Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[Bikeemikey]

My comment wasn't in regards to the supposed "reasonableness" of the two so-called "solutions," but that they conflict, and since they conflict, one cannot logically argue for both simultaneously. You either believe one way, or the other. So, you are mistaken.

For the position to be incoherent or in conflict I would need to have two competing propositions, I do not. I have only a singular proposition. A singluar proposition can be practically satisfied by different means. I am neither for nor against marriage, nor am I either for nor against SSM, I am for a consistent and limited for of Govt. My objective govt can be realised by either the a broader marriage policy or the removal of govt from marriage all together. This is not a conflict. I feel the removal of govt from marriage all together is more practical... though I am not opposed to some kind of relationship contract to help in cases of dispute.

It appears that since you claim to be on the fence about the government getting out of the marriage business (though "getting out" is all, or predominately, I recall you arguing with me), your true position seems to be pro SSM. I suspected as much, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Going forward, I will know better.

I am not on the fence about govt getting out of the marriage business. I am personally in favor of it. Please CFR my comments and I will review and correct them as necessary. Your suspicions are unfortunately incorrect. I have no specific objectives relative to SSM, my objectives are specifically to a more limited govt, which I feel produces greater religious and personal freedom.

I know, which is why I included the word "coherent" in my response to you.

I don't find you to be a very good judge of my arguments, let alone whether they are moderately libertarian or not. So, no problem.

It is also demonstrably incorrect, so no problems.

I am not convinced you are capable of correctly seeing such things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not the arbitrator of libertarianism... you are welcome to call yourself libertarian. I don't personally find your arguments rooted in strong libertarian principles, I am however not a libertarian scholar. My political philosophy studies went to masters level post-graduate level and then got side tracked with family and kids. I still read a lot in the political philosophy realm but not near enough to be as informed on the state of current libertarian theory as I should. You may in fact be the poster-child for current libertarian thought.

Your arguments that I have seen seem to be concerned with the notion of procreation incentive as ground for govt to engage in marriage policy. All of my study and research suggest procreative considerations fall outside the narrow window of consent and harm rights considerations that would need to be the basis govt action in libertarian political theory. The concern of procreation is a private matter of citizens decision making and aslong as there is no violation of consent would be beyond the scope of libertarian govt.

But, I am not concerned that you call yourself moderately libertarian. I certainly don't want to get distracted from the issues with you argument by dealing with whether it is sufficently libertarian for my taste.

You are not however going to win me over by articulating the position as "moderately libertarian", that just doesnt match with my study on libertarian principles.

[Stone holm]

So, just to clarify, the sole basis of law should be that consenting adults are involved? So, two people decide to use opium, it's fine? A person decides to commit suicide, it's fine? Government need no have programs to dissuade this activity? If two consenting adults want to build a nuclear device, for recreation, that is fine as well?

And again, in a larger sense, homosexuality has been reduced to the stereotypical star crossed lovers, but is that the reality of the homosexual community? What about those flesh houses in Barcelona? What about the anonymous sex that was spilling into the streets? That takes place in parks? That creates situations of extraordinary promiscuity? Is this not also part of the homosexual community? And does government have to turn a blind eye, the proverbial wink and a nod, a ... Advocate this kind of behavior?

Because sometimes it ALSO leads to a stable committed relationship?

Or does government have the ability the recognize that, for the sake of our society, that it should create policies that make it easier for adults to engage in heterosexual marriage and raise children? It's about advocacy ... And in a legal sense, you cannot divorce justice from morality can you?

Exactly what would be the rationale behind the government interfering with the use of opium by two consenting adults? Not as if an affectionate relationhips between two consenting adults unless they have made a binding commitment to a third party (such as a spouse) is at all comparable to either opium use or making nuclear bombs, I am just curious as to your rationale is all.

[Bikeemikey]

So, just to clarify, the sole basis of law should be that consenting adults are involved? So, two people decide to use opium, it's fine? A person decides to commit suicide, it's fine? Government need no have programs to dissuade this activity? If two consenting adults want to build a nuclear device, for recreation, that is fine as well?

