Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[jwhitlock]

There online.

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in taking a look.

[Bikeemikey]

Do you have a link? I'd be interested in taking a look.

Here is the general link to all date ranges:

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/

I'm at church at the moment so can't get the specific act right now.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[jwhitlock]

Here is the general link to all date ranges:

http://www.nzlii.org...gis/consol_act/

I'm at church at the moment so can't get the specific act right now.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, it looks like they repealed sections addressing indecency with boys under the age of 12, among other things. Unfortunately, the Crimes Act of 1961 doesn't seem to list the verbiage of sections that have been repealed. In that case, the 1986 legislation attempting to repeal items such as that would have been troubling.

[california boy]

]

Oh please. The demand for SSM originated with narrow special interest groups within the gay community, so quit frothing at the mouth and trying to make it sound like American society suddenly wanted it to happen. The only reason a "majority" of Americans are ok with SSM is that they've bought into the sound bites that they've been inundated with in the media. Most Americans don't think particularly deeply about what they support, and your "majority" hardly insists in this "equal opportunity", which is actually a special privilege. Most of your claimed supporters are actually just people saying "sounds ok to me, whatever" who don't think about it any further than that.

I never claimed that this movement for equality started big. In fact, you are correct. When gays finally said, "we have had enough and we are citizens of this country too. We deserve equal treatment" the majority of Americans agreed. Those that agree grow every year. When brought out in the light of day, the arguments against gay marriage just don't stand up do they.

This response of demonizing those who disagree with you is pretty much standard in how you and other active SSM supporters address the fact that gays have all the same rights anyone else does. In reality, I have never seen a cogent response from you or other SSM supporters in addressing this issue. All I ever get in return is a diatribe denigrating my intelligence. I think it's pretty clear to anyone who thinks at all about the issue that your narrow special interest groups are demanding what amounts to special privileges, since they won't be used by anyone else.

What? Saying that people have been suckered in by the media is not demonizing? It was you that put forth the idea that gays have the same right to marry as straights. If you don't understand why gays want the right to marry, then tell me, what should I think??? Why is this issue before the Supreme Court if gays already have the equal right to marry?

On the other hand, there are already hundreds of thousands of gays who are in mixed gender marriages. That must really drive you nuts, since it undercuts your argument that gays don't have the right to marry. They do, and they exercise that right.

CFR where you got that statistic. I do know that some gays marry opposite gender. I also know that the church used to counsel gay members to marry, promising that these gay "tendencies" would diminish. I also know that so many of those marriages end in divorce that the church now counsels that marriage is not therapy. The churches current position is celibacy for gay members. Wonder why.

Oh brother. You're claiming that gay rights groups didn't pressure corporate sponsors to quite supporting the BSA? This is a pretty blatant piece of misrepresentation. The whole BSA situation was initiated both directly and indirectly through gay activist groups pressuring corporate sponsors and political agencies to quit supporting the BSA and not allowing them access to public facilities. Let's acknowledge what's really going on here, if you want to be honest.

So let me get this straight. Gay right supporters are a very narrow small group. Just what did they pressure these corporations with? Because the stated reason that these corporations give is that they do not support discrimination. Is this concept so difficult for you to understand? Most Americans and most American corporations do not support discriminating against a small minority. It is not pressure from gay groups that cause them to have this belief. Gay groups only brought this practice of discrimination to their attention. Not discriminating is something that most Americans believe as one of our core values. It is unfortunate that you do not share that core value.

As I have noted, most Americans really don't think much about discrimination. They are so influenced by media sound bites that if someone comes on TV and tells them that a group is being "discriminated" against, they go "oh, I guess that's what I should believe". Gay special interest groups realize this and mold their public communications accordingly. It's absolutely disingenuous to claim that demands for SSM are somehow something that spontaneously came about because the majority of Americans are actively tuned into correct all forms of perceived discrimination, and that gay rights groups didn't drive this. That's just absolutely ridiculous.

Falling back on your "most Americans don't think" statement tells me more about you than the American public. In order to make this argument, you have to include a lot of prominent and intelligent people. You have to admit, it is odd that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to support gay marriage. Or could it be that they have thought about this issue and have concluded for themselves that they truly believe in equality for all Americans even if you are gay. Rationalize all you want, but this will only end when gay marriage is legal across the United States. Fortunately, people like you who have no problem denying gays the right to marry are quickly dwindling.

[Calm]

Gay right supporters are a very narrow small group. Just what did they pressure these corporations with?

The percentage of self-identified LDS in the US and self-identified homosexuals is about the same, 1.7% (wiki has the numbers) If LDS can have such an impact on politics as is being claimed, surely gay rights supporters can have the same on corporations and other organizations...as well as politics in general.

[Bikeemikey]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, it looks like they repealed sections addressing indecency with boys under the age of 12, among other things. Unfortunately, the Crimes Act of 1961 doesn't seem to list the verbiage of sections that have been repealed. In that case, the 1986 legislation attempting to repeal items such as that would have been troubling.

You can download the full text of all documents.

I suggest you do that and review it in detail.

[california boy]

The percentage of self-identified LDS in the US and self-identified homosexuals is about the same, 1.7% (wiki has the numbers) If LDS can have such an impact on politics as is being claimed, surely gay rights supporters can have the same on corporations and other organizations...as well as politics in general.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. Yes a small group that donated over 20 million dollars and hundreds of hours to a political cause can have political influence. Prop 8 proved that. I would also agree that small gay population can and has influenced politics. I think the last election where 3 states passed gay marriage is an example of that.

