Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[LDS4]

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?

I have no problem with government using gas taxes to pay for air polluton damage. It becomes a type of user fee. the more you pollute (because you drive a tank or simply drive a lot), the more you pay. Government here is addressing objective harm. Government SHOULD punish objective harm. Same Sex marriage does not produce objective harm and therefore should not be punished or forbidden.

[wenglund]

The problem lies in the theoretical ideal meeting reality. As a fellow libertarian, I see this a lot. There are 2 issues here -

(1) Our Constitution requires that government treat all people equally (Due Process / Equal Protection) and so therefore, we must either allow SSM or dissolve all current and future heterosexual marriages.

This claim betrays a substantial misunderstanding of constitutional protections.

First, there are a myriad of constitutionally valid laws that treat people differently based on age, income levels, education, domicile, disabilities, criminal record, citizenship, sex, the type of vehicle people drive, etc. In fact, the process by which the courts test laws against the constitutional protections, treat different classes of people differently. So, the constitution doesn't require that all people be treated equally.

Second, equality under the law is, in part, a function of legal definitions or what is legally defined by the law. Laws that apply to corporations equally apply to corporations, though not necessarily to trusts and partnerships or sole proprietorships. Laws that apply to marriage, apply equally to those who fit the legal definition of marriage, and not to those who don't.

Third, equality under the law may occur even where there are different legal names. For example, for the most part, women have the same legal rights, and are treated equal as men even though they are legally designated differently as "women" and not as "men." Similarly, domestic partnerships and civil unions are treated equal under the law to marriages.

For each of these reasons, and for others, your false dichotomy isn't necessarily correct, and may be quite mistaken.

We can't have heterosexuals keep marriage and then give gay couples Civil Unions. That's no different than having "separate but equal" drinking fountains. Both convey one group being "more equal" than another.

This is a false analogy on a number of levels. First, by implication, it mistakenly compares an involuntary trait (skin color or race) with a voluntary choice (sexual relationship). Second, it mistakenly compares separate locations (drinking fountains) with separate names (marriage/civil unions). And, third, it falsely assumes that "separate but equal" is necessarily problematic, legally or otherwise. It isn't, particularly in terms of different legal names. As indicated above, we have different legal names for males and females, corporations and partnerships, doctors and nurses, cars and boats, civilian and military, public and private, non-profit and profit, New Yorkers and Washingtonians, Southerners and Northerners, city folk and urbanities, Hispanic and Caucasian, etc, In each of these cases, the separate legal names are constitutionally valid. In fact, I can't think of a single case, with the exception of certain insipid SSM arguments, where giving different legal names to different groups of people or entities were considered unconstitutional.

So, again, your false dichotomy isn't necessarily correct.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDS4]

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?

Heterosexual and homosexuals relationships are NOT like apples and oranges. As a matter of fact, the iowa supreme court, in unanaously upholding same-sex marriage, said that heterosexual and homosexual couples are "similarly situated" which means that they are basically the same. the only difference is that they are not able to produce kids genetically related to both. the same is also true of many heterosexual couples. There is a couple in my ward that has fertility problems and they adopted 3 kids. Another couple in my ward married as senior citizens. they too are unable to produce kids. How are these 2 couples substantially different to justify being treated differently by the government than a SS couple?

Since the feds don't recognize SSM yet, Social Security death benefits are NOT the same.

[USU78]

I didn't point it out because it didn't seem relevant to the point Wade was making (and because I know Wade is well aware of it having had many discussions with him).

And yes, the people of California voted for Prop 22 in 2000. I was one of them.

And a court ruled that Prop 22 was unconstitutional... That's why Prop 8 modified the CA constitution. And now Prop 8 faces an appeal to the federal constitution.

But, that's why we have a U.S. Constitution it protects certain rights from being infringed upon either by the government or by a majority vote (as in the case of CA).

And none of that changes that point that LDS4 made to which Wade was responding.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

[USU78]

[The Proclamation on the Family] was written as a public policy statement and a rallying cry to oppose SSM (see the Proc's last paragraph).

That is demonstrably false.