Pretty much... though there is legitimate concern around consent and harm from the latter example and there needs to be reasonable confidence in informed consent. As uch standdown periods or psychological evaluations would likely be required before someone can engage in assisted suicide or sell their arm to someone else to eat and that kind of thing. Agency is sacred and so is choice. Consequences for the free expression of agency should be free from govt coercion. Pretty simple. None of that means these actions should be encouraged or endorsed. They should just not have anything to do with govt.

And again, in a larger sense, homosexuality has been reduced to the stereotypical star crossed lovers, but is that the reality of the homosexual community? What about those flesh houses in Barcelona? What about the anonymous sex that was spilling into the streets? That takes place in parks? That creates situations of extraordinary promiscuity? Is this not also part of the homosexual community? And does government have to turn a blind eye, the proverbial wink and a nod, a ... Advocate this kind of behavior?

That kind of behavior is not what the govt should concern itself with. Religions should. Community programs that have moral concerns about it should. Perhaps local zoning programs can work to avoid those kind of venues cropping up in locations that may do harm. But as a whole I don't think the govt has any right or interest in this kind of thing, unless consent is being violated. There can be no "harm" for the Govt to act on if there was voluntary consent. To say otherwise begs a nanny state where our actions are coerced and we are left to act according to the moral dictates of others as legislated via govt. Then you are left with agency slowly being chipped away.

None of this means the govt should encourage this activity. None of this means this activity is ok. Society has a set of values of right and wrong totally distinct from the legal system. Adultery is not ok with an overwhelming majority of Americans. It is however legal. There are also programs to help people through these situations and recover from these kind of relationships. There are studies and research into the causes and cures of it etc etc.

I also have no objection with the govt investing in research and studies to help with general education... though again I would favor privately funded studies in most instances (though corporate monopolies almost some areas of research less biased when the govt does the funding.

Because sometimes it ALSO leads to a stable committed relationship?

Or does government have the ability the recognize that, for the sake of our society, that it should create policies that make it easier for adults to engage in heterosexual marriage and raise children? It's about advocacy ... And in a legal sense, you cannot divorce justice from morality can you?

You do not need to divorce justice from morality. You simply say Govt. directly deals with a limited subset of a broader moral continuum morality that deals with consent and harm from the violation of consent.

Everything else you allow justice to be handled by ecclesiastical authorities or community leaders in the communities the issues take place in. You also allow those same religions and community groups the freedom (which we have already in the USA) to teach there moral values and convert through a conversion of the heart those that believe.

This produces a level playing field where people are able to live free from the violation of their consent and practice the dictates of their moral agency. Laws around the world in first world democracies are already trending this way as we naturally place more accountability on citizens actions and remove more and more laws that are about private moral behavior. Adultery laws and laws against oral and **** sex being removed over the past few decades are some examples in the USA. The allowance for drug use in Northern Europe and the legalization of alcohol in the post-prohibition US are other examples.

Morality and the legal system are different. Not all morality is covered by the legal system, and there is justice outside the legal system also. Church disciple is form of restorative justice as an example. Should I have the govt in our lives because I am a drunk that sits around all day? Or is that better handled by a local priest who knows me and can sit and counsel with me? Until the drunk harms someone, a spouse, a child, another person against their will there is no need for the Govt to be involved. But moral counseling is still needed and impt.

The more limited the govt reach into your moral lives the greater the allowance for the moral reach of religious principles and institutions. That is one of the reasons limited govt is better, in my opinion.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

"No More Srangers" Elder Alexander Morrison, "How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations." Here is what BY said as it appears in Vol. 2, page 184 of the Journal of Discourses. "The seed of Ham , which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a "servant of servants" to his fellow-creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it. These are my views on slavery. .... The blacks should be used like servants, and not like brutes, but they must serve."

You have almost out posted me and I have been trolling this place for what seems like the better part of a decade... seems like you only joined a few weeks ago.