But how can the church influence corporations? Maybe you could give me an idea how that actually works?

[gree0232]

]

I never claimed that this movement for equality started big. In fact, you are correct. When gays finally said, "we have had enough and we are citizens of this country too. We deserve equal treatment" the majority of Americans agreed. Those that agree grow every year. When brought out in the light of day, the arguments against gay marriage just don't stand up do they.

What? Saying that people have been suckered in by the media is not demonizing? It was you that put forth the idea that gays have the same right to marry as straights. If you don't understand why gays want the right to marry, then tell me, what should I think??? Why is this issue before the Supreme Court if gays already have the equal right to marry?

CFR where you got that statistic. I do know that some gays marry opposite gender. I also know that the church used to counsel gay members to marry, promising that these gay "tendencies" would diminish. I also know that so many of those marriages end in divorce that the church now counsels that marriage is not therapy. The churches current position is celibacy for gay members. Wonder why.

So let me get this straight. Gay right supporters are a very narrow small group. Just what did they pressure these corporations with? Because the stated reason that these corporations give is that they do not support discrimination. Is this concept so difficult for you to understand? Most Americans and most American corporations do not support discriminating against a small minority. It is not pressure from gay groups that cause them to have this belief. Gay groups only brought this practice of discrimination to their attention. Not discriminating is something that most Americans believe as one of our core values. It is unfortunate that you do not share that core value.

Falling back on your "most Americans don't think" statement tells me more about you than the American public. In order to make this argument, you have to include a lot of prominent and intelligent people. You have to admit, it is odd that the more educated people are, the more likely they are to support gay marriage. Or could it be that they have thought about this issue and have concluded for themselves that they truly believe in equality for all Americans even if you are gay. Rationalize all you want, but this will only end when gay marriage is legal across the United States. Fortunately, people like you who have no problem denying gays the right to marry are quickly dwindling.

You state repeatedly, without explaining why mind you, that the arguments against gay marriage fall flat. Do they?

You then proceed to make the case that its merely a matter of discrimination. Is it?

Tell me, looking at the US Constitution where exactly is the 'right' to marry whomever you see fit? 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.

To make the point, legally, we can do all of these things. We can make a special commitment to any one of these things, and put in place legally binding contracts for each and every one. The difference is that the state does not sanction the 'marriage' - it provides no benefits, it provides no special treatment.

The government DOES do this for marriage. It does so because time and time again it has been proven that children raised in a stable household with strong male and female role models have the best chances, albeit no guarantee, of turning into productive citizens. The duty of government is thus not to coerce, but to set policies that encourage choices. 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?

Not according to science it does not.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/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?

Lest we think its one study, why then is the homosexual community not addressing issues like these?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/son-of-two-moms-defends-regnerus-study-on-same-sex-parenting/

Lopez, a married man with a complex personal history, said in his essay that Regnerus is under attack for highlighting “what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore.”

“Whether homosexuality is chosen or inbred, whether gay marriage gets legalized or not, being strange is hard,” wrote Lopez, who identifies as bisexual “because it would take several novels to explain how I ended up 'straight' after almost thirty years as a gay man.”

“When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird,” the California State University professor reflected.

“I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.”

Tell me, is Lopez, a former gay man, being discriminatory when he provides his testimony? Are the arguments for homosexual marriage vindicated by ignoring these claims? By false accusations against a study? By screaming that all criticism of their position is illegitimate?

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. Well, sexuality DOES change in many (not all), and the choices we make regarding sex quite literally speaks to our character does it not?

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing. 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? Pseudo science to claim sex is immutable and uncontrollable?

I am not so sure that is a good thing.

[Bikeemikey]

You state repeatedly, without explaining why mind you, that the arguments against gay marriage fall flat. Do they?

You then proceed to make the case that its merely a matter of discrimination. Is it?

Tell me, looking at the US Constitution where exactly is the 'right' to marry whomever you see fit? 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.

To make the point, legally, we can do all of these things. We can make a special commitment to any one of these things, and put in place legally binding contracts for each and every one. The difference is that the state does not sanction the 'marriage' - it provides no benefits, it provides no special treatment.

The government DOES do this for marriage. It does so because time and time again it has been proven that children raised in a stable household with strong male and female role models have the best chances, albeit no guarantee, of turning into productive citizens. The duty of government is thus not to coerce, but to set policies that encourage choices. 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.

So you think the US govt. acted correctly and appropriately when it restricted the practice of marriage to monogamous couples and forced the Mormon community to stop the practice of polygamy?

Edited May 12, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[gree0232]

So you think the US govt. acted correctly and appropriately when it restricted the practice of marriage to monogamous couples and forced the Mormon community to stop the practice of polygamy?

Yes, I do.

I say this because I spent a lot of time in the Middle East where polygamy is practiced openly. The result? Men are sometimes capable of doing right in these situations ... like when a bread winner is killed in a family ... someone 'marries' the wife to provide legal basis for support and the retention of property ... which is one of the things that the early church needed to do as its members were killed as a result of persecution.

Yet both the early church, and currently the Middle East, proves is that man is not a wise agent when issues of sex become involved. The abuse and mistreatment of women in polygamous marriages is high. The devaluation of women as sexual objects, the reduction in education, etc. etc. etc. are all reasons to stop this damaging practice.

