Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[USU78]

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

As well as the $$?

[Bikeemikey]

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.

Again, I never said the downside goes away. The downside exists. I have agreed with you all along on that matter. Again, my position is simple on this matter: if consenting adults want to ingest narcotics the govt ought have nothing to do with it. That does not mean that it is right or wrong. Nor does it mean the people are not responsible for the consequences of ingestion etc, in simply means I do not believe the govt. should have the power to coerce the private action.

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?

Again... I never said this. I said something that sounds like that but it was not that. What I said was where actions involve multiple parties all parties involved must provide consent. (Look here for ergo: http://store.ergobaby.com/) As for the rest... Those examples I have clearly repudiated by stating that consent is not required for inanimate objects. Animals and plants etc do not require full blown consent but we must treat them well... you can ride a horse but you should not beat it for example.

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.

I do not believe the Govt. has the right to limit consent when it would be destructive (again this is likely to be a major problem for you, inpart because you are still not understanding how I am using the word consent, which will be demonstrated by the examples you provide to demonstrate I am wrong.) ... that has been a consistent theme of my argument all along. I have repeated this multiple times and stated that we will not come to agreement on it. I am fine with that. We are likely neither of us fully correct in our current opinions on the matter.

To the govt there ought to be no difference between using a sexual aid verse a body that has provided consent. in fact, my preference if the govt never considers my sexual behavior at all.

You are correct that it is an opinion... My opinion is that govt. exercise of coercive force to compel behavior against willing consent, or to limit the scope of ones consent, is a violation of the sacred gift of agency that we have in virtue of our divine heritage.

It is not my opinion that govts currently restrict themselves to these limitations, they clearly do not.

It is your opinion that the govt should be allowed to compel and coerce people to act different to how they want based on moral precepts that those compelled do not agree with because it is in the interest of those so compelled to act morally.

This is also what govts are currently doing.

Both of our positions are opinion.

I believe your opinions support a narrow restricted sense of freedom that reduces accountability and agency, that is why i disagree with it.

[Bikeemikey]

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-

The nature of the relationship between couples in long term relationships who are living together and have had kids etc is very different to the relationship of really close friends. I think your example is apples and oranges... there are some legitimate grounds for allowing some kind of reduced taxed inheritance to our partners and kids over other close friends.

So to you question on disparity between taxes among friends.

If those of identical income and dependency obligation are paying different taxes then I would suggest it should be fixed. It is reasonable that taxes could be based on income... I am not opposed to a progressive taxation code.

This has nothing to do with marriage. There is not need to address marriage in an attempt to resolve the question you asked in this post.

Currently in the USA marriage's impact taxation is an issue that impacts homosexual and hetrosexual couples... it is not purely a homosexual concern .. though presently homosexuals are restricted from even choosing to marry and become eligible to those same federal advantages.

Couple One live together for 40 years, raise 3 kids together and one of them dies resulting in a 40K tax bill.

Couple two of identical financial and life status except for gender live together for 40 years, raise 3 kids together and one of them dies resulting in a 400K tax bill.

This is obviously overt coercion on the part of the govt to live as couple one did.

It is the coercion I am opposed to.

If marriage was not tied to any federal benefits I would not be involved in this conversation at all.

[Bikeemikey]

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?

In my opinion Libertarian positions struggle to effectively deal with natural resource and pollution issues. I do not have a good answer to your question on that stuff...

Those are good questions.

The flip side is in order to have a framework that allows me to coerce on the environment what other unwarranted coercions on my behavior will I have to put up with.

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.

That just sounds a little silly to me... You are saying the govt is trying to coerce peoples decisions but we shouldn't call it that as it sounds bad. "To emotional".

Edited May 17, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

As well as the $$?

Money is a coercive force... so either stop giving it or stop it from being coercive by giving it more equally.

[USU78]

Money is a coercive force... so either stop giving it or stop it from being coercive by giving it more equally.

What if the point is not getting the money, but keeping others from getting it? Dog in the manger and all.

Since homosexuals ain't marrying in significant enough numbers to make a dent (big surprise), they ain't using it . . . so they just dilute what's already allocated for the support of children [in the form of marriage advantages], but really they just cannot stand that somebody else has something they don't have and don't really want, IMNSHO.

[wenglund]

The nature of the relationship between couples in long term relationships who are living together and have had kids etc is very different to the relationship of really close friends. I think your example is apples and oranges... there are some legitimate grounds for allowing some kind of reduced taxed inheritance to our partners and kids over other close friends.

So to you question on disparity between taxes among friends.

If those of identical income and dependency obligation are paying different taxes then I would suggest it should be fixed. It is reasonable that taxes could be based on income... I am not opposed to a progressive taxation code.