That is a prophetic warning to states and nations about the dire consequences of all enactments, pressures and policies that would tend to weaken or destroy the family as an institution. It also states in the strongest possible terms that children have rights, the most important of which is to grow up in a home with a father and a mother, lawfully married and committed to one another and the marriage.

You have been reading the press releases by homophile advocacy groups. They do not read English well, unless of course they're lying and both read and understand it quite well.

[LDS4]

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.

It wasn't via jusdicial fiat. the CA State Supreme Court stated that Prop. 22 violated the CA state constitution. You may disagree with the ruling, but the CSSC has a legal right to interpret the state constitution. About 18,000 couples got married during that time. They had the exact same rights as straights to marry.

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

1 Cor. 10:29 - "...for why is my liberty judged* of another man's conscience?"

(* Note - the Greek word for "to judge" used here is also rendered "to determine" elsewhere in the KJV as for example Acts 25:25, Acts 27:1, 2 Cor. 2:1, etc...). In other words, our liberties / freedoms are not to be determined, restricted or limited by the consciences (personal moral opinions) of others. In context, verses 27 through 33 have Paul saying that we should limit our otherwise allowed behaviors if they offend others, which offense may cause them to reject the Gospel. Consider this essay regarding our obligation to not cause others to be offended. In verse 29, though, Paul says that we do this only for the sake of the others' conscience and rejects the idea that the opinions of others can limit our freedom. If the opinions of others can't limit our freedom, how can we hypocritically state that OUR opinions can limit the freedom of others? Verse 30 says that since Paul is saved through grace (and not by living the Law of Moses), why should he be judged for doing something that the Law of Moses forbids? He is saying that he is not subject to that law and therefore can't be judged by it. Why should his liberty be judged of another law's (man's) conscience? He is saying that he doesn't play by those rules but his own rules (the law of Grace). He doesn't want the old laws limiting what he can do under the new law. He will voluntarily refrain from doing things forbidden under the old law so as to not offend those still under that law, but the old law does not restrict him otherwise, for why should his liberty judged of another law's (man's) conscience?

The basic underlying principle is that we, as LDS, have our own laws and others (non-LDS) have their own various sets of rules. We may avoid ordering pork when dining with Jews or vegetarians, so as to not cause them offense, but the laws which the Jews observe have no claim on us and our liberty is not to be judged by another law's (man's) conscience. Just as their laws have no power over us, neither do our laws, in a non-theocratic society, hold sway over them. They are free to do as they wish until they decide to join us and adopt our laws. We have no right to impose our laws, beliefs or opinions on them, for why is their liberty judged of another man's (our) conscience?

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.

Homosexual couples in CA were treated equally with straights in the same way that Blacks and Whites in the South were treated by government when the government set up "separate but equal" drinking fountains. the government gave both groups the exact same water. The drinking fountains were usually side by side and got the water from the same pipe. Both Blacks and homosexuals were denied access to the same things that Whites/straights were because of bigotry. plain and simple. Civil unions, like separate drinking fountains - both give equal tangible benefits, but both convey a 2nd class status on a disfavored group.

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?

Denying gays marriage OBJECTIVELY harms them, so the Prop. 8 advocates were indeed imposing harm on them. Allowing SSM in no way imposes OBJECTIVE harm on anyone. Did getting rid of Whites/Blacks only drinking fountains OBJECTIVELY harm Whites? The sides were not equal - One sought to impose harm and the other sought to prevent it.

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.

We have a number of situations where we have "degrees". We have age limits to marry, get a drivers license, buy beer, buy a rifle/shotgun, buy a handgun, become president, etc...We have speed limits. Some states allow kids to get drivers licenses at a different age than others. Some states allow kids to marry at different ages. There are no objective right/wrong. In these "degree" types of laws, a consensus has to be made by the voters or legislatures. There is nothing wrong with this nor do they violate libertian ideals.

[Avatar4321]

Exactly... It's only MY definition of marriage.

Which makes conversations on the matter difficult if not impossible. If two parties are using different definitions for a word, they are talking about very different things.

The definition of marriage has always involved one person from each gender.

[jwhitlock]

It wasn't via jusdicial fiat. the CA State Supreme Court stated that Prop. 22 violated the CA state constitution. You may disagree with the ruling, but the CSSC has a legal right to interpret the state constitution. About 18,000 couples got married during that time. They had the exact same rights as straights to marry.

