Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[Bikeemikey]

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?

You are totally right... which is why it is not ok for the Govt to compel people to immunize... you start with that little example and just see where the slippery slope of logic ends up.

[USU78]

You are totally right... which is why it is not ok for the Govt to compel people to immunize... you start with that little example and just see where the slippery slope of logic ends up.

I don't agree with where you take this, but totally agree that the only differences between the two examples are politics and will.

[gree0232]

You are totally right... which is why it is not ok for the Govt to compel people to immunize... you start with that little example and just see where the slippery slope of logic ends up.

That would be why they call the slippery slope ... a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

• Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
  
• Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
  

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

• "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
  
• "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
  
• "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
  
• "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
  

[Bikeemikey]

That would be why they call the slippery slope ... a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

• Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
  
• Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
  

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

• "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
  
• "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
  
• "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
  
• "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
  

That was my point... You can never trust a slippery slope objection.

Also, you should check out the Stanford online encyclopedia of philosophy. It is by far the best location on the Internet for philosophical definitions.

[gree0232]

That was my point... You can never trust a slippery slope objection.

Also, you should check out the Stanford online encyclopedia of philosophy. It is by far the best location on the Internet for philosophical definitions.

Bike:

You are the one that made the slippery slop argument, as is - we should not allow 'forced' vaccinations because that will lead to a ... slipper slope of ... something.

Well, the 'forcing' mechanism in that case is rather mild - your children cannot enroll in school unless they get their vaccinations.

There is also the other side of the vaccination debate:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020845357_poliogatesxml.html

Even the Taliban gets it:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/14/2003641/taliban-polio-workers/?mobile=nc

To that, we have the ... slippery slope that 'forcing' vaccinations will lead to the inevitable erosion of our freedom?

In terms of policy, which side should - and indeed did - win out?

The same is true of policy and sexuality:

Are there not documented concerns with hyper sexuality in the homosexual community? Is this thus a lifestyle we should ... not tolerate, but advocate?

Is sexuality 'immutable' in general, especially so for homosexuality - to the point where it can become the basis of a legal argument? Is this so by not making the case, but by simply stating that it is so? Is this not merely the fallacy of special pleading?

Is sex a 'right'? And if so, where do we draw the moral lines on sexuality? Which are advocated because they are beneficial (our church is pretty specific about the one instance where it is)? Which are to be tolerated (because prohibition does not work)? And which are to be criminalized because they are truly destructive?

That requires a conscience study and an OBJECTIVE set of analytical measures for comparison and weighing.

That is something that is clearly and cleanly missing from this debate, which, in my opinion, has devolved into mutual, emotional recrimination - the politics of the mob verses the politics of reason.

[Avatar4321]

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?

To destroy the institution and definition of marriage.

Anyone can already enter into any relationship they want. Redefining words and institutions and legal recognition arent the same as entering into private agreements.

[Bikeemikey]

To destroy the institution and definition of marriage.

Anyone can already enter into any relationship they want. Redefining words and institutions and legal recognition arent the same as entering into private agreements.

Very few actors do anything for the purpose of destruction.

Most act based on perceived advantage.

[Bikeemikey]

Bike:

You are the one that made the slippery slop argument, as is - we should not allow 'forced' vaccinations because that will lead to a ... slipper slope of ... something.

Well, the 'forcing' mechanism in that case is rather mild - your children cannot enroll in school unless they get their vaccinations.

There is also the other side of the vaccination debate:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020845357_poliogatesxml.html

Even the Taliban gets it:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05/14/2003641/taliban-polio-workers/?mobile=nc

To that, we have the ... slippery slope that 'forcing' vaccinations will lead to the inevitable erosion of our freedom?

In terms of policy, which side should - and indeed did - win out?

The same is true of policy and sexuality:

Are there not documented concerns with hyper sexuality in the homosexual community? Is this thus a lifestyle we should ... not tolerate, but advocate?

Is sexuality 'immutable' in general, especially so for homosexuality - to the point where it can become the basis of a legal argument? Is this so by not making the case, but by simply stating that it is so? Is this not merely the fallacy of special pleading?

Is sex a 'right'? And if so, where do we draw the moral lines on sexuality? Which are advocated because they are beneficial (our church is pretty specific about the one instance where it is)? Which are to be tolerated (because prohibition does not work)? And which are to be criminalized because they are truly destructive?

That requires a conscience study and an OBJECTIVE set of analytical measures for comparison and weighing.