This has nothing to do with marriage. There is not need to address marriage in an attempt to resolve the question you asked in this post.

Currently in the USA marriage's impact taxation is an issue that impacts homosexual and hetrosexual couples... it is not purely a homosexual concern .. though presently homosexuals are restricted from even choosing to marry and become eligible to those same federal advantages.

Couple One live together for 40 years, raise 3 kids together and one of them dies resulting in a 40K tax bill.

Couple two of identical financial and life status except for gender live together for 40 years, raise 3 kids together and one of them dies resulting in a 400K tax bill.

This is obviously overt coercion on the part of the govt to live as couple one did.

It is the coercion I am opposed to.

If marriage was not tied to any federal benefits I would not be involved in this conversation at all.

Excellent! I think you are starting to catch my point. Now, let's see if we can bring you home.

So, your concern isn't whether there is a disparity in taxation per se, but whether or not, based on the nature of the relationship of the people being taxed, there is rational justification for the disparity. You believe the government is rationally justified in levying lower estate taxes to marital relationships (including common law marriages in certain state) than friendships because the relationships are apples and oranges. Right?

This raises a number of questions: 1) What are the key differences between heterosexual marriages and friendships that justifies the tax disparity, and what is the justification? 2) Aren't heterosexual and homosexuals relationships like apples and oranges, and if so, doesn't that justify the tax disparity? and 3) aren't "spousal" death benefits the same for civil unions and domestic partnerships as they are for traditional marriage, and if so, then doesn't that render as moot the tax disparity argument in favor of SSM?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[gree0232]

Again, I never said the downside goes away. The downside exists. I have agreed with you all along on that matter. Again, my position is simple on this matter: if consenting adults want to ingest narcotics the govt ought have nothing to do with it. That does not mean that it is right or wrong. Nor does it mean the people are not responsible for the consequences of ingestion etc, in simply means I do not believe the govt. should have the power to coerce the private action.

Again... I never said this. I said something that sounds like that but it was not that. What I said was where actions involve multiple parties all parties involved must provide consent. (Look here for ergo: http://store.ergobaby.com/) As for the rest... Those examples I have clearly repudiated by stating that consent is not required for inanimate objects. Animals and plants etc do not require full blown consent but we must treat them well... you can ride a horse but you should not beat it for example.

I do not believe the Govt. has the right to limit consent when it would be destructive (again this is likely to be a major problem for you, inpart because you are still not understanding how I am using the word consent, which will be demonstrated by the examples you provide to demonstrate I am wrong.) ... that has been a consistent theme of my argument all along. I have repeated this multiple times and stated that we will not come to agreement on it. I am fine with that. We are likely neither of us fully correct in our current opinions on the matter.

To the govt there ought to be no difference between using a sexual aid verse a body that has provided consent. in fact, my preference if the govt never considers my sexual behavior at all.

You are correct that it is an opinion... My opinion is that govt. exercise of coercive force to compel behavior against willing consent, or to limit the scope of ones consent, is a violation of the sacred gift of agency that we have in virtue of our divine heritage.

It is not my opinion that govts currently restrict themselves to these limitations, they clearly do not.

It is your opinion that the govt should be allowed to compel and coerce people to act different to how they want based on moral precepts that those compelled do not agree with because it is in the interest of those so compelled to act morally.

This is also what govts are currently doing.

Both of our positions are opinion.

I believe your opinions support a narrow restricted sense of freedom that reduces accountability and agency, that is why i disagree with it.

All of this boils down to, I don't think we should interfere with ANY consenting choices ... regardless of circumstances (even though you have already put caviates in there).

Again, we understand you thesis: Gay marriage is between two consenting adults and it is therefore good ... like opium.

You even acknowledge that, like opium, there are terrible down sides, including the Opium Wars and the subjugation of entire Nation States, not too mention a massive addiction problem. And the positives to allowing unfettered opium are? It apparently supports your opinion ...

Ergo, in a rational comparison, huge negatives on one side ... please bikey on the other.

No offense brother, but that is a no brainer in terms of logical argumentation.

Consenting adults are free to engage in homosexual relations without the government paying them for it.

[LDS4]

The fact remains that gays have all the rights available to anyone else within the structure as currently established.

The same applies to christians in Saudi Arabia. they have the right to attend a mosque and study the Koran just like everyone else. They are treated equally.

The church, as far as I am aware, has not ever been a party to denying gays any right available to anyone else. That is significant evidence that they are not anti-gay.

In CA, the gays had the R-I-G-H-T to marry prior to Prop.8. The Church violated its own official doctrine (the scriptures) in supporting 8 and in so doing became guilty of steadied the ark. The Church denied gays equal treatment to the gays.