[go_utes01]

Bikeemikey,

I consider myself a libertarian as well and have a couple of questions regarding your position on SSM. My understanding of the proper role of government (although I may be a bit more anarcho-capitalistic myself) comports quite closely with your understanding, i.e. the government (I would prefer no monopoly on force, but whatever) may impose itself into citizens' lives to stop harm. Based on this understanding, I do not get your pro-SSM stance. I am against the government taking any role in the condoning or legitimizing our interpersonal relationships. By that I mean I would prefer to see the government not involved in marriage law at all. There could be some sort of civil unions or other contractual enforcement to deal with relationship formation and dissolution, including assets and liability allocation. But, I do not see why, based on your understanding of the role of government, you would be in favor of the government increasing its scope to interfering in SS relationships. Are you saying the government is harming these relationships by not providing the same incentives as for OSM? If you believe that the government should not be making value judgments (other than consent) on relationships, do you believe that other relationships should be provided the same incentives/acknowledgement from the government, e.g. consanguinity (should two adult brothers or sisters or adult child have their "marriage" recognized and incentivized by the state? And if the state does not, wouldn't it be making an invalid value judgment?), polygamy? Just curious. Thanks.

[Bikeemikey]

Bikeemikey,

I consider myself a libertarian as well and have a couple of questions regarding your position on SSM. My understanding of the proper role of government (although I may be a bit more anarcho-capitalistic myself) comports quite closely with your understanding, i.e. the government (I would prefer no monopoly on force, but whatever) may impose itself into citizens' lives to stop harm. Based on this understanding, I do not get your pro-SSM stance. I am against the government taking any role in the condoning or legitimizing our interpersonal relationships. By that I mean I would prefer to see the government not involved in marriage law at all. There could be some sort of civil unions or other contractual enforcement to deal with relationship formation and dissolution, including assets and liability allocation. But, I do not see why, based on your understanding of the role of government, you would be in favor of the government increasing its scope to interfering in SS relationships. Are you saying the government is harming these relationships by not providing the same incentives as for OSM? If you believe that the government should not be making value judgments (other than consent) on relationships, do you believe that other relationships should be provided the same incentives/acknowledgement from the government, e.g. consanguinity (should two adult brothers or sisters or adult child have their "marriage" recognized and incentivized by the state? And if the state does not, wouldn't it be making an invalid value judgment?), polygamy? Just curious. Thanks.

Those are good questions and all part of the reason I favor no govt incentive on relationships.

I am also writing this on my phone... Sorry in advance.

I also believe that an incentive by the govt is a form of coercive force. Therefore if the govt uses coercive force in a way that goes beyond the harm principle it must be fundamentally equally accessible to all citizens engaging in consenting relationships.

In that regard I see the adoption of a SSM policy by the government as a more libertarian consistent option to the current policy but less appropriate then withdrawing from the arena all together.

As to the example of polygamy and close family I am obligated to provide them the same status... However, it is reasonably foreseeable that if close family members procreate they could produce offspring with dramatic physical disability. The state would then have legitimate grounds for prosecution of such a couple, increased tax burden to offset the health costs, penalties fines etc.

As for polygamy. The govt should have no issue with it as long as consent is present and informed.

I think part of my SSM position is also the likelihood of SSM seems greater than that of govt getting out of marriage altogether, a step in the right direction if you will.

In New Zealand gay marriage has been a non-issue for so long as homosexual couples and homosexual couples (married or otherwise) received identical treatment from the state. Gay marriage was just formally adopted a few weeks back. Everyone was really surprised because they thought I had happened years ago.

In the USA many basic govt benefits and entitlements are predicated on marriage - they only reasonable grounds for the govt to discriminate is the presence or absence of consent... Therefore all marriages into based on informed consent must be granted the same protections. Anything else is aggressive govt coercion.

As one libertarian to another I would appreciate some feedback on this.

[go_utes01]

Those are good questions and all part of the reason I favor no govt incentive on relationships.

I am also writing this on my phone... Sorry in advance.

I also believe that an incentive by the govt is a form of coercive force. Therefore if the govt uses coercive force in a way that goes beyond the harm principle it must be fundamentally equally accessible to all citizens engaging in consenting relationships.

In that regard I see the adoption of a SSM policy by the government as a more libertarian consistent option to the current policy but less appropriate then withdrawing from the arena all together.

As to the example of polygamy and close family I am obligated to provide them the same status... However, it is reasonably foreseeable that if close family members procreate they could produce offspring with dramatic physical disability. The state would then have legitimate grounds for prosecution of such a couple, increased tax burden to offset the health costs, penalties fines etc.

As for polygamy. The govt should have no issue with it as long as consent is present and informed.

