don't--which happens to be my point)? Nothing I just said registered in the least with you. In order for this to be a discussion, both parties not only need to articulate their positions, but they both have to be able to hear and process and give reasonable consideration to what the other party says. And, bless your heart, you just cant seem to do that. In my world, it isn't a discussion when one party goes to great length to set forth a reasoned and substantiated argument, only to be told repeatedly by the other party the functional equivalent of, "Nu uh, you haven't showed me a thing." It is little different than talking to a wall, and perhaps even more exasperating since I don't expect the wall to be communicative.

The problem with what you are now asking is it is based on the false presupposition that I haven't already answered those question, when I actually have. Your false presupposition is, itself, a manifestation of the very problem I have been pointing out, which you also can't seem to grasp. You are not able to see or hear what I have actually said. I could go on and on answering and re-answering the same questions, and you will still continue to ask them over and over again as if they haven't been answered, though they have.

But, even now I am wasting my breath. Until you can actually see, for yourself, that the questions have been answered, and that the arguments have been substantiated, there isn't anything more I can do than what I already have. So, metaphorically speaking, until you are cured of your blindness, I will have to enjoy the beautiful argumentational sunset on my own--though I do wish you well.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

Edited May 9, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

In all seriousness, I LOVE this thread, and want to publically applaud and sincerely express my profound support for individuals like Wade for so compellingly and convincingly advancing the cause of same-sex marriage.

The more arguments like those he makes in this thread are promoted, the more myopic and irrational they appear, and marriage equality wins.

Keep it up, Wade. I applaud your efforts.

Daniel2

Ah...more evidence of just how upside-down our world is becoming. God help us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Actually, at 11 states and counting (with DE and RI recently on board, and MN potentially joining by next week, and the Supreme Court's impending decision likely to strike down DOMA, and uphold the unconstitutionality of Prop 8, and the list goes on and on...), we aren't merely going round and around--we're making substantial progress. :-)

Daniel2

Not that you have the least clue what I was referring to, but for your benefit, let me join you in your "Hurray!! Perversion is WINNING!" (As Charlie Sheen may put it). The march of the lemmings is proliferating while the unwitting and unintended consequences continue to mount--filling up the cup so to speak. Who wouldn't want that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 9, 2013 by wenglund

[Daniel2]

Ah...more evidence of just how upside-down our world is becoming. God help us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Strange. You first assert that gays will vigorously "poo poo" your comments, then when one applauds them, you claim the world is upside-down. Trying to keep track of the topsy-turvey orientation of your "rationality" is apparently a dizzying feat, even for you. ;-)

As for God's help, I join in your prayer for his ongoing assistance as our nation continues to advance the divine principles of equality, justice, and even agency found in our counstitution.

Daniel2

Edited May 9, 2013 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Not that you have the least clue what I was referring to, but for your benefit, let me join you in your "Hurray!! Perversion is WINNING!" (As Charlie Sheen may put it). The march of the lemmings is proliferating while the unwitting and unintended consequences continue to mount--filling up the cup so to speak. Who wouldn't want that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In the end, we see that this house of cards crashes and and there's little more than feigned intellectual, logical, and moral superiority coupled with increasingly shrill insults and epithets like 'Perversion is WINNING!'

Your strategy seems to be such a winning approach one wonders why it wasn't adopted and advocated either over the pulpit in the last GC or through the Church's recently-published website on gays. Perhaps you know better than the LDS leadership, and should send them a memo...? [/tongue-in-cheek]

In all seriousness, Wade, I do wonder how you think this strategy, tone, and approach benefits the Church, it's members, FAIR, or engenders support among casual readers. Although I do not agree with Mormonism on a great many issues, I continually applaud the measured, compassionate, and RESPECTFUL tone it has emphasized in recent years--an approach I believe is lacking in your comments, which, IMO, come off as condescending and hauty, rather than rational and reasoned. But, of course, as you keep telling me, in my world, "up" is your "down."

Daniel2

Edited May 9, 2013 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

In order for this to be a discussion, both parties not only need to articulate their positions, but they both have to be able to hear and process and give reasonable consideration to what the other party says.

You'd do well to follow that advice yourself.

In my world, it isn't a discussion when one party goes to great length to set forth a reasoned and substantiated argument, only to be told repeatedly by the other party the functional equivalent of, "Nu uh, you haven't showed me a thing." It is little different than talking to a wall, and perhaps even more exasperating since I don't expect the wall to be communicative.