What we have a problem with - and this applies to any special interest group - are demands that existing rights be restructured only to benefit narrow special interest groups. Such social experimentation creates elite categories of protected classes that have rights above anyone else.

SSM, for instance, is a special right being demanded only by certain narrow, but very vocal, activist groups within the gay community.

The same could be said of Christians in Saudi Arabia. They too are demanding special rights benefiting only them (the right to build Christian churches).

I reject your claim that legislative activity by the church amounts to imposing our religious beliefs on others. That's a rationalization whose only purpose is to try to push the church and its members out of the political arena so others can have free reign to impose their own agendas and beliefs on us.

Prop.8 is a classic example of the Church trying to impose subjective LDS standards on others. The Church has backed Blue Laws requiring businesses to close on Sundays.

Laws impose a certain morality on the population all the time. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't swindle others. The list is endless, but in the end they represent adherence to a certain moral and ethical standard.

Agreed. Laws that punish OBJECTIVE harm like those items you mentioned are good. Punishing SUBJECTIVE harm (violation of subjective morality) such as doing business on Sundays and outlawing SSM are wrong.

[wenglund]

In CA, the gays had the R-I-G-H-T to marry prior to Prop.8.

Yes, for a month or so, through judicial fiat, gays in CA had the legal right, though not the civil right, to marry. Their right to marry during that month or so is principally the same kind of one-month right granted to hunters each year to kill deers.

The Church violated its own official doctrine (the scriptures) in supporting 8 and in so doing became guilty of steadied the ark.

Could you please explain how the Church violated the scriptures in relation to Prop 8.

The Church denied gays equal treatment to the gays.

Huh?

Are you aware that for nearly a decade in CA, homosexual couples who entered into domestic partnerships were treated equal to heterosexual married couples? Prop. 8 didn't alter that pre-existing equal treatment, and so the argument of "equal treatment" used against Prop 8 was a farce. Sorry you may have been fooled by it.

Prop.8 is a classic example of the Church trying to impose subjective LDS standards on others. The Church has backed Blue Laws requiring businesses to close on Sundays.

All sides of the issue were attempting to "impose" (your word, not mine) their subjective standards on others. Such is the nature of democratic elections. Surely you aren't going to suggest that religious people be selectively denied their CIVIL RIGHT to vote according to the dictates of their consciences, since such a denial would most certainly amount to unequal treatment, and you wouldn't want to be hypocritical in you political views, would you?

Punishing SUBJECTIVE harm (violation of subjective morality) such as doing business on Sundays and outlawing SSM are wrong.

On what basis do you claim they are wrong? If you claim that it is wrong solely on the basis of SUBJECTIVITY, then you put much of the legal system at risk. For example, something as simple as setting speed limits is highly subjective, and so by your "thinking," it would be wrong to punish people for exceeding the speed limit. I am sorry, but you aren't making much sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 19, 2013 by wenglund

[LDS4]

Since there are plenty of gays who make the choice to live within that existing structure, including mixed gender marriages, opposition to legislation designed to grant special rights and privileges only to certain narrow interest groups within the gay community doesn't qualify the church as being anti-gay.

Since there are plenty of Christians in Saudi Arabia who make the choice to live within that existing structure, including praying 7 times a day, opposition to legislation designed to grant special rights and privileges only to certain narrow interest groups within the Christian community doesn't qualify the Saudi government as being anti-Christian.

[jwhitlock]

The same applies to christians in Saudi Arabia. they have the right to attend a mosque and study the Koran just like everyone else. They are treated equally.

Invalid comparison. This is strained.

In CA, the gays had the R-I-G-H-T to marry prior to Prop.8. The Church violated its own official doctrine (the scriptures) in supporting 8 and in so doing became guilty of steadied the ark. The Church denied gays equal treatment to the gays.

Gays had the right to marry prior to the court order giving them the special privilege to modify the definition of marriage to suit them - something Prop 8 was designed to rectify. Claims that the Church denied equal treatment to gays are bogus.

The same could be said of Christians in Saudi Arabia. They too are demanding special rights benefiting only them (the right to build Christian churches).

Again, invalid comparison. The basic right to religious freedom doesn't compare to special privilege involved in redefining existing rights already to suit a narrow special interest group, when those rights are already universally available..

Prop.8 is a classic example of the Church trying to impose subjective LDS standards on others. The Church has backed Blue Laws requiring businesses to close on Sundays.

Hardly. If you were trying to make your case of something being subjective, you failed miserably using the Blue Laws example.