I think part of my SSM position is also the likelihood of SSM seems greater than that of govt getting out of marriage altogether, a step in the right direction if you will.

In New Zealand gay marriage has been a non-issue for so long as homosexual couples and homosexual couples (married or otherwise) received identical treatment from the state. Gay marriage was just formally adopted a few weeks back. Everyone was really surprised because they thought I had happened years ago.

In the USA many basic govt benefits and entitlements are predicated on marriage - they only reasonable grounds for the govt to discriminate is the presence or absence of consent... Therefore all marriages into based on informed consent must be granted the same protections. Anything else is aggressive govt coercion.

As one libertarian to another I would appreciate some feedback on this.

Your position regarding close-family relationships also seems a bit strange based on your libertarian ideology. Would you provide the same disincentive (fines, taxes, etc.) to people with possible genetic abnormalities? Would you require people to be checked prior to allowing them to procreate? Seems like a lot of government interference to me. How about just requiring people to be responsible for their own actions, including possible medical costs, etc.?

As far as incentivizing, as long as the government is in the business of incentivizing relationships or any actions (something I wholeheartedly do not believe it should be in the business of), I believe it is legitimate to only incentivize the ideal - or what the people reasonably believe to be the ideal. As long as other relationships are not outlawed or banned, I do not believe that providing an increased incentive for one and not others is inherently illegitimate.

[USU78]

I'm teaching the 14-15 year olds in my ward about the Proclamation on the Family this Sunday.

The homophile advocacy groups are correct, IMHSNO, when they state that the Proclamation had them in mind when warning against Biblical plagues falling down on the heads of people if they choose kneejerk permissiveness as public policy instead of family-friendliness.

If anybody thinks the Proclamation went away because people are making nice-nice with them . . . they are grossly mistaken.

[Stone holm]

Those are good questions and all part of the reason I favor no govt incentive on relationships.

I am also writing this on my phone... Sorry in advance.

I also believe that an incentive by the govt is a form of coercive force. Therefore if the govt uses coercive force in a way that goes beyond the harm principle it must be fundamentally equally accessible to all citizens engaging in consenting relationships.

In that regard I see the adoption of a SSM policy by the government as a more libertarian consistent option to the current policy but less appropriate then withdrawing from the arena all together.

As to the example of polygamy and close family I am obligated to provide them the same status... However, it is reasonably foreseeable that if close family members procreate they could produce offspring with dramatic physical disability. The state would then have legitimate grounds for prosecution of such a couple, increased tax burden to offset the health costs, penalties fines etc.

As for polygamy. The govt should have no issue with it as long as consent is present and informed.

I think part of my SSM position is also the likelihood of SSM seems greater than that of govt getting out of marriage altogether, a step in the right direction if you will.

In New Zealand gay marriage has been a non-issue for so long as homosexual couples and homosexual couples (married or otherwise) received identical treatment from the state. Gay marriage was just formally adopted a few weeks back. Everyone was really surprised because they thought I had happened years ago.

In the USA many basic govt benefits and entitlements are predicated on marriage - they only reasonable grounds for the govt to discriminate is the presence or absence of consent... Therefore all marriages into based on informed consent must be granted the same protections. Anything else is aggressive govt coercion.

As one libertarian to another I would appreciate some feedback on this.

As I recall, and its been awhile, John Stuart Mill, in his "On Liberty" although he spoke unkindly of us Mormons, nevertheless said the government should quit persecuting us. Although I style myself more of a Progressive than a libertarian , I tend to agree with them when it comes to regulating the private life of consenting adults. My main beef with the feminists is not their views on gender equality, but the increased governmental intrusion into parenting. We seem to be seeing an awful lot of intrusion into family life based on "proper child rearing and care" . I have to lay some of the blame for that at their door. I dislike and disfavour the amount of intrusion into family life being inspired by the feminists and by the so called " family values" folks.

[Stone holm]

I'm teaching the 14-15 year olds in my ward about the Proclamation on the Family this Sunday.

The homophile advocacy groups are correct, IMHSNO, when they state that the Proclamation had them in mind when warning against Biblical plagues falling down on the heads of people if they choose kneejerk permissiveness as public policy instead of family-friendliness.

If anybody thinks the Proclamation went away because people are making nice-nice with them . . . they are grossly mistaken.