That is something that is clearly and cleanly missing from this debate, which, in my opinion, has devolved into mutual, emotional recrimination - the politics of the mob verses the politics of reason.

As soon as you allow that non-coerced consent is a right you don't ever need to ask if sex or any other action is a right. It becomes a redundant consideration. All non-coerced actions that have consent are legitimate.

It is also totally appropriate to require, force and compel people to immunize... Just not for the for to be the agent using the coercive force to be the govt.

Questions of voluntary membership allow society at the local level to make those determinations.

[omni]

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?

This is one of the best arguments for gay marriage. It would promote stable, long term, monogamous relationships.

[gree0232]

As soon as you allow that non-coerced consent is a right you don't ever need to ask if sex or any other action is a right. It becomes a redundant consideration. All non-coerced actions that have consent are legitimate.

It is also totally appropriate to require, force and compel people to immunize... Just not for the for to be the agent using the coercive force to be the govt.

Questions of voluntary membership allow society at the local level to make those determinations.

In short you are taking a position that is on both sides of an argument?

Anything consensual is fine, except that whole opium thing again ... necrophilia, etc.

What you are not doing is making either:

a. Thesis statement - that homosexual marriage is good or bad?

b. Supporting that thesis statement.

Making grandiose statement about 'consent' an cogent argument tat persuades people is not.

[gree0232]

This is one of the best arguments for gay marriage. It would promote stable, long term, monogamous relationships.

Too bad the homosexual community is not making that argument then, isn't it?

It also speaks to the historical examples I made earlier - there have been times and places where homosexual activity has been tolerated, indeed accepted. The example of Mao is a perfect example - why do you think that he was able to use 'homosexuality' in his revolution so successfully?

Because typically, and again there are exceptions to every rule, the practitioners of homosexuality, particularly in positions of power, did so as an extension of power. Those who practiced it used sex as a form of domination, extravagance, and general leisure while peasants toiled the land to near exhaustion.

It stood in stark contrast ... the sexually prolific land owner who exploited the hard working peasent, etc. Too interested in sex to be interested in sound government.

Indeed, there are two issues that are raised here:

#1 - the general promiscuity of the homosexual community - as we know that promiscuity leads directly to issues divorce in marriage.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201302/certain-aspects-promiscuity

Marriage is not a form of counseling - and granting legal right to marriage is not he solution, nor is it likely to have any effect upon, the promiscuity of the homosexual community.

Indeed, reason #2 speak to this belief.

#2 - Adultery is not grounds for divorce in the UK with regards to homosexual marriage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9751431/Gay-marriage-divorces-over-adultery-face-legal-challenge.html

Again, there are issues of sexuality that simply get swept under the rug with homosexuality as we pretend that being homosexual and heterosexual are just the natural extension of human sexuality. They are not. Again, the average number of lovers even in our currently oversexed heterosexual society stands at 9. Within the homosexual community I have seen estimates that are literally an order of magnitude higher among the homosexual community.

There is a lot of work to do in the community before we say, "Yep, that is JUST like us!" "It's clearly all about love, nothing wrong with it, and it would just be wrong to deny someone the 'right' (which is spelled out nowhere mind you) to marry someone of the same gender ... even though we've pretty much done it for all of human history."

Again, exactly what problem is legalizing gay marriage supposed to fix? The promiscuity problem, which isn't even considered a problem in the community? Remains largely unaddressed both within and without the community? A 'Civil Right' issue that comes down to treating homosexual marriage as the equal of heterosexual marriage in every way, thus government must ADVOCATE it equally? While presenting no data as to its equality in terms of societal effects? How exactly will it address issues like being a 'hasbian'? A woman who marries another woman and then discovers she is straight ala Ann Heche? And the legal grounds is that this is a born, immutable characteristic? And the first time a person files for divorce under the grounds that they are no longer gay? What then?

Up until now the issue has been that people 'discover' they are gay and 'always have been' and thus they leave their heterosexual marriages. But we ALREADY know its happening the same way in reverse - only there is no legal process to ... suspend benefits for the other side of that relationship paradigm.

So, exactly what problem is gay marriage the solution to?

[Bikeemikey]

In short you are taking a position that is on both sides of an argument?

Anything consensual is fine, except that whole opium thing again ... necrophilia, etc.

What you are not doing is making either:

a. Thesis statement - that homosexual marriage is good or bad?

b. Supporting that thesis statement.

Making grandiose statement about 'consent' an cogent argument tat persuades people is not.

I think you don't understand the way consensual/consent is being used.