Agreed. Laws that punish OBJECTIVE harm like those items you mentioned are good. Punishing SUBJECTIVE harm (violation of subjective morality) such as doing business on Sundays and outlawing SSM are wrong.

Sounds like you're being very subjective in trying to define what "objective" really means. Good luck with that.

BTW, your profile name of "LDS"4 hardly seems to fit the viewpoint you're projecting. What kind of conflicting message are you trying to send here?

[jwhitlock]

Since there are plenty of Christians in Saudi Arabia who make the choice to live within that existing structure, including praying 7 times a day, opposition to legislation designed to grant special rights and privileges only to certain narrow interest groups within the Christian community doesn't qualify the Saudi government as being anti-Christian.

Cute. And about as rational as the atheist "flying spaghetti monster" inanity that attempts to make some kind of "clever" statement about the existence of and belief in God.

[gree0232]

Agreed. Laws that punish OBJECTIVE harm like those items you mentioned are good. Punishing SUBJECTIVE harm (violation of subjective morality) such as doing business on Sundays and outlawing SSM are wrong.

Why are they wrong? Because they do not meet YOUR subjective criteria?

Tell me, you once had the R-I-G-H-T to buy opium, but we put in laws that criminalized pretty much the entire supply and consumption chain on that one. As we see in this thread, there are those who have taken a ... subjective viewpoint of that particular drug. So it's wrong is it?

Now, lest ask a few questions:

#1 - Who exactly is forcing their view points on whom? If the state legalizes gay marriage ... its not some esoteric piece of paper here, its an entire legal and financial framework as legally binding as ... being forced to buy car insurance. In doing so, the state thus gets to collect money, ostensibly from people who do not support the homosexual lifestyle, and pay to ENCOURAGE that lifestyle.

Now, exactly who is forcing what view point on the other?

#2 - So, tell me, when did a lifestyle that includes orders of magnitude more sexual partners on average become acceptable ... because sometimes people, excluding the data that indicates that promiscuity leads to divorce, decide its 'love' and want to marry?

Might it be because we have accepted that homosexuality is like skin color? Only you cannot wake up one morning and decide NOT to be black or white can you? You CAN wake up one morning and decide not to have sex. And yet by acknowledging that CHOICE, somehow .. someway ... we have undercut a fundamental RIGHT ... and are pushing OUR values on others?

#3 - Do you think the homosexual community, upon being granted the RIGHT to marry is going to stop? That the community will become a bastion of tolerance having discovered just how effective the bullying of calling people 'bigots' is?

[rockpond]

Invalid comparison. This is strained.

Gays had the right to marry prior to the court order giving them the special privilege to modify the definition of marriage to suit them - something Prop 8 was designed to rectify. Claims that the Church denied equal treatment to gays are bogus.

Again, invalid comparison. The basic right to religious freedom doesn't compare to special privilege involved in redefining existing rights already to suit a narrow special interest group, when those rights are already universally available..

Hardly. If you were trying to make your case of something being subjective, you failed miserably using the Blue Laws example.

Sounds like you're being very subjective in trying to define what "objective" really means. Good luck with that.

BTW, your profile name of "LDS"4 hardly seems to fit the viewpoint you're projecting. What kind of conflicting message are you trying to send here?

I like how you've "redefined" a minority to a "narrow special interest group". That way it makes it easier on the conscience to deny them equal treatment. The problem is that the U.S. Constitution is there to protect the interest of minorities (even if you want to call them narrow special interest groups).

[rockpond]

#1 - Who exactly is forcing their view points on whom? If the state legalizes gay marriage ... its not some esoteric piece of paper here, its an entire legal and financial framework as legally binding as ... being forced to buy car insurance. In doing so, the state thus gets to collect money, ostensibly from people who do not support the homosexual lifestyle, and pay to ENCOURAGE that lifestyle.

But you're okay with letting homosexuals be taxed to encourage the heterosexual lifestyle?

#3 - Do you think the homosexual community, upon being granted the RIGHT to marry is going to stop? That the community will become a bastion of tolerance having discovered just how effective the bullying of calling people 'bigots' is?

I don't know. When do you think the homosexual community should have stopped asking for equality? Just before marriage? Perhaps before civil unions? Maybe they shouldn't have asked to not be discriminated against in housing & employment matters?

[jwhitlock]

I like how you've "redefined" a minority to a "narrow special interest group". That way it makes it easier on the conscience to deny them equal treatment. The problem is that the U.S. Constitution is there to protect the interest of minorities (even if you want to call them narrow special interest groups).

