Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[gree0232]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

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 just as the Christians in Saudi Arabia have the exact same rights....they simply don't choose to exercise those rights and seek "special rights" just for them. right?

Another interesting argument ... because bad things happen to Christians in Saudi Arabia (sometimes, I am Christian and have been there and was treated with a great deal of respect) we should legalize gay marriage. You see gay marriage is legal because we employ McCarthyistic tactics against ... Muslims. Nice.

What foreign countries do now impacts our legal system and set of values does it?

Edited May 24, 2013 by gree0232

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

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 laws of supply and demand state that it will. When the benefit one receives from a good/service goes up and the cost doesn't, the value then increases and the more attactrive it becomes.

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.

Denmark doesn't reflect what will happen here. I served my mission in Denmark "for mange aar siden" (many years ago). Straights and gays aren't marrying there because there is less of an incentive. Danish socialism makes it easy for people to remain single. in Sweden, the majority of households contain just 1 person. Gays will marry in greater numbers, especially those who want to raise kids.

Also, whether they marry or not in greater numbers don't matter. As i stated, very few people, outside of the head of the IRS, invokes the 5th Amendment, but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that that right isn't important.

[gree0232]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

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

The laws of supply and demand state that it will. When the benefit one receives from a good/service goes up and the cost doesn't, the value then increases and the more attactrive it becomes.

Denmark doesn't reflect what will happen here. I served my mission in Denmark "for mange aar siden" (many years ago). Straights and gays aren't marrying there because there is less of an incentive. Danish socialism makes it easy for people to remain single. in Sweden, the majority of households contain just 1 person. Gays will marry in greater numbers, especially those who want to raise kids.

Also, whether they marry or not in greater numbers don't matter. As i stated, very few people, outside of the head of the IRS, invokes the 5th Amendment, but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that that right isn't important.

LDS, you do realize your argument contradicts itself? In Denmark, because its currently easy to raise children while single due to social benefits ... gays will marry specifically to raise children? That makes no sense - human beings being human beings ... the idea that your sexuality in and of itself will cause you to take a fundamentally opposite course under the same circumstances simply defies common sense.

You are essentially stating that we should limit social benefits because it having high social benefits penalizes heterosexual marriage and encourages homosexual marriage?

BTW - lots of people invoke their 5th Amendment Rights. Ask any cop or lawyer involved in a criminal prosecution.

Edited May 24, 2013 by gree0232

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

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.

Agreed, the non religious are subsidizing the religious as well because tithing is tax deductable. The government gives tax advantages for activities that help society. having kids helps civilization. My point above was that the aged and infertile who marry offer no benefit to society any more than gay couples. Neither produce kids, yet are given the benefits of marriage denied gays. There is no objective justification for it.

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

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 only difference between at straight couple and a same-sex couple is that the latter is unable to produce kids genetically related to both partners. Many straight couples (aged and infertile) can't either. So the bottom line, is that there is VERY LITTLE difference between them...hardly comparable to billions of tons of dirt.

*******

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

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.

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.

There are too many differences to make that a valid comparison. The laws aren't equal, the pro-marriage/monogamy influence of religion, etc...isn't all the same and all affect the issues above. regardless, none of the above are a factor in this debate. Also, should the rights of straights who are equally promiscuous, and have many divorces, etc...be denied marriage? if not, why do those things justify deny marriage to gays?

[gree0232]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

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 only difference between at straight couple and a same-sex couple is that the latter is unable to produce kids genetically related to both partners. Many straight couples (aged and infertile) can't either. So the bottom line, is that there is VERY LITTLE difference between them...hardly comparable to billions of tons of dirt.

*******

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

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.

There are too many differences to make that a valid comparison. The laws aren't equal, the pro-marriage/monogamy influence of religion, etc...isn't all the same and all affect the issues above. regardless, none of the above are a factor in this debate. Also, should the rights of straights who are equally promiscuous, and have many divorces, etc...be denied marriage? if not, why do those things justify deny marriage to gays?