I'm asking you follow up questions. Follow up questions that you, apparently, are unwilling to answer. I agree that you have provided a lot of data. Some of it has been very enlightening. What you haven't done is connected that data in a way that rationally supports your case.

The problem with what you are now asking is it is based on the false presupposition that I haven't already answered those question, when I actually have. Your false presupposition is, itself, a manifestation of the very problem I have been pointing out, which you also can't seem to grasp. You are not able to see or hear what I have actually said. I could go on and on answering and re-answering the same questions, and you will still continue to ask them over and over again as if they haven't been answered, though they have.

I've stuck with you for 15 pages, Wade. Asking follow-up questions to clarify what you are saying is to be expected. I don't see how you have answered those questions in what you have provided. You've obfuscated by changing your lines of thought and diverting the discussion with rules about "your thread". Well, here's a newsflash for you: Your thread has failed to prove the point that you apparently thought it would. More people here appear to agree that the case you laid out supports legalization of gay marriage rather than the opposite.

Edited May 9, 2013 by rockpond

[california boy]

I have a feeling that this thread is going to be closed shortly. In the end, Wade had nothing to say. This thread has run it's course,

From the very beginning, I pointed out to Wade that his basic premise was flawed. He kept putting me off promising an answer later in the thread. As others have pointed out, that answer never came. Wade was never able to show that the government has done anything to promote reproduction in order to increase the population. I on the other had have pointed out that indeed, if there is an argument to be made about government involvement, a stronger case could be made that government laws such as our abortion laws actually point to reducing the population.

Wade, you have done yourself and your argument no favors by insulting others, using slurs like "mangle the definition of marriage" and constantly referring others points of view as being some upside down version of reality. Daniel is right. These kinds of arguments tend to enforce the idea that there is no real argument against gay marriage. When a point takes 15 pages of rambling unrelated data and incoherent arguments that were shot down in the very first page of the "theory" then you got problems trying to make any kind of case against gay marriage from a secular position.

[ERayR]

Can't argue with your opinion, as I at one time held the same opinion a few decades back. I personally do not condone homosexuality, and even have some reservations with the notion that it can't be overcome. My problem is not with our having denounced homosexuality or stating our position with regards to gay marriage. Where I have concern especially with Prop 8 is the very strong appearance we gave of trying to impose our religious beliefs on others. I think it was that which in part triggered the momentum that gays are seeing in acceptance. They were clearly seen as being a minority being persecuted by religious believers. I think the common Facebook meme which goes "The problem is not your religious beliefs, the problem is that you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on me." The problem with Prop 8 is that it was in part strictly a battle of semantics and the semantic battle was over the definition of a word and whether the definition should be restrained to a religious meaning or not. The Catholic Church and our Church led the fight against Civil Unions here in Vermont. Some of the arguments used by the Church representative were ill-considered -- even if they were correct which was a matter of debate -- and painted us in a very bad light, as did the use of Mormon children as pamphleteers. Fortunately, our Ward missed out on most of the political activism because we are a Ward whose chapel is located in Vermont but which is in a New Hampshire Stake. So when the mailing went out from Salt Lake to the Vermont Wards and Stakes they missed us, later when the battle in Vermont ended and then erupted in New Hampshire -- it almost missed us again because our chapel was located in Vermont. We did lose members over the political activism including some very prominent leaders, but for the most part the political activism coming from the Stake got shut down by the Relief Society. A High Councilor was directed by the Stake to read a letter encouraging activism from the Stake and basically got read the riot act by the Sisters and told to leave their meeting. The political activism has hampered missionary efforts amongst a large swathe of college educated people in New England which is unfortunate and it may take years to regain our momentum there, it isn't helping that the high profile battle within the BSA continues or that a law professor from BYU was involved in the proponents brief regarding Prop 8 with the SCOTUS. But these things will pass, and the Kingdom will roll forth.

The problem with your arguments is that they can be reversed and are just as valid read the other way. The difference being that (in my view) the media reporting on this is overwhelmingly anti religion (not just LDS).

[wenglund]

Strange. You first assert that gays will vigorously "poo poo" your comments, then when one applauds them, you claim the world is upside-down. Trying to keep track of the topsy-turvey orientation of your "rationality" is apparently a dizzying feat, even for you. ;-)

I also ate chicken soup yesterday. That must make your mind really real.

As for God's help, I join in your prayer for his ongoing assistance as our nation continues to advance the divine principles of equality, justice, and even agency found in our counstitution.

Daniel2

By equality I assume you mean "bad = good." Like I said, upside-down.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-