"Narrow special interest group" more accurately defines the minority within the overall gay population who are demanding SSM. There are quite a number of gays who surprisingly don't want SSM, and who oppose it, along with a large number of gays who are in mixed gender marriages already. As Wade has noted, in areas where SSM is legal, only a small percentage of gays - I don't believe it ever reaches anywhere near double digits - take advantage of it. And that includes out of state gays who come into those states to get married.

So yes, it is a narrow special interest group that is demanding the special privilege of SSM. And the Constitution doesn't support special privilege for narrow special interest groups, which is a more accurate way of phrasing this situation than what you've posted.

This whole claim of gays being denied rights is simply bogus. It's a special privilege being demanded by a small percentage of gays that has clear potential for negatively impacting the basic right of freedom of religion.

[Daniel2]

Since homosexuals ain't marrying in significant enough numbers to make a dent (big surprise), they ain't using it . . . so they just dilute what's already allocated for the support of children [in the form of marriage advantages], but really they just cannot stand that somebody else has something they don't have and don't really want, IMNSHO.

"Narrow special interest group" more accurately defines the minority within the overall gay population who are demanding SSM. There are quite a number of gays who surprisingly don't want SSM, and who oppose it, along with a large number of gays who are in mixed gender marriages already. As Wade has noted, in areas where SSM is legal, only a small percentage of gays - I don't believe it ever reaches anywhere near double digits - take advantage of it. And that includes out of state gays who come into those states to get married.

So yes, it is a narrow special interest group that is demanding the special privilege of SSM. And the Constitution doesn't support special privilege for narrow special interest groups, which is a more accurate way of phrasing this situation than what you've posted.

This whole claim of gays being denied rights is simply bogus. It's a special privilege being demanded by a small percentage of gays that has clear potential for negatively impacting the basic right of freedom of religion.

Once upon a time

, there was a wise man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach before he began his work.

One day, as he was walking along the shore, he looked down the beach and saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself at the thought of someone who would dance to the day, and so, he walked faster to catch up.

As he got closer, he noticed that the figure was that of a young man, and that what he was doing was not dancing at all. The young man was reaching down to the shore, picking up small objects, and throwing them into the ocean.

He came closer still and called out "Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?"

The young man paused, looked up, and replied "Throwing starfish into the ocean."

"I must ask, then, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?" asked the somewhat startled wise man.

To this, the young man replied, "The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them in, they'll die."

Upon hearing this, the wise man commented, "But, young man, do you not realize that there are miles and miles of beach and there are starfish all along every mile? You can't possibly make a difference!"

At this, the young man bent down, picked up yet another starfish, and threw it into the ocean. As it met the water, he said, "It made a difference for that one."

Certainly, it makes all the difference for 'those ones' who choose to embark on the rich journey of marriage's challenges, sacrifices, sorrows, and joys. What a great day it will be for marriage when, rather than sourly criticize and condemn an entire class of people simply because a majority have not yet chosen to enact marital commitments, we as a society choose to encourage, commend, congratulate, support, and celebrate with those that do.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

"Narrow special interest group" more accurately defines the minority within the overall gay population who are demanding SSM. There are quite a number of gays who surprisingly don't want SSM, and who oppose it, along with a large number of gays who are in mixed gender marriages already. As Wade has noted, in areas where SSM is legal, only a small percentage of gays - I don't believe it ever reaches anywhere near double digits - take advantage of it. And that includes out of state gays who come into those states to get married.

So yes, it is a narrow special interest group that is demanding the special privilege of SSM. And the Constitution doesn't support special privilege for narrow special interest groups, which is a more accurate way of phrasing this situation than what you've posted.

This whole claim of gays being denied rights is simply bogus. It's a special privilege being demanded by a small percentage of gays that has clear potential for negatively impacting the basic right of freedom of religion.

A minority within a minority is still a minority. But like I said, I know it works well for you to call them a special interest group.

It's a little early to conclude that only a small percentage really want to get married. Currently their marriages are not federally recognized nor do their marriages remain legally recognized as they cross state borders.

I don't see equality under the law and due process as a special privilege. And it's a freedom of religion issue either way. A number of churches perform marriages for homosexuals. But the marriages performed in those churches aren't granted the same legal status as other marriages performed in other churches.

Are those churches just narrow special interest groups as well?

[LDS4]

When does denying state sponsorship to choices become discrimination rather than a moral choice? Please, take a stab at these issues:

a. Polygamy, or other plural marriages.

b. Marriage to a child.

c. Marriage to an inanimate object.

d. Marriage to an animal.

e. Marriage to a close relative - one that is likely to produce genetic abnormalities.