Once again, the fallacious appeals ... people unable to biologically reproduce because of an immutable condition, like suffering from abuse that renders them infertile or a genetic condition meets the legal definition of discrimination IF we were to deny it ... its that immutability issue ... again. Homosexuality is clearly a mutable sexual condition.

You are advocating that we encourage a choice based on circumstances that are beyond choice.

Is there really any point in repeatedly pointing out this standard if you are going to willfully ignore it? Its the basis of homosexual marriage argument, that homosexuality is equal because it immutable.

And when the evidence begins to clearly demonstrate that this is NOT the case, and that even if we choose to allow it its still not equal ... we'll just come up with some other argument?

That indicates, as I have stated, that this is not a case or a policy initiative ... its a Crusade.

[LDS4]

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?

Maybe we could compare Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam with the LDS Church and see if we should allow the former the same rights and recognitions that the latter receives....all based on societal utility.

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 21 May 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

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?

Not at all. I'm just saying that money is a factor that affects the marriage rates of both gays and straights.

[LDS4]

So you are stating they are fundamentally difference only in appearance (having a different name), right (even if that appearance carries enough baggage in your view to be detrimental)?

The only difference between a straight couple and a SS couple is that the latter cannot produce kids biologically related to both. Aged and infertile straight couples can't either, yet they are afforded marriage. Why, I don't understand.

[LDS4]

[rockpond, on 21 May 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

If someone who is gay has received personal revelation telling them that they should pursue a relationship, I don't believe what they are doing is a sin.

Obviously pursuing a relationship would not constitute sin, but a sexual relationship with somebody of the same gender would be a different situation. The SCOTUS may be authorized to determine what types of relationships the government is required to recognize as "marriages," but it certainly does not have authority to determine what Heavenly Father recognizes as marriage. And last I checked adultery remained a sin.

Sorry, but Rocky is correct. Doctrinally, personal revelation trumps scripture. The Apostle Peter had a personal revelation in Acts allowing him to eat non-kosher things that were, up until then, forbidden to Jews and Christians. We as a Church may reject someone's revelation and ban them from membership, but that doesn't mean that the revelation wasn't believed to be genuine. Their heart is pure.

[gree0232]

Maybe we could compare Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam with the LDS Church and see if we should allow the former the same rights and recognitions that the latter receives....all based on societal utility.

And yet somehow we are still able to make the legal and moral determination that some congregations are actually cults and use the legal force of the state to disband them. Somehow.

Not with the moral relativism you suppose however, for any wrong means tolerating all wrongs ... because there is no wrong ... of course, joining the Nation of Islam is actually genetic too, no choice involved at all.

[gree0232]

The only difference between a straight couple and a SS couple is that the latter cannot produce kids biologically related to both. Aged and infertile straight couples can't either, yet they are afforded marriage. Why, I don't understand.

And once again, the rationalization occurs.

Several posters have laid out MANY differences, and, exactly as charged, you have ignored them all simply to state that the only one you see, or at least will acknowledge, is the ability to have children biologically.

If only everything we shoved into the shadows remained in the shadows, eh?

So, tell me, what happened when we legalize gay marriage and encourage gay adoption, and a child grows up, as predicted by Regernus, with depression, suicidal tendencies, cohabitive tendencies, gender confusion, and then discovers someone like Weller ... who has been stating that the idea that this state is neither inevitable nor something we should condemn ourselves too ... what then?

Will said person then have legal standing to sue the state for failure to protect the person from known harm?

But heh, the ONLY difference here is the ability to procreate? Questions of sexual morality, morality in general, are best avoided entirely.

[gree0232]

[rockpond, on 21 May 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

If someone who is gay has received personal revelation telling them that they should pursue a relationship, I don't believe what they are doing is a sin.