They had the exact same right as straight individuals before the court ruling. After the court ruling, they had a special privilege. Once Prop 8 passed, they were back to having the same rights as anyone else.

This seems to be a difficult concept for SSM supporters to grasp.

[wenglund]

The big benefits come from the feds, not the state. When SSM is legalized nationwide, the rates will markedly increase.

So you say (conjecture). The current evidence doesn't look promising, and if you look at nations where registered partnerships and SSM have been legal, nation-wide, for some time, your "marked increase" may be wild wishful thinking. Take, for example, the number of registered partnerships per year in Denmark since it legalized in 1989 (see Here and HERE), it looks to me as though on average less than 3 tenths of a percent (.00295) of the gay population registered each year, Norway has had registered partnershipws since 1993, and on average less than 2 tenths of a percent (.00195) of the gay population registered each year.

Also, since most religions vehemently oppose homosexuality, there will be fewer religious gays, as a % than in the straight population. One of the biggest reasons people marry is to fulfill a religious mandate and since gays are less religious, they won't have that incentive to marry in the same degree and so it isn't fair to expect them to match the rates of straights.

The point isn't so much what is fair to expect, but rather what are the actual results. Statistics historically show that homosexuals, even in countries that are favorable to homosexuality, have remarkably low rates of legal commitment. Again, all the hoopla about gays wanting legal marriage is a farce, just as their once wanting domestic partnerships and civil unions was a farce. What they really want is...well, I will let you figure that out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDS4]

LDS4 - 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.

JW - Invalid comparison. This is strained.

LDS4 - Hardly. Both the gays here and the Christians there can have the same societal benefits that the respective majorities have as long as they acquiesce. If they deny who they are and live like the majority, then they have the same benefits anyone else has. Where is the comparison wrong?

************

LDS4 - 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.

JW - 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.

LDS4 - I never said that the Church denied the gays the rights. The Church doesn't have the civil authority to do so. The CA State Supreme Court, as stated, said that Prop. 22 violated the state Constitution. Prop. 8 was simply a way to overrule the Court. You are free to disagree with the court's decision, but you can't dismiss it as a court order giving someone special rights. it gave gays EQUAL rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

*************

LDS4 - 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).

JW - 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..

LDS4 - The right to public worship is universally available in Saudi Arabia. Why should Christians be given "special privileges in redefining existing rights already to suit a narrow special interest group," especially in a Muslim country?

**************

LDS4 - 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.

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

LDS4 - Saying it ain't so doesn't make it such.

*********

LDS4 - 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.

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

LDS4 - Objective means provable. If someone kills you, steals from you, defrauds you, punches you, you are objectively harmed? How are you harmed by SSM? As Jefferson said, how does that break your leg or pick your pocket? You do NOT have a right to NOT be offended...despite what the liberals believe.

************

JW - 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?

LDS4 - I'm just asking that the Church adhere to the Church's official doctrine - the scriptures. How can I be wrong in supporting and defending the revealed word of God?

[rockpond]

Which makes conversations on the matter difficult if not impossible. If two parties are using different definitions for a word, they are talking about very different things.

Yes, I agree. That's why I was trying to differentiate between my personal definition and what I felt to be constitutional.

The definition of marriage has always involved one person from each gender.

And sometimes one person of one gender, and multiple people of the other gender.

At one time in our country's history, blacks had always been treated as slaves. And it used to be the tradition for only men to be able to vote.

But, we learn and grow. And some traditions are set aside while others are upheld.

[rockpond]

Yet "special privilege" describes exactly what SSM is. It's taking an existing right available to all, as the number of gays in mixed gender marriages demonstrates, and redefining it in a way that is only applicable to a narrow special interest group.

Except for the distinct possibility that some gays will try to force the church to perform gay sealings in the temples should SSM become law.

.

Yes, the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is available to all. But the right to legally marry the person that one is romantically attracted to is not available in all U.S. states and is not federally recognized. I didn't marry my wife because she happened to be someone of the opposite gender who happened to say yes. I married her because I was deeply, romantically, intellectually attracted to her and wanted to spend the rest of my life and all eternity with her.