I'll take a stab at this...items b, c, and d are baseless because those things can't legally sign a marriage license. There is NOTHING wrong with a. It's biblical and there is NO objective reason to outlaw it. As far as e goes, your objection seems to be with the possibility of kids being produced with genetic abnormalities. What is the couple is past child bearing age and therefore this objection is moot? We don't outlaw marriage for others who carriers of genetic abnormalities. Tay-Sachs and Sickle-Cell Anemia are common examples. Why should we allow these marriages if the possibility of having kids with genetic abnormalities is a reasonable excuse to deny marriage? This is simply a double standard smoke screen simiar to the one which says that since gays can't produce kids, they don't deserve marriage...yet we allow elderly couples to marry and those who have been sterilized or deemed sterile/barren by a doctor. They're simply excuses to impose religious morals via law.

That is what marriage is from a governmental standpoint - it is using taxes and other monetary awards to encourage people to make certain choices that have societal level benefits.

Does gay marriage have a societal level benefit that the government wants to encourage?

What societal benefits do couples who choose not to bear or raise children offer? What about couples who are too old to produce kids? Such couples are no different than same-sex couples since they are unable to produce kids. Why should the government discriminate against one group when none of the others offer no such benefits? How is that objectively justified?

Not according to science it does not.

http://www.thepublic...m/2012/10/6786/

That would be the infamous Regnerus Study, which, as soon as it was published was lampooned, often falsely, by the political homosexual community. An independent study vindicated the study and its methodology, yet the homosexual community still slams it as inaccurate - or produces their own sham studies based on exactly the techniques they slam Regernus for? How is that 'honest'? How is publishing something that asks us, as a society, to be wary of treating all sexual choices, based on sound scientific methodology, a form of discrimination?

Mark Regnerus' study asserts that same-sex parents are inferior to opposite-sex parents. An audit of the study by The Chronicle of Higher Education, the No. 1 source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators, found the study's methodology to be highly flawed - "Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds". The author himself also admits the flaws in an article entitled, "Parenting Study Author Regnerus Admits Faults With Data".

And remember, the entire legal premise of the gay marriage is that homosexuality is immutable - which the above former gay man really challenges does it not? The legal basis of the argument is that denying gays the right to marriage is akin to denying a white person the ability to marry a black person - because skin color is immutable, it cannot change, and has no bearing on the character of a person.

Anti-miscegenation laws and laws against SSM are both based upon subjective morality being forced upon others. Both say that you can no marry the person of your choice because doing so would violate the subjective morality of the majority. It has nothing to do with immutability.

Anyone who has spend any time with the homosexual community knows that the homosexual community is a vastly more sexual community than is the straight community (which is over sexed as is). The idea that we want to use governmental resources to encourage that behavior?

Let me ask you a question...if heterosexual marriage were outlawed, would there be more or less promiscuity? Would there be more or less monogamy? The answers to both are obviously less. Marriage cuts down on promiscuity and promotes monogamy. Why would marriage, as you seem to assert, cause just the opposite in the gay community? SSM would obviously cut down on both and would therefore help limit the spread of AIDS and other diseases. It would be objectively good for society to allow SSM.

[LDS4]

And the fact remains, anecdotally there are plenty of ex-gays who remain ex gay do they not?

http://pfox.org/former_lesbian.html

http://www.amazon.co...m/dp/1599793857

http://www.gcmwatch....sbian-professor

Sure, and there are people who have eyes of differing colors. The bottom line is that permanent switching is EXTREMELY rare. We also know that it is much more common in women. We've all heard about girls who experiment in college and that the vast majority of bisexuals are women. Men tend to stay put far more than women.

If switching could be done easily, there would be clinics all over. My metro area has about 10 high schools. If 2.5% of the kids are gay (which is about the number that is generally accepted for the general population) and each school had 2000 kids, that means that there would be 500 kids that a clinic could treat and if a clinic guaranteed success, they could easily charge $10,000 and make millions. The clinics could be franchised and clean up. This isn't the case though because there is no successful way to cure/treat it. Sure, there are some people that shake it, but even LDS kids can't pray the gay away. One committed suicide and was found to have calloused knees from all of the praying that he did.

[gree0232]

But you're okay with letting homosexuals be taxed to encourage the heterosexual lifestyle?

I don't know. When do you think the homosexual community should have stopped asking for equality? Just before marriage? Perhaps before civil unions? Maybe they shouldn't have asked to not be discriminated against in housing & employment matters?

#1 - How exactly are homosexuals taxed to encourage the homosexual lifetstyle? I am pretty much against encouraging rampant sexual activity of any kind.