Sorry, but Rocky is correct. Doctrinally, personal revelation trumps scripture. The Apostle Peter had a personal revelation in Acts allowing him to eat non-kosher things that were, up until then, forbidden to Jews and Christians. We as a Church may reject someone's revelation and ban them from membership, but that doesn't mean that the revelation wasn't believed to be genuine. Their heart is pure.

[rockpond, on 21 May 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

If someone who is gay has received personal revelation telling them that they should pursue a relationship, I don't believe what they are doing is a sin.

Sorry, but Rocky is correct. Doctrinally, personal revelation trumps scripture. The Apostle Peter had a personal revelation in Acts allowing him to eat non-kosher things that were, up until then, forbidden to Jews and Christians. We as a Church may reject someone's revelation and ban them from membership, but that doesn't mean that the revelation wasn't believed to be genuine. Their heart is pure.

Doctrinally, the Phrophet would be the one to receive revelation from about sexual choices and their standards in the church. In fact, such a personal revelation castes serious doubts upon the very basis of our church, and begs the question ... if that is what God wants, why is he not revealing that desire to the leaders of the church?

The heart is easily tempted and easily rationalized.

No person save the Prophet can receive revelation that sets church policy. Declarations of 'personal' revelations to the contrary are simply, like the immutability claim, a excuse. Its just more rationalization.

Indeed, we are also specifically cautioned to avoid drug use ... yet if you receive personal revelation to abuse heroine ... you are good?

Edited May 24, 2013 by gree0232

[guerreiro9]

The only difference between a straight couple and a SS couple is that the latter cannot produce kids biologically related to both.

There are other differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples besides just the ability to procreate within the couple. Some of these differences are advantageous enough that I believe that heterosexual marriages should be subsidized by the government while homosexual marriages should not be.

-guerreiro9

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Giving unpopular minorities equal rights and Equal Protection is hardly giving them a "special privilege".

Please be specific on what equal rights are being denied. These "unpopular minorities" have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

You know the answer. I also know that your response would be that they have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else to which i would reply that Christians in Saudi Arabia have the same freedom of religion that Muslims do in that both Christians and Muslims are free to attend a mosque and read the Koran. They are equal. Are gays here and Christians there simply seeking "special rights" just for them?

"Special privilege" means to give them rights targeted to that group -- e.g. prayer in schools would be a right specific to the religious community. How does having a prayer in school infringe on your right to free speech?

[rockpond]

That point is a quibble.

If they are not equal in reality, then they have no equality before the law either. We can treat murder and stealing bread as 'equal' under the law too, but that would be pretty pointedly stupid. If you are demanding equal treatment, then you have a burden to either demonstrate actual equality, or comparative ... as in it has the same societal level benefit as heterosexual marriage.

It would be far better, both for you and the homosexual community, to simply make a case. Again, the failure to do that is what puts me on the other side of this issue.

I don't understand where this phrase "societal level benefit" has come from. Where is that in our laws? Since when do we base constitutional rights on societal level benefits?

I've made a case. So have many others. That you dismiss it doesn't mean it wasn't made. We are seeing more and more states accept that case and recognize gay unions. I think it's up to 11 or 12 states now. How many will it be before you will admit that a case has been made?

Edited May 24, 2013 by rockpond

[gree0232]

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Giving unpopular minorities equal rights and Equal Protection is hardly giving them a "special privilege".

You know the answer. I also know that your response would be that they have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else to which i would reply that Christians in Saudi Arabia have the same freedom of religion that Muslims do in that both Christians and Muslims are free to attend a mosque and read the Koran. They are equal. Are gays here and Christians there simply seeking "special rights" just for them?

And, having been given an answer to that very question, you simply skip it.

LDS, other people can read the answers you skip, and see you repeatedly making the same points and ignoring the responses you get to maintain your opinion without reason.