If you want you daughter to be raised as a Sister Wife, to have your sons made into out castes so other 'men' can have more wives, your daughter reduced to a piece of property to be sold to settles a debt to a rapacious older or wealthier man ... then by all means, sign up for polygamy. Once the conditions necessitating polygamy in the early church were removed, there was no reason to continue it with its temptations toward sin and distewardship. The wraning given through the Prophet Woodruff has been proven true in the results of the fLDS community ... whose leader basically acknowledged he was doing the wrong thing ... its communities attacked ... its leader jailed ... insular and cut off.

Well, choices have consequences. And the government does not have to treat all choices as if they are beneficial and produce positive results. Polygamy is one that best remains illegal as man lacks the wise ability to steward it properly under all but the most narrow of circumstances. With legal equality between men and women ... there is simply no reason for it at all.

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, I do.

I say this because I spent a lot of time in the Middle East where polygamy is practiced openly. The result? Men are sometimes capable of doing right in these situations ... like when a bread winner is killed in a family ... someone 'marries' the wife to provide legal basis for support and the retention of property ... which is one of the things that the early church needed to do as its members were killed as a result of persecution.

Yet both the early church, and currently the Middle East, proves is that man is not a wise agent when issues of sex become involved. The abuse and mistreatment of women in polygamous marriages is high. The devaluation of women as sexual objects, the reduction in education, etc. etc. etc. are all reasons to stop this damaging practice.

If you want you daughter to be raised as a Sister Wife, to have your sons made into out castes so other 'men' can have more wives, your daughter reduced to a piece of property to be sold to settles a debt to a rapacious older or wealthier man ... then by all means, sign up for polygamy. Once the conditions necessitating polygamy in the early church were removed, there was no reason to continue it with its temptations toward sin and distewardship. The wraning given through the Prophet Woodruff has been proven true in the results of the fLDS community ... whose leader basically acknowledged he was doing the wrong thing ... its communities attacked ... its leader jailed ... insular and cut off.

Well, choices have consequences. And the government does not have to treat all choices as if they are beneficial and produce positive results. Polygamy is one that best remains illegal as man lacks the wise ability to steward it properly under all but the most narrow of circumstances. With legal equality between men and women ... there is simply no reason for it at all.

And that is the primary reason we will likely never share a common belief on this subject. I think this was an act of govt. over reach and was an infringement on the rights of citizens freedoms and religious beliefs.

That does not mean I disagree with the criticisms on either men or polygamy. Simply the right if govt to do anything about it.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[gree0232]

And that is the primary reason we will likely never share our beliefs on this subject. I think this was an act of govt. over reach and was an infringement on the rights of citizens freedoms and religious beliefs.

That does not mean I disagree with the criticisms on either men or polygamy. Simply the right if govt to do anything about it.

The government's role is to encourage choices. That is why it creates taxes and incentives to encourage heterosexual marriage.

The government has no duty to encourage plural marriages, in fact, it has a duty to create disincentives for polygamy, including barring it legally. As you can see, some still choose to do it anyway. The government steps in, as it should, not only with the legal basis that it polygamy is illegal, but when the inevitable abuses of polygamy create conditions of abuse and exploitation - as it did with the fLDS community.

The role of government is that of the agent who steps in and puts a stop to that under a representational judicial framework. Otherwise, when issues like that arise, its up to the citizens to raise a posse and put a stop to the abuse.

Do we value the rule of law in our society? If so, then polygamy is, and must remain, a practice that is strongly discouraged - and when it reaps its inevitable rewards - one that is stopped with all the agency and power of the government to end such abusive practices.

[Bikeemikey]

The government's role is to encourage choices. That is why it creates taxes and incentives to encourage heterosexual marriage.

The government has no duty to encourage plural marriages, in fact, it has a duty to create disincentives for polygamy, including barring it legally. As you can see, some still choose to do it anyway. The government steps in, as it should, not only with the legal basis that it polygamy is illegal, but when the inevitable abuses of polygamy create conditions of abuse and exploitation - as it did with the fLDS community.

The role of government is that of the agent who steps in and puts a stop to that under a representational judicial framework. Otherwise, when issues like that arise, its up to the citizens to raise a posse and put a stop to the abuse.

Do we value the rule of law in our society? If so, then polygamy is, and must remain, a practice that is strongly discouraged - and when it reaps its inevitable rewards - one that is stopped with all the agency and power of the government to end such abusive practices.

Again I totally disagree with your primary premise: "the governments role is to encourage choices".

I believe the govts role is to ensure the production of harm from choice is not tolerated. Apart from that govt. should have no stake in the content of choice.

[california boy]

You state repeatedly, without explaining why mind you, that the arguments against gay marriage fall flat. Do they?

You then proceed to make the case that its merely a matter of discrimination. Is it?

Tell me, looking at the US Constitution where exactly is the 'right' to marry whomever you see fit? 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.

To make the point, legally, we can do all of these things. We can make a special commitment to any one of these things, and put in place legally binding contracts for each and every one. The difference is that the state does not sanction the 'marriage' - it provides no benefits, it provides no special treatment.

The government DOES do this for marriage. It does so because time and time again it has been proven that children raised in a stable household with strong male and female role models have the best chances, albeit no guarantee, of turning into productive citizens. The duty of government is thus not to coerce, but to set policies that encourage choices. 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?