#2 - How exactly are they unequal? You can be as gay as you want to be in this society and no one says ding. Its when you start saying, "Well, my sexual choices are just like heterosexuality ... even though we have loads more sexual partners on average than heterosexuals, for .. well, we don;t want to discuss that aspect of our lives, but we demand to be treated like equals ... which means forcing you to pay us because otherwise we will call you a bigot?"

What is not agree with there brother?

And while we are at it, since we are advocating taking all moral questions regarding sex and making the relative and subject to equality ... why are we discriminating against polygamists? Why do we treat them as such disenfranchised hobos? What about adulterers? Clearly they were just born that way, so why even allow that as a basis for divorce (which, BTW - its isn't grounds for divorce in the UK ... er, but only applicable in homosexual marriages ... which are of course equal?) While we are at it, why are we discriminating against good old fashioned pedophilia? Clearly groups like NAMBLA, who claim that that sex between men and boys is clearly natural are being discriminated against?

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/34183-why-are-we-surprised-with-the-push-for-pedophile-rights

Don;t let that get in the way though ...

By all means, you tell me why you can delineate between criminalizing pedophilia - which is of course simply 'born' - but not homosexuality? Is denying a NAMBLA member the equality of the ability to pursue the love of his life really a denial of rights? Or is it acknowledgment that sexuality is secondary and that we have the ability to control our sexual desire?

And clearly, some sexual choices are better than others. Not all are criminal - but simply because you subjectively declare it equal ... doesn't mean it is. And that my friend brushes dangerously close to the part of this debate that really gets my gall ... that of the homosexuals community's tendency to demand that you accept their opinions, not because they are convincing ... but because failure to do so will result in you being branded a bigot.

Of course, since we have tarred this as a battle for equality ... we'll leave unadressed the questions of sexuality and morality that this issue raises, as well as the establishment of any criteria about when we get to tell someone that their sexual choices are not something that everyone else has to pay you to engage in. As in, you make your choices, and I will make mine - its just that mine has been accepted as optimal for millenia ... and yours? Well, they have been tolerated for periods in history and, with each instance, that tolerance has come to end ... but really, I am sure all our predecessors were idiots and bigots ... but NOW we'll get it right because we have declared it a battle for ... equality.

Tell me, how exactly would you react if the gist of my argument was that if you support homosexual 'rights' is because you hate God and are an anti-religious bigot? And at what point should I stop demanding the equality of my religious views and your bigoted attempt to remove them from the public sphere? I would wager that you would not be terribly impressed by such an argument?

SO the real question, is why anyone expects that argument to be compelling in reverse? As we are talking about equality ... lets start with equality in standards, and see if we can craft some standards that allow objective assessment of individual sexual choices and their benefit for society? And then figure out which ones we should through money at.

[gree0232]

Sure, and there are people who have eyes of differing colors. The bottom line is that permanent switching is EXTREMELY rare. We also know that it is much more common in women. We've all heard about girls who experiment in college and that the vast majority of bisexuals are women. Men tend to stay put far more than women.

If switching could be done easily, there would be clinics all over. My metro area has about 10 high schools. If 2.5% of the kids are gay (which is about the number that is generally accepted for the general population) and each school had 2000 kids, that means that there would be 500 kids that a clinic could treat and if a clinic guaranteed success, they could easily charge $10,000 and make millions. The clinics could be franchised and clean up. This isn't the case though because there is no successful way to cure/treat it. Sure, there are some people that shake it, but even LDS kids can't pray the gay away. One committed suicide and was found to have calloused knees from all of the praying that he did.

I guess we'll take your word for it ... homosexuals switching is rare ... but so common that the homosexual community coined the anecdotal term 'hasbian'.

So when we call people flamers, it clearly because of the rare instances of spontaneous combustion? Hmmm ... all these years I clearly had that one wrong?

Is there any other emphatic statements you would like me to take on faith? Or do you have any kind of documentation that refutes the cases I presented or what I saw in ... say Barcelona? Where the 'down low' culture of brick laying men cheating on their wives at night who went back to being happy heterosexuals the next day was ... common?

Or is this, as the people who wrote about said, just the dark secret that the homosexual community does not want to talk about? Rare because of enforced omerta rather than reality?

That would be why we need objective facts and statements of faith ... otherwise, the sky is green! So I sayeth rather emphatically!

[gree0232]

I'll take a stab at this...items b, c, and d are baseless because those things can't legally sign a marriage license. There is NOTHING wrong with a. It's biblical and there is NO objective reason to outlaw it. As far as e goes, your objection seems to be with the possibility of kids being produced with genetic abnormalities. What is the couple is past child bearing age and therefore this objection is moot? We don't outlaw marriage for others who carriers of genetic abnormalities. Tay-Sachs and Sickle-Cell Anemia are common examples. Why should we allow these marriages if the possibility of having kids with genetic abnormalities is a reasonable excuse to deny marriage? This is simply a double standard smoke screen simiar to the one which says that since gays can't produce kids, they don't deserve marriage...yet we allow elderly couples to marry and those who have been sterilized or deemed sterile/barren by a doctor. They're simply excuses to impose religious morals via law.