Oh the Proclamation is very much still with us as is gender stereotyping, be sure and keep the little lady pregnant and in the kitchen.

[go_utes01]

Oh the Proclamation is very much still with us as is gender stereotyping, be sure and keep the little lady pregnant and in the kitchen.

You must have a read a very different Proclamation. I do not find "keep the little lady pregnant and in the kitchen" anywhere in "The Family, A Proclamation to the World" promulgated by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

[Stone holm]

You must have a read a very different Proclamation. I do not find "keep the little lady pregnant and in the kitchen" anywhere in "The Family, A Proclamation to the World" promulgated by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

You need to study it more closely then.

[Bikeemikey]

Your position regarding close-family relationships also seems a bit strange based on your libertarian ideology. Would you provide the same disincentive (fines, taxes, etc.) to people with possible genetic abnormalities? Would you require people to be checked prior to allowing them to procreate? Seems like a lot of government interference to me. How about just requiring people to be responsible for their own actions, including possible medical costs, etc.?

As far as incentivizing, as long as the government is in the business of incentivizing relationships or any actions (something I wholeheartedly do not believe it should be in the business of), I believe it is legitimate to only incentivize the ideal - or what the people reasonably believe to be the ideal. As long as other relationships are not outlawed or banned, I do not believe that providing an increased incentive for one and not others is inherently illegitimate.

That's fine to incentivize an ideal... An ideal is a moral proposition that goes beyond consent and as such that position can not be arrived at from within a libertarian framework. I would simply say I would also actively promote the ideal but in the religious framework where no coercive incentive is being used by the govt.

As for the consideration close family members and generic abnormalities etc... I fully agree that the ideal is to have decision makers be responsible for their own actions as you suggested... The problem is how to deal with innocents impacted by actions of entities that should have reasonably been aware of the potential consequences of their actions.

A couple of close familial relationship have a child together suffering from genetic abnormalities that the family does not care for the childs disabilities appropriately... There is harm being perpetrated against a minor-child without consent, and the abnormalities are the result of behavior that was obviously likely to produce such an outcome.

I don't know the best way to resolve these predicaments within a libertarian framework - but some how the responsible party needs to be held accountable.

[Stone holm]

That's fine to incentivize an ideal... An ideal is a moral proposition that goes beyond consent and as such that position can not be arrived at from within a libertarian framework. I would simply say I would also actively promote the ideal but in the religious framework where no coercive incentive is being used by the govt.

As for the consideration close family members and generic abnormalities etc... I fully agree that the ideal is to have decision makers be responsible for their own actions as you suggested... The problem is how to deal with innocents impacted by actions of entities that should have reasonably been aware of the potential consequences of their actions.

A couple of close familial relationship have a child together suffering from genetic abnormalities that the family does not care for the childs disabilities appropriately... There is harm being perpetrated against a minor-child without consent, and the abnormalities are the result of behavior that was obviously likely to produce such an outcome.

I don't know the best way to resolve these predicaments within a libertarian framework - but some how the responsible party needs to be held accountable.

You can only go so far with libertarianism. Although they would not have recognised the label, my parents were basically libertarian as they did not suffer busybodies lightly when it came to private matters and they felt that government should not intrude into their businesses. The latter view would have translated into not serving blacks had they owned a restaurant, but in their case translated into not accepting car trade ins from them.

[Stone holm]

You can only go so far with libertarianism. Although they would not have recognised the label, my parents were basically libertarian as they did not suffer busybodies lightly when it came to private matters and they felt that government should not intrude into their businesses. The latter view would have translated into not serving blacks had they owned a restaurant, but in their case translated into not accepting car trade ins from them.

I accepted the loathing of busybodies, but rejected the idea that you should be able to run your business any way you wanted. So I guess I am the opposite of what some now refer to as conservative.

[jwhitlock]

You must have a read a very different Proclamation. I do not find "keep the little lady pregnant and in the kitchen" anywhere in "The Family, A Proclamation to the World" promulgated by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Good luck if you want to deal with him. He's rather proud of his ability to pull negative connotations about the church out of virtually anything that's published, and to present them as the only possible interpretation to those of us who don't really understand our church - or so we're told. Be prepared to be frustrated.