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?

Lest we think its one study, why then is the homosexual community not addressing issues like these?

http://www.catholicn...-sex-parenting/

Lopez, a married man with a complex personal history, said in his essay that Regnerus is under attack for highlighting “what the gay activist movement has sought laboriously to erase, or at least ignore.”

“Whether homosexuality is chosen or inbred, whether gay marriage gets legalized or not, being strange is hard,” wrote Lopez, who identifies as bisexual “because it would take several novels to explain how I ended up 'straight' after almost thirty years as a gay man.”

“When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird,” the California State University professor reflected.

“I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.”

Tell me, is Lopez, a former gay man, being discriminatory when he provides his testimony? Are the arguments for homosexual marriage vindicated by ignoring these claims? By false accusations against a study? By screaming that all criticism of their position is illegitimate?

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. Well, sexuality DOES change in many (not all), and the choices we make regarding sex quite literally speaks to our character does it not?

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing. 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? Pseudo science to claim sex is immutable and uncontrollable?

I am not so sure that is a good thing.

I am going to take a look at your arguments because they illustrate exactly why gay marriage keeps getting more and more support in this country. When people look at the two positions, quite frankly, they do not buy into your arguments.

Ultimately, this is all a legal issue. The courts seem to understand the difference between consulting adults and underaged children, inanimate objects, and animals. Would you agree with that? Because the majority of Americans have looked at this argument and have concluded that being married to an animal is really just not the same as being married to a consulting adult. For some reason they can distinguish between barnyard animals and adults. How about you?

You do realize that the famous Regnerus Study study did not compare married gay couples raising children with married straight couples raising children right? It is comparing apples to oranges. Even the author of the study admitted to that and stated that those who inturpet his study that way are wrong. So would you take one study that is not even comparing married gay couples with married straight couples over all the other countless studies done by the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association for the past couple of decades? The leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States have said that claims that the legal recognition of marriage for same–sex couples undermines the institution of marriage and harms children is inconsistent with the scientific evidence. Can you understand why most Americans believe the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association and these other professional groups that have been going on since 1970 over this one study? Is that so irrational? I am sorry, but that is just another one of the reasons why there has been a steady increase of support for gay marriage. They don't think your position is rational.

Here are the groups that support this claim.

Brief of the American Psychological Association, the Massachusetts Psychological Association, The National Association of Social Workers and its Massachusetts Chapter, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and in Support of Affirmance - Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-11156-JLT, 1:09-cv-10309-JLT (Honorable Joseph L. Tauro)"

Antidotal evidence is never proof of anything. The AMA and American Psychiatric Association seem to have more legitimacy in the minds of most Americans. I know, kinda strange huh. It is just how Americans are. They put more trust in professionals then they do this Lopez guy. Would you go to Lopez for medical information over doctors? Most in this country would not.

But hey if you are into antidotal evidence, here are a few for you. The fundamentalist Christian “ex-gay” organization Exodus International was founded. Shortly thereafter, Seventh Day Adventist minister Colin Cook founded another “ex-gay” organization, Homosexuals Anonymous, which is a twelve-step program for overcoming homosexuality (there are actually fourteen steps in the HA program) Unfortunately, these groups seemed to prove the opposite of what they set out to show. Two of Exodus’ founders, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, left their wives and married each other. After appearing on the Phil Donahue show as a “cured” ex-gay, Colin Cook had to leave his ministry after having sex with his male counseling clients

In the past year alone, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington have all passed gay marriage. Minnisota and Illinois are expected to also pass it withing the next month. It is precisely the failure of the arguments you present that is continuing to excellerate marriage equality. You may not like my answers. You may even not see the rationality behind them. But the fact still remains, the majority of Americans have heard both sides of this argument. Sorry but they are not buying into the barnyard animal argument, the Regnerus study or Mr. Lopez. I doubt very much that the Supreme Court will either.

Edited May 12, 2013 by california boy

[gree0232]

Again I totally disagree with your primary premise: "the governments role is to encourage choices".

I believe the govts role is to ensure the production of harm from choice is not tolerated. Apart from that govt. should have no stake in the content of choice.

And part of that is setting policies that reward certain behavior ... i.e. choices that do not result in harm, and punish others ... i.e. those that cause harm.

In our system, if the government gets it wrong ... we vote them out of office. This forces consensus, rather than the tyranny of any one person, to dictate what does and does not cause harm.

There is a reason that the government has made polygamy illegal. Its because the vast majority of Americans have seen it in action historically and currently and believe it is unnecessarily harming. Its not 'government' that sets the policy, its the consensus of the people.

Its one reason in the gay marriage debate, that I am so opposed to the random tossing about of bigotry ... by both sides.

[Bikeemikey]

And part of that is setting policies that reward certain behavior ... i.e. choices that do not result in harm, and punish others ... i.e. those that cause harm.

In our system, if the government gets it wrong ... we vote them out of office. This forces consensus, rather than the tyranny of any one person, to dictate what does and does not cause harm.

There is a reason that the government has made polygamy illegal. Its because the vast majority of Americans have seen it in action historically and currently and believe it is unnecessarily harming. Its not 'government' that sets the policy, its the consensus of the people.

Its one reason in the gay marriage debate, that I am so opposed to the random tossing about of bigotry ... by both sides.