Again, I openly practiced my faith in MANY middle eastern countries, without interference and often treated with a great deal of respect. What you fail to mention, or indeed notice, is that Islam preaches that Islam is part and parcel of the state, it cannot be separated. To have a government founded on the principles of Islam then introduces some ... issues, even within Islam and Suna and Shia branches divert rather strongly and the religious/political power of the state are deeply intertwined with the legal, moral, and political landscape of the land.

To have other religions undermining the faith and thus the state ... well, perhaps you can see why they tolerate different faiths, especially people of the book, but take a dim view of missionary work inside their borders?

And there is a case in their for gay marriages somehow?

[gree0232]

I don't understand where this phrase "societal level benefit" has come from. Where is that in our laws? Since when do we base constitutional rights on societal level benefits?

I've made a case. So have many others. That you dismiss it doesn't mean it wasn't made. We are seeing more and more states accept that case and recognize gay unions. I think it's up to 11 or 12 states now. How many will it be before you will admit that a case has been made?

Because you are asking society to advocate a behavior.

You have made no case. Claiming you have does not make it so. But then, you have also claimed that promiscuity has no bearing on morality (because you say so), and the homosexuality is immutable, but not (based on nothing), and that homosexuality is equal based on the 14th amendment, but its not equal.

That is not a case, and claiming it is a case is entirely without merit.

You clearly do not even understand the case being made against gay marriage, in that the institution of the marriage is given broad discretion and advocacy because it is the ideal situation in which to procreate and raise children who have the BEST probability of turning into healthy, productive citizens. Married couples also tend to be more stable, involved in community, etc. There is every reason to fund marriage, to advocate marriage, because it delivers a SOCIETAL LEVEL BENEFIT.

Yet the utter inability to deliver a similar compelling argument for homosexual marriage means the very concept is now .. irrelevant.

The lack of objective standards in once again obvious and telling.

It boils down to "Gay marriage, because I say so!"

Funding gay marriage will effect our society, and burying ones head in the sand by magically declaring the issue moot is extremely disingenuous - and once again perfectly demonstrates the logical reasons to be on the opposing side of homosexual marriage.

As I said, turn down the emotion, stop and analyze and make objective cases. There is a reason that those in favor of gay marriage cannot, or will not, do so. But all the stuff the emotionalism shoves into the shadows will not remain in the shadows indefinitely.

If you advocate a policy that will effect the entire society, you have a duty to examine what those effects will be ... not simply declare it irrelevant because such studies indicate that the effect will be negative.

The 11 or states that have legalized gay marriage will now BEGIN the process of seeing the effects of the policy change ... having ignored clinical data that offer caution, well, when we make choices ... we reap what we sew.

Edited May 24, 2013 by gree0232

[LDS4]

The temple could lose it tax exempt status if the church refused to do SSM. Over the decades this could be extended to all church property. California is not shy about passing such laws for social engineering, as it is doing with the BSA.

• #1 The Church would tie the law up in courts for years via appeals and motions and would undoubtedly succeed in reversing that ruling. There will be some sympathetic church going judge who surely doesn't want politicians forcing themselves on his own church. The judge could be libertarian minded and dismiss the case on First Amendment grounds saying, "What part of 'Shall Make No Law...Prohibiting The Free Exercise Thereof' don't you understand?". The judge could also be an elected figure and doesn't want to anger the vast majority of voters by ruling against churches. It'll get dismissed somewhere along the line.
  

• 
  #2 If that didn't work, we would, along with other churches and liberty minded people, push to pass a constitutional amendment (state or federal) that would allow churches to marry whom they will in their own facilities without any penalty. Other churches would support it since they would be hassled by gays as well. Such an amendment would get passed at light speed. No politician would dare oppose it. It would have overwhelming public support. The sky isn't falling.
  

[EllenMaksoud]

I find it preposterous that some would expect an issue like Gay Rights should take precedence over so many other issues of true importance. Someone feels like the LDS church has had a crusade against Gays and has abandoned it as if the church has lost its battle. I think the truth of the matter is that there are so many other things of greater importance to deal with that this battle can not be the center of attention that its proponents wish it to be.