I am not on both sides of this at all... opium is fine. Necrophilia is not fine unless there is consent (hard to get consent from a corpse). None of that means that any means of getting opium is permissable (eg. war) or that everyone morally supports the idea of sex with the dead. Just that we are mature enough to realize that we don't need govt to help us make these kinds of decisions.

Consensual acts require consent from all parties involved... not just one. Whether a dead body is eligible to the privilege of consent is open for debate, some could argue that the consent of a corpse is expressly related to items highlighted in the last will and testament... therefore the omission of an express statement that says, "please allow my dead body to engage in sexual acts", would make necrophilla style action against said corpse to be a violation of that corpses consent, therefore both morally prohibited legally prohibited (a crime).

As for the Opium war thing? Because someone once fought a war over opium people should not be allowed to use narcotics? Is that your argument? We have been over this ad nauseum.

Religions are not govts anymore, though they used to be for a long time. There is only so much coercive space in a society. I want as much of that power to rest with institutions that actors are able voluntarily associate or disassociate with. I also want to see this happen in an effort to increase the moral authority of religions without undermining that same moral authority by needing religious moral expression to be mired in political discourse when ever we make moral claims.

As for the thesis statement, we finally have something we can agree on:

You are correct... I am not making a thesis statement that homosexual marriage is good or bad and then supporting that thesis statement.

I am arguing that from the Govt's position they shouldn't care less if homosexual marriage is good or bad and I am supporting that statement. As such I am not addressing the goodness or badness of SSM, only the rights of citizens to engage in it.

I am also arguing that from Religions position it matters a great deal as to whether or not homosexual marriage is good or bad and that religions should be highly invested in that conversation.

I have made this point over and over again.

Given that I don't believe govts. should be invested in the questions of moral goods (beyond the principle of consent) why would I then argue that SSM is either good or bad at all.

Personally, I am religious. I believe SSM to be contrary to the current commands of god. I am free to express this view and follow a religion that discriminates in membership selection based on that moral judgement. I do not believe my moral position should set other citizens who do not share my views on unequal footing before the govt. The only grounds for govt coercion and discrimination is consent (agency).

Edited May 17, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Again, exactly what problem is legalizing gay marriage supposed to fix? The promiscuity problem, which isn't even considered a problem in the community? Remains largely unaddressed both within and without the community? A 'Civil Right' issue that comes down to treating homosexual marriage as the equal of heterosexual marriage in every way, thus government must ADVOCATE it equally? While presenting no data as to its equality in terms of societal effects? How exactly will it address issues like being a 'hasbian'? A woman who marries another woman and then discovers she is straight ala Ann Heche? And the legal grounds is that this is a born, immutable characteristic? And the first time a person files for divorce under the grounds that they are no longer gay? What then?

It is meant to resolve the problem of unequal treatment by the govt of citizens.

Two people enter into a relationship. One dies and leaves a million dollars to their partner. They get taxed 400K.

Two people enter into a relationship. One dies and leaves a million dollars to their partner. They get taxed 40K.

The only difference. The genders of the couples in question.

That is the problem it is meant to fix.

[wenglund]

It is meant to resolve the problem of unequal treatment by the govt of citizens.

Two people enter into a relationship. One dies and leaves a million dollars to their partner. They get taxed 400K.

Two people enter into a relationship. One dies and leaves a million dollars to their partner. They get taxed 40K.

The only difference. The genders of the couples in question.

That is the problem it is meant to fix.

There are two sets of friends. One set the friends are married to each other, and the other set of friends are married to other people. In each of the sets one of the friends dies and leaves a million dollars to the other friend. The survivor and beneficiary in the first set is taxed 40K, and the survivor and beneficiary in the second set is taxed 400k. The only difference between the two is who the people are married to. For "equality sake," should this be fixed, and if so, should it be fixed through mangling the legal definition of marriage? (I have several other similar scenarios, all involving "consent", if the point I am hoping to make doesn't become clear with the scenario above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 17, 2013 by wenglund

[USU78]

This is one of the best arguments for gay marriage. It would promote stable, long term, monogamous relationships.

That's rich . . . especially given the rising suicide, domestic violence and STD rates amongst homosexuals in the West.

[USU78]

It is meant to resolve the problem of unequal treatment by the govt of citizens.

Two people enter into a relationship. One dies and leaves a million dollars to their partner. They get taxed 400K.

Two people enter into a relationship. One dies and leaves a million dollars to their partner. They get taxed 40K.