What societal benefits do couples who choose not to bear or raise children offer? What about couples who are too old to produce kids? Such couples are no different than same-sex couples since they are unable to produce kids. Why should the government discriminate against one group when none of the others offer no such benefits? How is that objectively justified?

Mark Regnerus' study asserts that same-sex parents are inferior to opposite-sex parents. An audit of the study by The Chronicle of Higher Education, the No. 1 source of news, information, and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators, found the study's methodology to be highly flawed - "Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds". The author himself also admits the flaws in an article entitled, "Parenting Study Author Regnerus Admits Faults With Data".

Anti-miscegenation laws and laws against SSM are both based upon subjective morality being forced upon others. Both say that you can no marry the person of your choice because doing so would violate the subjective morality of the majority. It has nothing to do with immutability.

Let me ask you a question...if heterosexual marriage were outlawed, would there be more or less promiscuity? Would there be more or less monogamy? The answers to both are obviously less. Marriage cuts down on promiscuity and promotes monogamy. Why would marriage, as you seem to assert, cause just the opposite in the gay community? SSM would obviously cut down on both and would therefore help limit the spread of AIDS and other diseases. It would be objectively good for society to allow SSM.

#1 - Well, you are wrong.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/heiress_big_n9bbuY2Jsx1ETrshtKC7nO

You can make a legally binding contract between a human and an animal ... one that involves the expenditure of more money than most people will make in a lifetime. How is it that our legal system can manage that? But, if a man falls for a brick ... Wilson from Cast Away, why would we deny him the love of his life?

#2 - Allowing someone with a GENETIC - i.e. an IMMUTABLE condition is something I have written about plainly in this thread. To deny it, would be to commit discrimination based on the legal standards of the issue. Black skin of sickle cell ... they have a basis is something that we cannot change. They are immutable, beyond control. Now, this is what homosexuals are claiming is true of ... just homosexuality. Not pedophilia, not necrophilia, not adultery, not promiscuity ... just heterosexuality and homosexuality apparently ... but nothing else. For which they produce exactly ZERO evidence.

Could it be? Perhaps. But before we go ADVOCATING sexual behavior, it stands to reason that the legal justification should be based in fact and not supposition. Nor indeed should our case be based upon looking at what someone else is getting and then attempting to show horn our 'condition' into whatever excuse makes someone else feel bad enough to pay us.

#3 - Lets once again talk about the Regrenus study. This is one more example of the smear tactics that have lead me to be inexorably against the homosexual community on this one. I am glad that you took a random smattering of the hyperbolistic squeal over anyone who DARES to publish anything that went against the homosexual agenda. Here is the bottom line - again:

http://theaquilareport.com/university-of-texas-vindicates-sociologist-mark-regneruss-study/

The methodology was sound. Texas University took no action to censure or discipline Regnerus. None. Why? Because the evidence that was laid into the accusations were found to be without merit. So either there is no merit to the claim, or ... there is a vast conspiracy of anti-gay hate that allows homosexuals to live in the open, to be highly educated, hold positions in academia and openly demand and get a re-investigation? (Clearly we can see the hatred in oppression evident in the later course there????)

Which of those sound more likely to you, brother?

And so you see why I remain resistant to granting this 'right'. Agree with me or you are bigot! Seek facts ... but, only accept the ones that agree with me ... or else you are bigot and we will smear you like we did Regnerus! Discuss the darker side of sexuality that I would rather remain in the shadow ... if you peer into the shadows to see what I am hiding ... you are a bigot! This is about equality ... if you disagree ... it must be because you enshrine inequality and are a bigot!

Now tell me, exactly what is there to support?

Tell me, not everyone served in Afghanistan and Iraq with me. I will at some point, be given extra benefits because of that service. Is that areward for choics and service ... or is that unequal discrimination of equally valid choices to avoid combat?

Or does our government have the ability to set policies that reward certain choices and behavior, because they have a larger and beneficial impact on our society than others? I will submit that we, as a society, need people to defend our values and our country ... not everyone has to ... but we still have a duty to encourage people to defend our nation so that others do not.

Tell me, exactly why should we advocate or otherwise encourage the homosexual lifestyle? Please make a case.

[gree0232]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/barack-obama-dave-daubenmire_n_3307907.html

For the record, its just as bad when the other side uses the tactic ...