I think that gay rights is a world wide issue and what ever happens will be played out one way or another. In the end, the cessation of discrimination of any kind will happen.

[wenglund]

SSM wouldn't necessarily change that.

Yes it will, in at least the four respects I previously mentioned--I am not sure how you missed them, so let me reiterate. First, legalizing SSM changed the definition of marriage in essential ways like has happened at none other time in human history, and thus further dilutes the meaning and meaningfulness of marriage, opening it up all the more to alternative meanings.

Second, it degrades the moral force of marriage by using it to countenance intrinsically profane behaviors.

Third, it includes within the meaning of the word a class of people who have a disproportionately high rates of promiscuity and infidelity and a penchant for short-term relationships, and this even within legal committed relationships available for some time, as well as those who have a more open, non-monogamous view of marriage.

And, fourth, it factors in a class of people who have a marked disinclanation to enter into legal committed relationships like marriage when they are available to them.

In short, one would have to be in deep denial not to recognize the unintended change to the meaning of marriage by legalizing SSM. Yet, somehow you managed it, along with reading my post in ways that are backwards from what I actually intended.

Above you define marriage as "monogamy and fidelity and longterm commitment". SSM doesn't necessarily change that at all. Indeed polygamy would change that far more than SSM. It stands to reason you are abosultely wrong based on your own terms.

No, I said that marriage once MEANT those things (I wasn't defining "marriage," Rather, I was pointing out how people once interpreted and considered the term).

As evinced above, SSM does radically change things. Polygamy may alter the monogamy aspect of marriage (not really, it is simply multiple monogamy--not that I expect you to understand), but not the fidelity and longterm commitment, Whereas, SSM alters them all, significantly. So, no, polygamy wouldn't change things far more than SSM. Quite the contrary. So, you are absolutely wrong, not only in terms of your understanding of my terms, but on your own terms as well.

Indeed, monogamy, fidelity and commitment may have absolutely nothing to do with marriage in some people's views. But, by your own admission, that isn't due to SSM, at all.

I admitted no such thing. Quite the contrary. But, at least you are consistent in your misreading.

And why is that? They weren't allowed to marry before? That may play into it.

If so, then one would expect that when homosexuals were allowed to marry or to enter into other state-sanctioned relationships (like civil unions and domestic partnership), there would be a noticeable shift in the homosexual culture towards monogamy, fidelity, and longterm commitments. However, that hasn't happen. In fact, as noted in another thread on this topic, STDs and AIDs and other homosexual ailments commonly associated with promiscuity and infidelity, reversed their downward trends, and have steadily increased in Massachusetts after SSM was legalized.

The correct answer to your question about "why is that?," is: not only is promiscuity and infidelity integral to the permissive homosexual culture, but homosexuals lack one of the key natural checks on sexual behaviors fundamental to heterosexuality--i.e. the risk of pregnancy, and, as a general rule, they also lack one of the cohesive influences inherent to heterosexual relationships--i.e. children, particularly biological children. Homosexuals have less reason not to mess around, and less reasons to stick together for the long haul.

This seems so obvious to me that I am surprised it didn't occur to you.

Also, as you have pointed out, many heterosexual couples feel the same way....

Yes, but disproportionately less so--on orders of magnitude.

If the percentages differ, there has to be a reason and finding that reason is far harder than just guessing.

See above.

Also, whatever the reason for the huge disparity, there is a DISPARITY, and taking that DISPARITY into consideration is critical to making rational public policy choices. If one is already concerned with stopping and/or repairing the damage being done to marriage and family by wayward heterosexuals, it would be counter-intuitive (actually it would be asinine) to legally add into the marital and family mix a class of people who are far worse than wayward heterosexuals in terms of promiscuity and infidelity and longterm relationships. Advocating for SSM would only make sense if one wished to further erode or destroy the fundamental institutions of society.

But they can choose, just like heterosexual people. Many heterosexual folks don't want marriage either. They simply aren't interested.