The only difference. The genders of the couples in question.

That is the problem it is meant to fix.

Ah . . . so it is, ultimately, about the money . . . as I've said for years on these boards, and which was hysterically denied by advocates who claimed:

domestic partnerships are all we want, but it's not about the money; then said

gay marriage is all we want, but it's not about the money; and will soon say

marriage in the temple is all we want, but it's not about the money . . .

[gree0232]

I think you don't understand the way consensual/consent is being used.

I am not on both sides of this at all... opium is fine. Necrophilia is not fine unless there is consent (hard to get consent from a corpse). None of that means that any means of getting opium is permissable (eg. war) or that everyone morally supports the idea of sex with the dead. Just that we are mature enough to realize that we don't need govt to help us make these kinds of decisions.

Consensual acts require consent from all parties involved... not just one. Whether a dead body is eligible to the privilege of consent is open for debate, some could argue that the consent of a corpse is expressly related to items highlighted in the last will and testament... therefore the omission of an express statement that says, "please allow my dead body to engage in sexual acts", would make necrophilla style action against said corpse to be a violation of that corpses consent, therefore both morally prohibited legally prohibited (a crime).

As for the Opium war thing? Because someone once fought a war over opium people should not be allowed to use narcotics? Is that your argument? We have been over this ad nauseum.

Religions are not govts anymore, though they used to be for a long time. There is only so much coercive space in a society. I want as much of that power to rest with institutions that actors are able voluntarily associate or disassociate with. I also want to see this happen in an effort to increase the moral authority of religions without undermining that same moral authority by needing religious moral expression to be mired in political discourse when ever we make moral claims.

As for the thesis statement, we finally have something we can agree on:

You are correct... I am not making a thesis statement that homosexual marriage is good or bad and then supporting that thesis statement.

I am arguing that from the Govt's position they shouldn't care less if homosexual marriage is good or bad and I am supporting that statement. As such I am not addressing the goodness or badness of SSM, only the rights of citizens to engage in it.

I am also arguing that from Religions position it matters a great deal as to whether or not homosexual marriage is good or bad and that religions should be highly invested in that conversation.

I have made this point over and over again.

Given that I don't believe govts. should be invested in the questions of moral goods (beyond the principle of consent) why would I then argue that SSM is either good or bad at all.

Personally, I am religious. I believe SSM to be contrary to the current commands of god. I am free to express this view and follow a religion that discriminates in membership selection based on that moral judgement. I do not believe my moral position should set other citizens who do not share my views on unequal footing before the govt. The only grounds for govt coercion and discrimination is consent (agency).

Once again, you simply skipped the down side of opium by declaring that you are fine with it ... therefore the downside of opium goes away. Furthermore, you then put the standard, that exists no where, that there must be two parties involved in the consent ... ergo, you cannot use a horse for a ride because a horse cannot legally consent to it recreational use? Same for a using a car? A blender?

Tell me, there are sexual ... aides we will call them. What is, using your standard, different about using one of those verses a body?

The difference is that one is a desecration - its the injection of a moral standard, as it is with opium, as it is with vaccination, as it is with speed limits, etc. And as we see, in every form of government on earth, government has the power to limit consent when it becomes destructive.

Stating that it should not? Well, that is an opinion, it is not much more than that however.

[gree0232]

It is meant to resolve the problem of unequal treatment by the govt of citizens.

Two people enter into a relationship. One dies and leaves a million dollars to their partner. They get taxed 400K.

Two people enter into a relationship. One dies and leaves a million dollars to their partner. They get taxed 40K.

The only difference. The genders of the couples in question.

That is the problem it is meant to fix.

And if you are a rich tycoon who is not married ... and you leave your fortune to an orphan who is not your child or spouse ... it gets taxed at a different rate?

So, taxes become an unfair treatment when, and only when, they are applied unequally to homosexuals? Single people are the real victims here! They were just born to be loners! How dare we tax those kind soles who wish to help a poor orphan in such a discriminatory manner! Shame on us!!!!

[Bikeemikey]

Ah . . . so it is, ultimately, about the money . . . as I've said for years on these boards, and which was hysterically denied by advocates who claimed:

domestic partnerships are all we want, but it's not about the money; then said

gay marriage is all we want, but it's not about the money; and will soon say

marriage in the temple is all we want, but it's not about the money . . .

There welcome to say all three... The are only entitled to the first two... In my opinion.

[ERayR]

And if you are a rich tycoon who is not married ... and you leave your fortune to an orphan who is not your child or spouse ... it gets taxed at a different rate?