Regarding your second point... I just don't agree with the rational of curtailing the constitutional rights of one group as a means of preventing them from *potentially* trying to someday curtail your rights. Further, for over 150 years now we have kept people out of our temples based on their personal beliefs, skin color, and whether they drink coffee. I have a tough time imagining the government forcing us to allow gay marriages in our temples. And really, all we'd have to do is what is done in other countries: couples get their civil marriage done outside of the temple, and the sealing done inside the temple. Keeps the government out which is really a good idea for a number of reasons, IMO.

[rodheadlee]

Heterosexual and homosexuals relationships are NOT like apples and oranges. As a matter of fact, the iowa supreme court, in unanaously upholding same-sex marriage, said that heterosexual and homosexual couples are "similarly situated" which means that they are basically the same. the only difference is that they are not able to produce kids genetically related to both. the same is also true of many heterosexual couples. There is a couple in my ward that has fertility problems and they adopted 3 kids. Another couple in my ward married as senior citizens. they too are unable to produce kids. How are these 2 couples substantially different to justify being treated differently by the government than a SS couple?

Since the feds don't recognize SSM yet, Social Security death benefits are NOT the same.

You should quit before you dig a real big hole on equal taxes for all, that is out and out false..

Have you ever heard of the term DINK? Double Income No Kids? I paid more in taxes than those that choose to have children even if they can't afford them. In some instances you could say we were forced to subsidize other people's families.

[Daniel2]

[rockpond]

I will take this as a tacit admission that your claim in your previous post was false about me declining to explain which benefits taxpayers are paying for. The two I identified here, were also touched on in the other thread.

I apologize, you are right. I stated that incorrectly. What I couldn't get you to tell me is which of those 1,100 federal benefits specifically encouraged normative heterosexual conception.

Why restrict your question to homosexual couples? Why not ask the same question about any couple, or anyone?

I'm not restricting it from other couples. We're here discussing homosexual couples.

The answer is simple for both questions. The reason homosexual couples and other non-married couples or people shouldn't receive those benefits is because they don't satisfy the interest for which the benefits were given to begin with. The tax benefits were given to encourage traditional marriage.

Right, and this is where you and I seem to get stuck. How does our government have a right to exclusively encourage your definition of traditional marriage? Or even a commonly held definition of traditional marriage?

First of all, you are conflating marital tax benefits with depend tax benefits.

I'm just struggling to understand your position on this. I thought that you were suggesting these benefits were justified because heterosexual couples could produce children without outside aid.

Second, why are you focusing just on homosexual couples? There are people raising children other than married heterosexual couples, including single mothers, siblings, etc.

I'm focusing on homosexual couples because that's the subject of this thread. Yes, other people in other situations raise children. I'd like for them to not face overt discrimination but that kinda seems like an entirely separate discussion.

And, third, the potential for having children and raising those children is radically different for heterosexual couples than it is for homosexual couples, with the latter being the rare exception, and the former being the overwhelming general rule. Tax benefits are enacted with the general rule in mind, and not the rare exceptions.

And yet, once those tax benefits are enacted we cannot ignore the 14th amendment.

False. Over those 15 or so pages, I set forth my argument, time and again, in painstaking detail and with ample substantiation and I arrived multiple times at the obvious conclusion. I stopped answering your questions because you kept asking me for things I had already answered over and over again without you being able to see it.

You seemed to be the only person in that thread who felt your conclusions were obvious. And my questions were an honest attempt to understand your point of view. I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.

Yes, and so do single mothers and single fathers and siblings, and grandmothers and aunts and a host of other alternative parental situations. Are you suggesting that we should bring all these alternative parental situations under the legal definition of marriage because they are raising children? Are you suggesting that they all should receive spousal tax benefits even though they don't have a spouse? In order for your inane equality argument to be consistent, that is what you would have to argue.

I can't even begin to fathom how we would extend spousal benefits to someone without a spouse. And you are calling my argument inane?

You might want to keep in mind that I am not saying everything must be equal. I've always argued that I see marriage equality for homosexuals as a clear and necessary application of the 14th amendment (due process and equal protection).