Right, though on order of magnitude less. The point being, though, things won't improve for wayward heterosexuals and marriage and families by countenancing, through legalizing SSM, worse behaviors than their's. That would be upside-down thinking--which seems to be the new coin of the realm.

You don't know that at all. the main piont I gather from your post is he who has hurt marriage more than anything else are heterosexual people.

You couldn't have gotten my post more wrong if you were trying--which causes me to wonder if you were trying.

I am also beginning to wonder if this subject has a way of striking stupid otherwise reasonabluy intelligent people.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 24, 2013 by wenglund

[LDS4]

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

leaving money to a dog, or an organization, does not legally obligate that animal or organization in any way. marriage gives one rights and responsibilities. this is why we have age restrictions to marry, but not to be an heir or beneficiary of insurance. you're not even close to proving your point.

Amazing. YOUR point was that you cannot be legally obligated or form a contract with an animal. Yes, you can.

A will is not a contract. I can change the terms and who will get what and no one can change that. if one party can change the terms without the consent of others affected by it, it's not a contract. An animal can't obligate itself to fulfill a contract. it can't read a contract. What a crock!

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

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

We are talking about the rationale to deny marriage between close relatives. Deformed kids is the big reason, but I point out that we don't deny marriage to others who likely will produce deformed kids. We still deny marriage between near relatives even if the woman is beyond child bearing age. Kids with deformitiies are no longer an issue. It simply boils down to society imposing morals on others

We were talking about moral relativism and licking and choosing random standards to deny one thing and accept another based on personal rationalization.

And no, in Georgia, for example, you can marry a close relative, the state just has to caution you about the possible effects. Yet here you claim that a state is violating a fundamental right to protect society on one hand, which they have a duty to do to prevent deformed kids, but homosexuality is a protected right ... because no kids are better for society than deformed

I'm just asking for consistency. We claim to deny marriage to close relatives in order to prevent deformed kids, yet we still forbid marriage between close relatives even if the woman is beyond child bearing age or if the couple has been sterilized. We also allow straight people with maladies that also yield deformed kids to marry. I'm simply looking for consistency. Are preventing deformities the reason or not?

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

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

[Regnerus] himself admitted he was in error. We can let people read our respective links and make up their own mind. The Regnerus study, whether it is valid or not, has nothing to do with SSM. We still allow those who are/would be the worse possible parents to get married and have kids. We allow drug users / dealers to marry. heck, we even allow death row inmates to marry. Are we going to require that all engaged people take a parenting class before they marry? How many straights would be disqualified if they had demographics suggesting that they would be lousy parents?

I believe you misunderstand how statistics are used when making policy ... the key word is aggregate. The state does remove children from heterosexuals who fail as parents, and simply declaring the Regnerus study irrelevant is exactly the point ... it raises serious issues which you simply wave at hand at. Magically, everything is equal because we have rationalized all concerns away? Are there any actual facts in your analysis at all?

Huh? He admitted his study was flawed. Even if it wasn't, the parenting issue has NOTHING to do with the issue of SSM. We know that with straight couples, the worst possible parents are still allowed to marry. those who can't or won't have kids are likewise allowed to marry. IOW, being a quality parent 9or even a parent at all) has ZERO affect on whether people can marry.

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

LDS4, on 22 May 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Sure, the gov can affer benefits to soldiers as part of their compensation package. No problem. If you want to reward couples based on their beneficial impact, should couples who choose not to have kids or are to old to have kids, be rewarded? Why should those couples, who provide absolutely nothing be rewarded and the gay couple who adopt older or drug addicted babies get nothing when the latter are doing a LOT more societal good than the former?

And yet, its a violation of the 14th amendment on one hand, but now its fine ... and now we are tossing about emotional prejoratives like drug addicted children rather than dealing with statistics and aggregates ... we make policy not based on the cumulative expected result on our society by with the eaches and just hope that aggregate magically produces a beneficial result.