I guess it really comes down to you being happy with a much broader area of control for govt. I am not comfortable with larger more powerful style of govt.

[gree0232]

I am going to take a look at your arguments because they illustrate exactly why gay marriage keeps getting more and more support in this country. When people look at the two positions, quite frankly, they do not buy into your arguments.

Ultimately, this is all a legal issue. The courts seem to understand the difference between consulting adults and underaged children, inanimate objects, and animals. Would you agree with that? Because the majority of Americans have looked at this argument and have concluded that being married to an animal is really just not the same as being married to a consulting adult. For some reason they can distinguish between barnyard animals and adults. How about you?

You do realize that the famous Regnerus Study study did not compare married gay couples raising children with married straight couples raising children right? It is comparing apples to oranges. Even the author of the study admitted to that and stated that those who inturpet his study that way are wrong. So would you take one study that is not even comparing married gay couples with married straight couples over all the other countless studies done by the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association for the past couple of decades? The leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States have said that claims that the legal recognition of marriage for same–sex couples undermines the institution of marriage and harms children is inconsistent with the scientific evidence. Can you understand why most Americans believe the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association and these other professional groups that have been going on since 1970 over this one study? Is that so irrational? I am sorry, but that is just another one of the reasons why there has been a steady increase of support for gay marriage. They don't think your position is rational.

Here are the groups that support this claim.

Brief of the American Psychological Association, the Massachusetts Psychological Association, The National Association of Social Workers and its Massachusetts Chapter, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and in Support of Affirmance - Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Civil Action Nos. 1:09-cv-11156-JLT, 1:09-cv-10309-JLT (Honorable Joseph L. Tauro)"

Antidotal evidence is never proof of anything. The AMA and American Psychiatric Association seem to have more legitimacy in the minds of most Americans. I know, kinda strange huh. It is just how Americans are. They put more trust in professionals then they do this Lopez guy. Would you go to Lopez for medical information over doctors? Most in this country would not.

But hey if you are into antidotal evidence, here are a few for you. The fundamentalist Christian “ex-gay” organization Exodus International was founded. Shortly thereafter, Seventh Day Adventist minister Colin Cook founded another “ex-gay” organization, Homosexuals Anonymous, which is a twelve-step program for overcoming homosexuality (there are actually fourteen steps in the HA program) Unfortunately, these groups seemed to prove the opposite of what they set out to show. Two of Exodus’ founders, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, left their wives and married each other. After appearing on the Phil Donahue show as a “cured” ex-gay, Colin Cook had to leave his ministry after having sex with his male counseling clients

In the past year alone, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington have all passed gay marriage. Minnisota and Illinois are expected to also pass it withing the next month. It is precisely the failure of the arguments you present that is continuing to excellerate marriage equality. You may not like my answers. You may even not see the rationality behind them. But the fact still remains, the majority of Americans have heard both sides of this argument. Sorry but they are not buying into the barnyard animal argument, the Regnerus study or Mr. Lopez. I doubt very much that the Supreme Court will either.

Well, you have taken the usual positions of the homosexual movement, and basically turned science and what I wrote on its head by essentially ignoring ... as Mr. Lopez claims, germane points.

#1 - tell me, what human is harmed by allowing a marriage between an animal and a human? If that is what the human wants ... if indeed he was just born that way ... who are you to discriminate against him by claiming there is a consensual adult in that transaction who disagrees?

#2 - The same question for an inanimate object. Who exactly is harmed by this?

#3 - All the parties of a polygamous relationship are consenting adults are they not? So why is it illegal? Because we see it leading to things like the fLDS church and the systemic exploitation of women. Yet they are just born to be that way? Its an immutable sexual quality is not?

#4 - Agh, children are not of legal consenting age? Thus its wrong? What is the parents agree to the marriage? This is indeed how many other cultures arranged marriages, who are then no consummated until legal age is reached. And if you are just born into a system of arranged marriages ... it must therefor be genetic (no scientific data is needed whatsoever), and when you come to a land like the US - the US has no ability to stop the practice ... whose abuses regularly pop into the news from places like Pakistan.

In short, you claim that homosexuality is in its own sexual and legal category and that its discrimination to be opposed to ... a type of sexual activity? If I reject promiscuity ... am I discriminating against the sexually unchaste? is there some vast government conspiracy that punishes these types of people by not giving them government handouts or creating special legal and financial incentives to encourage the promiscuity ... which of course, they are simply BORN to be?

Now, is it that people do not 'buy' those arguments, or are they afraid of the McCarthyistic tactic of being labelled a bigot and an intolerate curmudgeon if they raise these issues?

You next just skip the methodological questions that were raised, and vindicated BTW, of the Regernus study. Tell me, if the liberal medical association states that its fine ... this is based on .. what? Their anecdotal opinion? Which stands in sharp contrast to the methodological approach used by Regnerus.

Well, lets look shall we.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/no-danger-to-children-in-samesex-marriage-29198246.html

Is there any scientific or reproduceable claims in that article? Tell me, as was leveled against the Regnerus study, who funded that and why? In short, we have a politically funded movement producing pseudo-scientific studies based on claims that are almost wholly unfounded.

Tell me, how is this any different, in terms of policy, of having an Iraqi expat fake information about Iraqi WMD program leading to ... a war in which thousands of people of killed? Should we simply take 'expert' opinion based on anecdotal evidence when the dissenting rebuttal position is subjected to hyperbole and emotional blackmail to retain its silence?