So, taxes become an unfair treatment when, and only when, they are applied unequally to homosexuals? Single people are the real victims here! They were just born to be loners! How dare we tax those kind soles who wish to help a poor orphan in such a discriminatory manner! Shame on us!!!!

Ah and let us remember taxes were never meant to be fair but only to accomplish social goals.

[wenglund]

This is one of the best arguments for gay marriage. It would promote stable, long term, monogamous relationships.

Actually, statistics demonstrate otherwise (see my earlier posts). AIDS and STD's and gay suicides have increased in Massachusetts since SSM was legalized in 2004. In fact, certain STD's were on the decline, and reversed course, in 2004.

Also, please keep in mind that, relatively speaking, very few homosexuals get married when it is legalized. By my calculations, in the nine years since SSM was legalized in Mass., only about 5.5% of the gay population is now married--rendering the whole gay marriage push a farce.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 17, 2013 by wenglund

[Bikeemikey]

There are two sets of friends. One set the friends are married to each other, and the other set of friends are married to other people. In each of the sets one of the friends dies and leaves a million dollars to the other friend. The survivor and beneficiary in the first set is taxed 40K, and the survivor and beneficiary in the second set is taxed 400k. The only difference between the two is who the people are married to. For "equality sake," should this be fixed, and if so, should it be fixed through mangling the legal definition of marriage? (I have several other similar scenarios, all involving "consent", if the point I am hoping to make doesn't become clear with the scenario above)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am not objecting to this on principles of fairness or equality for equalities sake. My position is simply: such a dramatic variance in the tax liability is a direct form of Govt coercion. I am against any form of govt coercion for any reason other than questions of consent. As such, the govt ought to remove the coercive financial disparity by being relationship neutral.

[gree0232]

Ah and let us remember taxes were never meant to be fair but only to accomplish social goals.

They were meant to be a source of revenue to find government.

They have become a tool to induce certain behavioral choices among the population, like spurring housing by offering credits to buy a home, reduce gas consumption by adding additional taxes on gas guzzlers and giving a credit to hybrids (for example). In the social realm, taxes are meant to encourage certain behaviors as well, such as ... marriage, children, etc. We as a society need children to become well adjusted, educated, productive adults.

Its why we have compulsory education and vaccinations.

Its why we have federal a state assistance programs to ensure children are given proper nutrition.

Inherent in the debate is the which behavior we are to advocate. There is nothing wrong with doing a side by side comparison of homosexual activity and heterosexual activity. Unfortunately, the current premise is not a direct comparison but 'eaches'. Homosexuals are promiscuous - but so are heterosexuals ... so its moot? The point is that homosexuals are often MUCH more promiscuous - and, although it may not be popular to say so, it is exactly that kind of behavior that lead the AIDS epidemic to be so particularly destructive to the homosexual community.

As I stated, I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of homosexual marriage .... as a committed relationship is a vast improvement to sexual exploits of many homosexuals. However, marriage is not a solution to that problem in and of itself - and without leaders within the homosexual community will to acknowledge valid criticism, impliment programs to curtail that excesses of the homosexual lifestyle ... then all it really becomes is a shrill emotional scream to be PAID.

No thanks.

[gree0232]

I am not objecting to this on principles of fairness or equality for equalities sake. My position is simply: such a dramatic variance in the tax liability is a direct form of Govt coercion. I am against any form of govt coercion for any reason other than questions of consent. As such, the govt ought to remove the coercive financial disparity by being relationship neutral.

Why? Government has the right, indeed duty, to reward some choices and punish others.

Should we repeal the tax credit on hybrids because its coercive to truck buyers who do not get the credit as well?

Or, given the environmental challenges, given foreign oil dependency which we want to break, it is a fairly simple solution to reduce gas consumption on the supply side of the equation?

Emotionally branding it coercive is exactly the tactic that should be rejected. "You are trying to effect my choice!" Yes, yes they are. You are free to choose however you wish though.

[wenglund]

I am not objecting to this on principles of fairness or equality for equalities sake. My position is simply: such a dramatic variance in the tax liability is a direct form of Govt coercion. I am against any form of govt coercion for any reason other than questions of consent. As such, the govt ought to remove the coercive financial disparity by being relationship neutral.

This doesn't directly answer my question. So, let me ask again, "should this [the gross disparity in taxes among friends] be fixed, and if so, should it be fixed through mangling the legal definition of marriage?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-