Again, why are you focused just on sexual orientation? Why doesn't your argument treat single parents equal to homosexual couples with children? Why aren't you advocating changing the legal definition of marriage to include single mothers with children? And, why doesn't your argument focus also on people without children? Why aren't you speaking up for single people without children being treated equal to those with children? Why are you discriminating?

Because we are on a thread discussing gay marriage.

I understand what the laws are and how they apply. What I asked you for is your justification for the legal inequality--the inequality you now say you are comfortable with? Why is consent a justification for legal discrimination in marital laws? And, since adult incestuous relationships may be consensual, then why aren't you comfortable legalizing that?

Consent is a basis of our legal system. As I've noted before, a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract.

I've also noted that my comfort level with incest is irrelevant. If two consenting adults who are related want to marry each other, so be it.

I am hoping you are beginning to see just how utterly irrelevant the notion of equality is to the SSM debate, though I won't hold my breath.

Again, it isn't about some simplistic idea of making all things equal. It's about equal treatment under the law... a law that allows heterosexuals to marry the person they are inherently attracted to but denies that to homosexuals.

[rockpond]

This is a false analogy on a number of levels. First, by implication, it mistakenly compares an involuntary trait (skin color or race) with a voluntary choice (sexual relationship).

One's sexual orientation is an involuntary trait. I realize that they don't have to act on it but if you see sexual orientation as nothing more than a choice of who one has sex with, than we are too far apart to even continue discussing this with each other.

[wenglund]

Heterosexual and homosexuals relationships are NOT like apples and oranges. As a matter of fact, the iowa supreme court, in unanaously upholding same-sex marriage, said that heterosexual and homosexual couples are "similarly situated" which means that they are basically the same. the only difference is that they are not able to produce kids genetically related to both.

This is kind of like saying that mountains are similarly situated to mole hills, and are thus basically the same. The only difference is a few billion tons of dirt.

the same is also true of many heterosexual couples. There is a couple in my ward that has fertility problems and they adopted 3 kids. Another couple in my ward married as senior citizens. they too are unable to produce kids.

Fertility problems are the rare exception with heterosexual couples, but the overwhelming rule with homosexual couples. Yet, somehow you think they are basically the same. Astonishing.

Once people blind themselves to the critical differences between men and women, it becomes easy for them to blind themselvs to the critical difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Statistic showing huge disparities between the two sets in terms of proportional rates of promiscuity, infidelity, durability of relationships, willingness to enter into committed relationships, let alone legal committed relationships, divorce and break-up rates, couples with children, etc. must be ignored in order to maintain the illusion of sameness, Such is the upside-down, head in the sand, world we live in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[gree0232]

Yes, the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is available to all. But the right to legally marry the person that one is romantically attracted to is not available in all U.S. states and is not federally recognized. I didn't marry my wife because she happened to be someone of the opposite gender who happened to say yes. I married her because I was deeply, romantically, intellectually attracted to her and wanted to spend the rest of my life and all eternity with her.

Regarding your second point... I just don't agree with the rational of curtailing the constitutional rights of one group as a means of preventing them from *potentially* trying to someday curtail your rights. Further, for over 150 years now we have kept people out of our temples based on their personal beliefs, skin color, and whether they drink coffee. I have a tough time imagining the government forcing us to allow gay marriages in our temples. And really, all we'd have to do is what is done in other countries: couples get their civil marriage done outside of the temple, and the sealing done inside the temple. Keeps the government out which is really a good idea for a number of reasons, IMO.

Where exactly is the constitutional right to marry whatever makes you happy? And why then does it stop with homosexuals? The answer is, by that standard ... it doesn't.

Your standard is rationalization. If, for example, you are married and some tart walks by and you 'discover' you have a deep romantic attraction to her ... well, you are still a married man aren't you? Is adultery 'right' because you happen to rationalize it with romantic feelings? Does it become a constitutional 'right' at that point to be able to commit adultery with no consequence ... like say ... church discipline? Is our view of morality now in stark adversary to the US Constitution?

What this boils down to is whether or not gay marriage really is equal. Not if it 'feels' good, but whether or not this is behavior that we, as a society, want to ADVOCATE - whether it delivers societal level benefits that are commensurate to the investment made in the institution of homosexual marriage.