Again, what exactly is marriage? When two people commit to each other and raise children, the 'legal' sanction of the state does not make or break that commitment does it not? So the point about the study not being from 'married' is at best moot.

And Lopez is not alone is he? And it raises the question put forward by a former gay man - why is this aspect being buried by the homosexual community? Why is it not talked about? And if you shove something into the shadows to get what you want, do you really think the ugly truth you bully into the shadows will remain there?

That question is relevant to the last question that is commonly skipped in this debate - are the homosexual and heterosexual community truly equal? Should we ignore instances like SEN Craig being caught in a Minneapolis Air Port bathroom soliciting sex to be ignored? Gay men having sex in parks? The much higher instances of unprotected sex with multiple partners leading to the ravishing the community took from AIDS?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/magazine/my-ex-gay-friend.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.newswithviews.com/psychology/psychology2.htm

"When I was 17 years old I was recruited into the gay lifestyle by an older homosexual man. Like so many young people who get drawn into homosexuality, I was lonely, naive and vulnerable. My father was an alcoholic. My self-esteem was very low. I was easy prey for anyone who was willing to exploit my need for a fathers love."

"I love and respect myself today, but I hate the things that I used to do. Homosexual sexuality is perverse and unhealthy, both physically and emotionally. We put on such a respectable image, but inside we were miserable and ashamed. Like many young gays, I tried to commit suicide because I didn't think there was a way out."

There are states legalizing marijuana too - doesn't make it right ... and the experience in Amsterdam SHOULD have raised caution, because clearly those who criminalized its use before us were what? Stupid?

So you think we are the first society on earth to tolerate homosexuality? Did you know that Spain once, and currently, had a tolerant view of homosexuality, as did China for example, but these bouts of tolerance were eventually removed - do you know why?

I am all for allowing a few states to legalize gay marriage. Why? Because once they have their 'right' and can no longer scream bigot at disagreement ... the ugly truth spoken by Weller and Lopez will be sitting there staring everyone in the face. And the McCarthyism of the movement will be dead.

In short, you can be as gay as you want, but when you ask other citizens to start paying you to ENCOURAGE you choice? Well, there needs to be something more to it than ignoring anything that disagrees with the position.

[gree0232]

I guess it really comes down to you being happy with a much broader area of control for govt. I am not comfortable with larger more powerful style of govt.

It has nothing to do with size, but role. Who is the proper judicial and law enforcement authority if not government? Large or small?

[california boy]

Well, you have taken the usual positions of the homosexual movement, and basically turned science and what I wrote on its head by essentially ignoring ... as Mr. Lopez claims, germane points.

#1 - tell me, what human is harmed by allowing a marriage between an animal and a human? If that is what the human wants ... if indeed he was just born that way ... who are you to discriminate against him by claiming there is a consensual adult in that transaction who disagrees?

#2 - The same question for an inanimate object. Who exactly is harmed by this?

#3 - All the parties of a polygamous relationship are consenting adults are they not? So why is it illegal? Because we see it leading to things like the fLDS church and the systemic exploitation of women. Yet they are just born to be that way? Its an immutable sexual quality is not?

#4 - Agh, children are not of legal consenting age? Thus its wrong? What is the parents agree to the marriage? This is indeed how many other cultures arranged marriages, who are then no consummated until legal age is reached. And if you are just born into a system of arranged marriages ... it must therefor be genetic (no scientific data is needed whatsoever), and when you come to a land like the US - the US has no ability to stop the practice ... whose abuses regularly pop into the news from places like Pakistan.

In short, you claim that homosexuality is in its own sexual and legal category and that its discrimination to be opposed to ... a type of sexual activity? If I reject promiscuity ... am I discriminating against the sexually unchaste? is there some vast government conspiracy that punishes these types of people by not giving them government handouts or creating special legal and financial incentives to encourage the promiscuity ... which of course, they are simply BORN to be?

Now, is it that people do not 'buy' those arguments, or are they afraid of the McCarthyistic tactic of being labelled a bigot and an intolerate curmudgeon if they raise these issues?

You next just skip the methodological questions that were raised, and vindicated BTW, of the Regernus study. Tell me, if the liberal medical association states that its fine ... this is based on .. what? Their anecdotal opinion? Which stands in sharp contrast to the methodological approach used by Regnerus.

Well, lets look shall we.

http://www.independe...e-29198246.html

Is there any scientific or reproduceable claims in that article? Tell me, as was leveled against the Regnerus study, who funded that and why? In short, we have a politically funded movement producing pseudo-scientific studies based on claims that are almost wholly unfounded.

Tell me, how is this any different, in terms of policy, of having an Iraqi expat fake information about Iraqi WMD program leading to ... a war in which thousands of people of killed? Should we simply take 'expert' opinion based on anecdotal evidence when the dissenting rebuttal position is subjected to hyperbole and emotional blackmail to retain its silence?

Again, what exactly is marriage? When two people commit to each other and raise children, the 'legal' sanction of the state does not make or break that commitment does it not? So the point about the study not being from 'married' is at best moot.

And Lopez is not alone is he? And it raises the question put forward by a former gay man - why is this aspect being buried by the homosexual community? Why is it not talked about? And if you shove something into the shadows to get what you want, do you really think the ugly truth you bully into the shadows will remain there?