[Bikeemikey]

Good luck if you want to deal with him. He's rather proud of his ability to pull negative connotations about the church out of virtually anything that's published, and to present them as the only possible interpretation to those of us who don't really understand our church - or so we're told. Be prepared to be frustrated.

I read stoneholms comments more as sarcasm.

[gree0232]

Exactly what would be the rationale behind the government interfering with the use of opium by two consenting adults? Not as if an affectionate relationhips between two consenting adults unless they have made a binding commitment to a third party (such as a spouse) is at all comparable to either opium use or making nuclear bombs, I am just curious as to your rationale is all.

Because humans have an awful tendency to rationalize things. I suggest you take a look at the Opium Wars, to see how opium has been used to subvert entire Nation States, and unless you enjoy the prospect of seeing Americans, as were the Chinese, subjected to the humiliation of colonization and foreign occupation (its currently being used to subvert the government of both Afghanistan and Pakistan BTW), then its a pretty good idea to criminalize this highly addictive substance ... which turn 'volunteers' in virtual slaves through addiction.

In short, the actions of consenting adults very often effect more than just the consenting adults - the supply side of opium production is a rather interesting read should ever you find yourself with some time on your hands. The same is true of sexual choices.

Is the epidemic of divorce in our country a good thing? The idea that relationships are fungible and throw away whenever you are upset about something? The increasing number of children raised either by single parents or by parents in rotating relationships with men who never commit is good? We should as a society not try to do anything about this? Even though we see kids with dual income parents who remain committed receive better education, opportunity, income over time, and productivity in general.

http://www.becker-po...-it-becker.html

As a society should we not attempt to set policies that at the very LEAST encourage people to make better choices? Discourage other ones?

And homosexuality is not the little ball of emotional influence that it is currently being sold as.

"I got fully involved in the lifestyle. From the time I was 14 until the time I was 19 years old, I slept with over 25 women. I was also part of an organization that targeted youth between ages 14 and 21, that taught us not to question our homosexuality. For us [gay and lesbian] kids, it was more like a club than anything else. When I was there, there were about 50 to 60 kids that met regularly. It was a "safe place" for us to find a same-sex partner. In other words, we were all sleeping with each other."

http://pfox.org/former_lesbian.html

I point to this because of one statistic - between 14 and 19 ... 25 DIFFERENT lovers. The average heterosexual male, in our oversexed society, has 9.

http://www.telegraph...men-have-4.html

So, a young lesbian, in five years, has two and half times as many lovers, in her adolescence mind you, then the generally sexualized men in our society have in an entire life. If you think its a fluke, the following study compared a TONY survey of NY residents (all) which found they had on average 8 lovers. The gay men, aged 25 on average, had already had an average of 28.

http://outspokennyc....11-poll-results

Is this really behavior, as we know the downside of promiscuity, that we as a society want to be advocating?

Where any of my children to tell me they were gay, it is this promiscuity that would most worry me. It would be no different than if my daughter came home and told me she had slept with 28 different men ... before she turned 26.

Just consenting adults thought? Nothing to worry about here?

Edited May 15, 2013 by gree0232

[Bikeemikey]

Because humans have an awful tendency to rationalize things. I suggest you take a look at the Opium Wars, to see how opium has been used to subvert entire Nation States, and unless you enjoy the prospect of seeing Americans, as were the Chinese, subjected to the humiliation of colonization and foreign occupation (its currently being used to subvert the government of both Afghanistan and Pakistan BTW), then its a pretty good idea to criminalize this highly addictive substance ... which turn 'volunteers' in virtual slaves through addiction.

In short, the actions of consenting adults very often effect more than just the consenting adults - the supply side of opium production is a rather interesting read should ever you find yourself with some time on your hands. The same is true of sexual choices.

Is the epidemic of divorce in our country a good thing? The idea that relationships are fungible and throw away whenever you are upset about something? The increasing number of children raised either by single parents or by parents in rotating relationships with men who never commit is good? We should as a society not try to do anything about this? Even though we see kids with dual income parents who remain committed receive better education, opportunity, income over time, and productivity in general.

http://www.becker-po...-it-becker.html

As a society should we not attempt to set policies that at the very LEAST encourage people to make better choices? Discourage other ones?