I believe it is quite telling that no one is making that case, and that the entirety of support for homosexual marriage is couched in terms that are basically emotive in nature.

Is homosexual marriage good for our society? And if so, how?

And understand, in asking that question, that puts homosexuality, in total, under examination - not just the singular issue of whether we should allow the extreme cases of committed homosexual's to marriage, but whether or not we want to pump advocacy into what is happening every day in gay bars across the world and term that not just 'normal' but something pristine and worthy of investment.

[rockpond]

Once people blind themselves to the critical differences between men and women, it becomes easy for them to blind themselvs to the critical difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Statistic showing huge disparities between the two sets in terms of proportional rates of promiscuity, infidelity, durability of relationships, willingness to enter into committed relationships, let alone legal committed relationships, divorce and break-up rates, couples with children, etc. must be ignored in order to maintain the illusion of sameness, Such is the upside-down, head in the sand, world we live in.

I've pointed this out elsewhere but there is quite a bit of irony in the argument that we don't want to let gays participate in the monogamous commitment of marriage because they are too promiscuous.

It is my feeling that it will take many decades to undo the damage caused to the homosexual community by pushing them to the fringes of society for so long. I'm not suggesting that they bear no responsibility, just suggesting that we ought to accept that we may have caused some of it.

My marriage has had a wonderful effect on my life -- I'd like everyone who can possibly enjoy such a relationship to have access to it.

[rockpond]

Where exactly is the constitutional right to marry whatever makes you happy? And why then does it stop with homosexuals? The answer is, by that standard ... it doesn't.

I'm not suggesting that such a constitutional right exists. Only the 14th amendment rights to equal protection & due process.

Your standard is rationalization. If, for example, you are married and some tart walks by and you 'discover' you have a deep romantic attraction to her ... well, you are still a married man aren't you? Is adultery 'right' because you happen to rationalize it with romantic feelings? Does it become a constitutional 'right' at that point to be able to commit adultery with no consequence ... like say ... church discipline? Is our view of morality now in stark adversary to the US Constitution?

I'm not rationalizing marriage equality because of romantic feelings. I'm saying that if we give heterosexual couples the right to a legally recognized marriage, the constitution requires that that be extended to homosexuals as well. And not just the right to marry someone of the opposite gender but to marry someone that they are inherently attracted to (which is, after all, what heterosexuals are able to do).

Is homosexual marriage good for our society? And if so, how?

It's good for the same reasons that heterosexual marriage is good.

And understand, in asking that question, that puts homosexuality, in total, under examination - not just the singular issue of whether we should allow the extreme cases of committed homosexual's to marriage, but whether or not we want to pump advocacy into what is happening every day in gay bars across the world and term that not just 'normal' but something pristine and worthy of investment.

Again, you are arguing that because there are promiscuous gays (not all gays hang out in gay bars) that we shouldn't allow any homosexuals to enjoy a legally recognized monogamous marriage. That's bizarre logic: There are homosexuals out there saying that they'd like to settle down, get married, be committed, monogamous. Your response seems to be: "No, you can't marry because some of you are promiscuous."

Edited May 22, 2013 by rockpond

[go_utes01]

Again, you are arguing that because there are promiscuous gays (not all gays hang out in gay bars) that we shouldn't allow any homosexuals to enjoy a legally recognized monogamous marriage. That's bizarre logic: There are homosexuals out there saying that they'd like to settle down, get married, be committed, monogamous. Your response seems to be: "No, you can't marry because some of you are promiscuous."

You need to re-read his post if you think that was what he was arguing.

[rockpond]

You need to re-read his post if you think that was what he was arguing.

To be fair, I did not intend to suggest that that is Gree's *only* argument. Just one aspect of his case against marriage equality.

He said: "... whether or not we want to pump advocacy into what is happening every day in gay bars across the world and term that not just 'normal' but something pristine and worthy of investment."

Is Gree not suggesting that allowing legally recognized marriages for gay couples would somehow advocate the promiscuity that could be happening in gay bars? Am I misunderstanding?