That question is relevant to the last question that is commonly skipped in this debate - are the homosexual and heterosexual community truly equal? Should we ignore instances like SEN Craig being caught in a Minneapolis Air Port bathroom soliciting sex to be ignored? Gay men having sex in parks? The much higher instances of unprotected sex with multiple partners leading to the ravishing the community took from AIDS?

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

http://www.newswithv...psychology2.htm

"When I was 17 years old I was recruited into the gay lifestyle by an older homosexual man. Like so many young people who get drawn into homosexuality, I was lonely, naive and vulnerable. My father was an alcoholic. My self-esteem was very low. I was easy prey for anyone who was willing to exploit my need for a fathers love."

"I love and respect myself today, but I hate the things that I used to do. Homosexual sexuality is perverse and unhealthy, both physically and emotionally. We put on such a respectable image, but inside we were miserable and ashamed. Like many young gays, I tried to commit suicide because I didn't think there was a way out."

There are states legalizing marijuana too - doesn't make it right ... and the experience in Amsterdam SHOULD have raised caution, because clearly those who criminalized its use before us were what? Stupid?

So you think we are the first society on earth to tolerate homosexuality? Did you know that Spain once, and currently, had a tolerant view of homosexuality, as did China for example, but these bouts of tolerance were eventually removed - do you know why?

I am all for allowing a few states to legalize gay marriage. Why? Because once they have their 'right' and can no longer scream bigot at disagreement ... the ugly truth spoken by Weller and Lopez will be sitting there staring everyone in the face. And the McCarthyism of the movement will be dead.

In short, you can be as gay as you want, but when you ask other citizens to start paying you to ENCOURAGE you choice? Well, there needs to be something more to it than ignoring anything that disagrees with the position.

Well obviously you find these arguments believable, but there is no denying that the majority of Americans do not. The Supreme court will eventually rule on this issue and unfortunately for you, justices tend to understand the concept of consenting adults. They also tend to put more trust in The leading associations of psychological, psychiatric, medical, and social work professionals in the United States than antidotal stories. So guess what is going to be the final outcome on this issue?

I am confused by this statement.

So you think we are the first society on earth to tolerate homosexuality? Did you know that Spain once, and currently, had a tolerant view of homosexuality, as did China for example, but these bouts of tolerance were eventually removed - do you know why?

You do realize that gay marriage is legal in Spain and China is considering it right?

[Stone holm]

The government's role is to encourage choices. That is why it creates taxes and incentives to encourage heterosexual marriage.

The government has no duty to encourage plural marriages, in fact, it has a duty to create disincentives for polygamy, including barring it legally. As you can see, some still choose to do it anyway. The government steps in, as it should, not only with the legal basis that it polygamy is illegal, but when the inevitable abuses of polygamy create conditions of abuse and exploitation - as it did with the fLDS community.

The role of government is that of the agent who steps in and puts a stop to that under a representational judicial framework. Otherwise, when issues like that arise, its up to the citizens to raise a posse and put a stop to the abuse.

Do we value the rule of law in our society? If so, then polygamy is, and must remain, a practice that is strongly discouraged - and when it reaps its inevitable rewards - one that is stopped with all the agency and power of the government to end such abusive practices.

I think it is dangerous to compare polygamy as practiced by the FLDS and Conservative Muslims with the early Saints. The FLDS are operating under siege conditions and violating the law in order to preserve their existence by coercion, the Muslims are operating in many cases under laws which accord the women very little protection. Neither of those conditions need be the case. Nevertheless, polygamy within Zion is only for those times when The Lord has need of it. Over the course of history, monogamy has been the cultural and social exception, not the rule. It became dominant not because of Christianity, but because of Roman secular law that became grafted onto the Catholic Church and thereby forced upon its subjects because of the commingling of Church and State. In the United States, the platform under which Lincoln was elected called for the abolishment of two evils, namely slavery and polygamy . After his election, however, Lincoln said to leave the Mormons alone, which gave them a breathing space to create a foundation while other Americans were busy slaughtering each other on the East coast.

While it is true that in a democracy that the majority decides what to reward and what to punish, in America, we believe that there are certain rights which cannot be taken away on the whim of the majority and one of these is the free exercise of religion. As part of that freedom, there must be a rational and reasonable secular basis for doing so. It is not at all clear to me that if U.S. v Reynolds were decided today, even with a conservative majority on the SCOTUS that it would reach the same results. I think it would be a close case. Just like the fact that the decision in the DOMA case is going to be close and may well wind up being a plurality decision (a result which is not based on the same legal basis by a majority of the Court) .

With regards to whether the accelerating acceptance of gay marriage laws is due to the Church getting out of the way, I find that to be somewhat doubtful, it has, however, I believe reduced the volume of the debates by leaving the opposition composed primarily by Catholic leadership (which is notorious for being ignored by its followers) and right wing religious groups which are becoming increasingly unpopular with Americans. I do, however, believe our opposition while it was stridently aggressive helped to motivate the gays and to gain them sympathy amongst moderate America. Because even if we disfavour a group we tend not to like to watch them persecuted for religious reasons.

[Bikeemikey]

It has nothing to do with size, but role. Who is the proper judicial and law enforcement authority if not government? Large or small?