And homosexuality is not the little ball of emotional influence that it is currently being sold as.

"I got fully involved in the lifestyle. From the time I was 14 until the time I was 19 years old, I slept with over 25 women. I was also part of an organization that targeted youth between ages 14 and 21, that taught us not to question our homosexuality. For us [gay and lesbian] kids, it was more like a club than anything else. When I was there, there were about 50 to 60 kids that met regularly. It was a "safe place" for us to find a same-sex partner. In other words, we were all sleeping with each other."

http://pfox.org/former_lesbian.html

I point to this because of one statistic - between 14 and 19 ... 25 DIFFERENT lovers. The average heterosexual male, in our oversexed society, has 9.

http://www.telegraph...men-have-4.html

So, a young lesbian, in five years, has two and half times as many lovers, in her adolescence mind you, then the generally sexualized men in our society have in an entire life. If you think its a fluke, the following study compared a TONY survey of NY residents (all) which found they had on average 8 lovers. The gay men, aged 25 on average, had already had an average of 28.

http://outspokennyc....11-poll-results

Is this really behavior, as we know the downside of promiscuity, that we as a society want to be advocating?

Where any of my children to tell me they were gay, it is this promiscuity that would most worry me. It would be no different than if my daughter came home and told me she had slept with 28 different men ... before she turned 26.

Just consenting adults thought? Nothing to worry about here?

Plenty to worry about and plenty of mechanisms aside from govt to deal with these problems also.

[Kenngo1969]

Plenty to worry about and plenty of mechanisms aside from govt to deal with these problems also.

[Redacted]

Sorry. Misread your post.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[gree0232]

Plenty to worry about and plenty of mechanisms aside from govt to deal with these problems also.

Such as?

If that is so, why are homosexuals seeking the 'right' to marry at all? Government is now not part of the solution to the issue?

Edited May 15, 2013 by gree0232

[USU78]

Oh the Proclamation is very much still with us as is gender stereotyping, be sure and keep the little lady pregnant and in the kitchen.

Now THAT is some seriously funny dreck.

[Bikeemikey]

I said: Plenty to worry about and plenty of mechanisms aside from govt to deal with these problems also.

Such as?

Religion. It is a much better tool in dealing with these problems than Govt.

If that is so, why are homosexuals seeking the 'right' to marry at all? Government is now not part of the solution to the issue?

Might be something to do with not wanting to be taxed 400K when you life time partner dies and leaves you money when a married couple would only have had a tax bill of say 40K.

Might also be interested in the benefits of access to partners health insurance, social security, end of life decision rights, guaranteed custody of children upon partners death, etc etc.

Just a few basic ones.

[Bikeemikey]

Because humans have an awful tendency to rationalize things. I suggest you take a look at the Opium Wars, to see how opium has been used to subvert entire Nation States, and unless you enjoy the prospect of seeing Americans, as were the Chinese, subjected to the humiliation of colonization and foreign occupation (its currently being used to subvert the government of both Afghanistan and Pakistan BTW), then its a pretty good idea to criminalize this highly addictive substance ... which turn 'volunteers' in virtual slaves through addiction.

In short, the actions of consenting adults very often effect more than just the consenting adults - the supply side of opium production is a rather interesting read should ever you find yourself with some time on your hands. The same is true of sexual choices.

Is the epidemic of divorce in our country a good thing? The idea that relationships are fungible and throw away whenever you are upset about something? The increasing number of children raised either by single parents or by parents in rotating relationships with men who never commit is good? We should as a society not try to do anything about this? Even though we see kids with dual income parents who remain committed receive better education, opportunity, income over time, and productivity in general.

http://www.becker-po...-it-becker.html

As a society should we not attempt to set policies that at the very LEAST encourage people to make better choices? Discourage other ones?

And homosexuality is not the little ball of emotional influence that it is currently being sold as.