I don't think that anyone is saying that we should invest in what takes place in gay bars (whatever that is)... what we are discussing is opening up the institution of marriage to gay couples who desire to make such a commitment.

I'm open to understanding where I have misunderstood Gree in his/her statements.

[rockpond]

And understand, in asking that question, that puts homosexuality, in total, under examination - not just the singular issue of whether we should allow the extreme cases of committed homosexual's to marriage, but whether or not we want to pump advocacy into what is happening every day in gay bars across the world and term that not just 'normal' but something pristine and worthy of investment.

Additionally, there are a lot of single heterosexual folks out there who hang out in bars. Does legal recognition of heterosexual marriages "pump advocacy" into what happens in those bars?

[Calm]

The big benefits come from the feds, not the state. When SSM is legalized nationwide, the rates will markedly increase.

So you are suggesting that gays aren't marrying out of love, but for the sake of money?

[gree0232]

One's sexual orientation is an involuntary trait. I realize that they don't have to act on it but if you see sexual orientation as nothing more than a choice of who one has sex with, than we are too far apart to even continue discussing this with each other.

Prove it.

Because I think, as our church preaches, that we are masters of our own sexuality. That does not mean that everything sexual is as simple as choosing a pink shirt or a green shirt. Let me explain.

Alcohol. I am a covert. I have not touched alcohol since I converted. Not once. Before I go further, I have a question for the life long members of the church who have never touched alcohol: How many of you have ever had a craving for Cognac?

I am guessing that the number is right around ZERO.

Cognac, you see, is an acquired taste. In fact, the first time you taste it ... its overwhelming, the 40% alcohol, if you are not used to it, will literally overwhelm the pallet. Yet, with a little patience, you can develop a appreciation for the finer qualities of Cognac. There is a richness, a complexity of taste, that is a genuinely - in and of itself (no alcohol needed) an enjoyable experience. It is why Cognac in some circles is considered the finest of all alcohols.

I gave that up when I converted ... but there are, and I suspect there always will be, moments of temptation to return and again enjoy a snifter of Cognac.

Are those craving subject to my choice? Do I determine when are where they will strike? Am I enslaved to a life of torment unless I give into the quixotic daw of Cognac? Obviously not. Because I have agency, and because I firmly believe that we can master our cravings and choose to develop ourselves, in this case, into something more pleasing and worthy of a relationship with Heavenly Father and the interaction of the Holy Spirit. Those cravings are thus far less important to me than a relationship with Heavenly Father - I choose.

I suspect that there is a similar process at play with homosexuality. That young people are exposed to brush of skin, the excitement of romance, and the eroticism of passion and sexuality. Clearly homosexual activity is pleasurable for those engaged, and it doesn't take much to ponder at what point these ... urges are as much about addiction, or something similar, as it is in realizing that on the other side of the sexual encounter is a human being ... on that you can develop very deep feeling of affection for beyond merely the sexual act itself.

Well, I love my best friend. I would drop everything on a moment's notice should he need it. If he needed it, I would take steps to use my own resources, in a legally binding manner, to protect him and his family. Without question.

I will never, not ever, have sex with him.

There are definitive questions of morality at play here, and first and foremost among them is the proper role of sexuality in our lives; specifically whether we are masters of our sexuality or merely victims of our own uncontrollable urges.

'Can't change it,' is the calling card and excuse of every addict I have ever met, and I am completely unimpressed with that excuse (particularly in the sexual realm) ... backed up by not a shred of objective evidence. Why is anyone?

The choices we make on with sex define who and what we are as people. Adultery is a mortal wound to those who have been on the wrong side of it ... its not a genetic defect. Pedophilia is a crime that victimizes and abuses children, not a genetic malady that makes the perps into victims. Necrophilia is not 'harmless activity beyond choice or control, its a deliberate, and frankly unbelievably selfish, desecration. Homosexuality is an attraction, and just like nice girls who find themselves attracted to bad boys who abuse them, we can take steps to alter ourselves.

Saying its immutable, beyond choice, is as much a possibility of enabling as it a 'fact'.

Just like Alcohol, once you have developed a taste for it ... it can be dambed difficult to break. But then, you have a choice to make don't you? Our choices carry consequences. And they should.