Huh? Civil rights aren't granted/denied on the basis of social utility. Should the Nation of Islam or the Westboro Baptist Church lose their tax exempt status because they are perceived as having a negative effect on society? Should Communists be denied their 1st Amendment rights of speech and press?

I'll ask it again, how is homosexual marriage good for our society? What does our society get out of it? Well, we don't get deformed children (we get none), and drug addicted children can be raised in a socially awkward environment? Well, that explains that?

See above regarding "earning" civil rights. Also, SSM IS good for society. it, like straight marriage, encourages monogamy which means stable relationships where people rely on each other rather than on government. Monogamy reduces the spread of STDs. SSm promotes monogamy. It also promotes an environment in which children (acquired through adoption of artificial insemination) can be raised. IOW, it provides society basically the exact same benefits staright marriage does.

[rockpond]

Because you are asking society to advocate a behavior.

You have made no case. Claiming you have does not make it so. But then, you have also claimed that promiscuity has no bearing on morality (because you say so), and the homosexuality is immutable, but not (based on nothing), and that homosexuality is equal based on the 14th amendment, but its not equal.

That is not a case, and claiming it is a case is entirely without merit.

You clearly do not even understand the case being made against gay marriage, in that the institution of the marriage is given broad discretion and advocacy because it is the ideal situation in which to procreate and raise children who have the BEST probability of turning into healthy, productive citizens. Married couples also tend to be more stable, involved in community, etc. There is every reason to fund marriage, to advocate marriage, because it delivers a SOCIETAL LEVEL BENEFIT.

Yet the utter inability to deliver a similar compelling argument for homosexual marriage means the very concept is now .. irrelevant.

The lack of objective standards in once again obvious and telling.

It boils down to "Gay marriage, because I say so!"

Funding gay marriage will effect our society, and burying ones head in the sand by magically declaring the issue moot is extremely disingenuous - and once again perfectly demonstrates the logical reasons to be on the opposing side of homosexual marriage.

As I said, turn down the emotion, stop and analyze and make objective cases. There is a reason that those in favor of gay marriage cannot, or will not, do so. But all the stuff the emotionalism shoves into the shadows will not remain in the shadows indefinitely.

If you advocate a policy that will effect the entire society, you have a duty to examine what those effects will be ... not simply declare it irrelevant because such studies indicate that the effect will be negative.

The 11 or states that have legalized gay marriage will now BEGIN the process of seeing the effects of the policy change ... having ignored clinical data that offer caution, well, when we make choices ... we reap what we sew.

Again, my case (from the legal, non-emotive POV) is that there is no rational basis for denying 14th amendment protections, in the form of legal recognition of their marriages, to gay couples. So far, the federal courts seem to be agreeing with that case, BTW.

As far as I can tell you seem to think that those 14th amendment rights only apply if we can show a "societal level benefit". I'll ask again, where does such a provision or qualification exist in our constitution?

p.s. I have not suggested that promiscuity has no bearing on morality. I'd ask that you please retract that statement.

Edited May 24, 2013 by rockpond

[wenglund]

Have I claimed that heterosexual and homosexual relationships were the same or did I claim that they should be treated equally under the law?

You and others here have brought up statistics on promiscuity among some homosexuals multiple times. The claim has been made repeatedly, including by you, that they do not actually want monogamy or marriage. And I'm sure that some do not. But some do, and I respect those who want the lifestyle offered by a committed marital relationship.

This doesn't address the fact that you kept falsely assuming things about what I said, and how you are going to fix your problem. It simply deflected--and that is part of your problem. Please stop deflecting and fix the problem.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

This doesn't address the fact that you kept falsely assuming things about what I said, and how you are going to fix your problem. It simply deflected--and that is part of your problem. Please stop deflecting and fix the problem.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have not intentionally made any false assumptions. Where I have, I kindly ask that you correct me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stop deflecting and fix the problem".