You are happy with govt. having a broader area of control than I am. Perhaps size is not the right term but my ideal is for a govt with more limited authority than you are proposing, or that we currently have.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[gree0232]

But hey if you are into antidotal evidence, here are a few for you. The fundamentalist Christian “ex-gay” organization Exodus International was founded. Shortly thereafter, Seventh Day Adventist minister Colin Cook founded another “ex-gay” organization, Homosexuals Anonymous, which is a twelve-step program for overcoming homosexuality (there are actually fourteen steps in the HA program) Unfortunately, these groups seemed to prove the opposite of what they set out to show. Two of Exodus’ founders, Michael Bussee and Gary Cooper, left their wives and married each other. After appearing on the Phil Donahue show as a “cured” ex-gay, Colin Cook had to leave his ministry after having sex with his male counseling clients

I am going to address this one, because it makes the point almost perfectly.

Is the problem is that 'marriage'? Or poor choice? The inability to resist sexual temptation?

Tell me, is having sex with a counseling client a problem that allowing homosexuals to marry will fix?

Would you advise someone who has trouble controlling his sexual desire to privately counsel sexual addicts? Would you counsel them that marriage will magically cure their struggles with promiscuity?

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.com/Called-Out-Lesbians-Discovery-Freedom/dp/1599793857

http://www.gcmwatch.com/9954/unlikely-convert-john-piper-interviews-former-lesbian-professor

Can you tell me why the community itself, as we are arguing anecdotal, has coined the term hasbian for former gay women ... whose growing body of evidence seems to indicate has real world experience to garner?

Perhaps treating sexuality as legally immutable, and thus subject to discrimination rather than judgement, is not the correct path?

[gree0232]

You are happy with govt. having a broader area of control than I am. Perhaps size is not the right term but my ideal is for a govt with more limited authority than you are proposing.

It skips the question that is relevant: who, if not government, is the proper agent of law enforcement and judicial facility? Government should be large enough and powerful enough to enforce the writ our society grants it, but not so large that it becomes an instrument of oppression that blocks the consent of the governed.

We have a need for both law enforcement, the creation of legal framework, and a judicial body to arbitrate its execution. If not government, them whom?

[gree0232]

I think it is dangerous to compare polygamy as practiced by the FLDS and Conservative Muslims with the early Saints. The FLDS are operating under siege conditions and violating the law in order to preserve their existence by coercion, the Muslims are operating in many cases under laws which accord the women very little protection. Neither of those conditions need be the case. Nevertheless, polygamy within Zion is only for those times when The Lord has need of it. Over the course of history, monogamy has been the cultural and social exception, not the rule. It became dominant not because of Christianity, but because of Roman secular law that became grafted onto the Catholic Church and thereby forced upon its subjects because of the commingling of Church and State. In the United States, the platform under which Lincoln was elected called for the abolishment of two evils, namely slavery and polygamy . After his election, however, Lincoln said to leave the Mormons alone, which gave them a breathing space to create a foundation while other Americans were busy slaughtering each other on the East coast.

While it is true that in a democracy that the majority decides what to reward and what to punish, in America, we believe that there are certain rights which cannot be taken away on the whim of the majority and one of these is the free exercise of religion. As part of that freedom, there must be a rational and reasonable secular basis for doing so. It is not at all clear to me that if U.S. v Reynolds were decided today, even with a conservative majority on the SCOTUS that it would reach the same results. I think it would be a close case. Just like the fact that the decision in the DOMA case is going to be close and may well wind up being a plurality decision (a result which is not based on the same legal basis by a majority of the Court) .

With regards to whether the accelerating acceptance of gay marriage laws is due to the Church getting out of the way, I find that to be somewhat doubtful, it has, however, I believe reduced the volume of the debates by leaving the opposition composed primarily by Catholic leadership (which is notorious for being ignored by its followers) and right wing religious groups which are becoming increasingly unpopular with Americans. I do, however, believe our opposition while it was stridently aggressive helped to motivate the gays and to gain them sympathy amongst moderate America. Because even if we disfavour a group we tend not to like to watch them persecuted for religious reasons.

So were many of the Muslims whose say their men killed in the middle of a war in societies that, like the era of the early church, no legal rights to women who are left potentially destitute with children to raise unless someone steps in to 'marry' them. That is one of the reasons the early church accepted polygamy, and there are those among us all who COULD negotiate this temptable minefield with appropriate decorum and circumspection.

Yet, both the early church and current Islamic practices, nevertheless have to deal with the reality of polygamy and human frailty. Thee early church had members who abused the polygamous practices for sexually rapacious ends - as happens right now in Islamic societies.

The main difference is that the circumstances that necessitated polygamy ended and the church, through divine guidance, changed the practice. Islam did not, and a thousand years of exploitation stand in stark warning of the wise counsel the repeal of polygamy was for our church and society. The fLDS church is the future we would have inherited should President Woodruff not repealed the practice.

[Bikeemikey]

It skips the question that is relevant: who, if not government, is the proper agent of law enforcement and judicial facility? Government should be large enough and powerful enough to enforce the writ our society grants it, but not so large that it becomes an instrument of oppression that blocks the consent of the governed.

We have a need for both law enforcement, the creation of legal framework, and a judicial body to arbitrate its execution. If not government, them whom?

I haven't skirted it at all. There is much that is morally wrong by societies standard that the govt does not have "social writ" to enforce or adjudicate.

I am simply in think that the social writ currently administered via the courts is a little broad.