"I got fully involved in the lifestyle. From the time I was 14 until the time I was 19 years old, I slept with over 25 women. I was also part of an organization that targeted youth between ages 14 and 21, that taught us not to question our homosexuality. For us [gay and lesbian] kids, it was more like a club than anything else. When I was there, there were about 50 to 60 kids that met regularly. It was a "safe place" for us to find a same-sex partner. In other words, we were all sleeping with each other."

http://pfox.org/former_lesbian.html

I point to this because of one statistic - between 14 and 19 ... 25 DIFFERENT lovers. The average heterosexual male, in our oversexed society, has 9.

http://www.telegraph...men-have-4.html

So, a young lesbian, in five years, has two and half times as many lovers, in her adolescence mind you, then the generally sexualized men in our society have in an entire life. If you think its a fluke, the following study compared a TONY survey of NY residents (all) which found they had on average 8 lovers. The gay men, aged 25 on average, had already had an average of 28.

http://outspokennyc....11-poll-results

Is this really behavior, as we know the downside of promiscuity, that we as a society want to be advocating?

Where any of my children to tell me they were gay, it is this promiscuity that would most worry me. It would be no different than if my daughter came home and told me she had slept with 28 different men ... before she turned 26.

Just consenting adults thought? Nothing to worry about here?

With the exception of the Opium Wars these are all examples that warrant a large moral response... the kind of response a religion is uniquely situated to provide.

All of these are very bad situations for people to get into, all of these are bad for society.

However, I don't think that any of these situations warrant coercive force on the part of the govt. to force people or society to change.

Furthermore, I absolutely believe that society should have policies to encourage people to act in accordance with high moral standards. These policies are religion, and other non-govt groups. They are not forcibly coercive.

Also, I find it very frustrating when people use society and govt as interchangeable terms. They are fundamentally different things. Society is so much bigger and broader than govt. Because Govt is restricted from acting in a certain way to doing a certain thing does not mean society is restricted from acting in that way or doing that thing.

Essentially you positions boils down to, "we need to give the govt more power to force people to live moral lives" (conditioned on that fact the morality they live is the morality you like). I can not accept this proposition.

I can however accept the fundamentally important and essential roles of religious and non-govt organizations in crafting important standards and moral principles that hold society to high standards.

Here is a very basic example:

If I want to be promiscuous the Govt should stay out of my way, they have no right to be involved.

If I want to be promiscuous expect religion to be in your face, they have every right to be involved.

Why?

Govt is concerned with my right to consent (this relates to a limited sphere of moral action).

Religion is concerned with my immortal soul (an infinitely wide sphere of moral action).

Edited May 15, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[USU78]

With the exception of the Opium Wars these are all examples that warrant a large moral response... the kind of response a religion is uniquely situated to provide.

All of these are very bad situations for people to get into, all of these are bad for society.

However, I don't think that any of these situations warrant coercive force on the part of the govt. to force people or society to change.

Furthermore, I absolutely believe that society should have policies to encourage people to act in accordance with high moral standards. These policies are religion, and other non-govt groups. They are not forcibly coercive.

Also, I find it very frustrating when people use society and govt as interchangeable terms. They are fundamentally different things. Society is so much bigger and broader than govt. Because Govt is restricted from acting in a certain way to doing a certain thing does not mean society is restricted from acting in that way or doing that thing.

Essentially you positions boils down to, "we need to give the govt more power to force people to live moral lives" (conditioned on that fact the morality they live is the morality you like). I can not accept this proposition.

I can however accept the fundamentally important and essential roles of religious and non-govt organizations in crafting important standards and moral principles that hold society to high standards.

Here is a very basic example:

If I want to be promiscuous the Govt should stay out of my way, they have no right to be involved.

If I want to be promiscuous expect religion to be in your face, they have every right to be involved.

Why?

Govt is concerned with my right to consent (this relates to a limited sphere of moral action).

Religion is concerned with my immortal soul (an infinitely wide sphere of moral action).

If the gov't can, for public health reasons, compel me to immunize and get my kids immunized,

and that's a good thing,

why is it not a good thing to prohibit voluntary behaviors that subject:

Our blood supply to contamination, trebling its costs with the tests that now have to be run and the man-hours spent in doing the paperwork involved;

Our citizens to infection;

Our insurance rate-payers to increases;

Our cities and towns and airways and bandwidth to an endless barrage of homophile advocacy?

What's a more profound intrusion on the populace:

That everybody, all 300,000,000 of us, be immunized several times during our childhood and youth; or

That 1-2% of our population have their sexual excesses be curtailed for public health reasons?