Homosexuality In Media

[jkwilliams]

Regaurding the earlier skoffs in denial of a "gay agenda" manifest in the media and elsewhere, in addition to the evidentiary links I provided earlier, here are several more illuminating quotes:

 

"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine: ' ...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution...The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake--and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely.'  'Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.'" (Quoted HERE)

 

Lesbian journalist, Marsha Gesson, admits: “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie....The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago." (Quoted HERE)

 

Mary Rice Hasson notes: "The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of 'marriage,' for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and 'open; sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever..."(See HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So, your belief is that every gay person who would like to marry agrees with the radicals you cite above. That's like me assuming that every Mormon is a science-rejecting young-earth creationist based on my interaction with some of the people here.

[wenglund]

So, your belief is that every gay person who would like to marry agrees with the radicals you cite above. That's like me assuming that every Mormon is a science-rejecting young-earth creationist based on my interaction with some of the people here.

 

If I had used the word "every" or "all" in citing those quotes, then your conclusion might make sense and your analogue might have some relevance.

 

But, I didn't.

 

I don't believe the statements were made to be interpreted as universal absolutes for homosexual, and so I didn't present them as such--your attempts to foist such an interpretation on me notwithstanding.

 

As I understand things, agendas within any community tend to represent general interests and intents and rallying point, particularly among activists and leaders of movements, with expected exceptions and differences in points of view, particularly among the broad membership.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

If I had used the word "every" or "all" in citing those quotes, then your conclusion might make sense and your analogue might have some relevance.

 

But, I didn't.

 

I don't believe the statements were made to be interpreted as universal absolutes for homosexual, and so I didn't present them as such--your attempts to foist such an interpretation on me notwithstanding.

 

As I understand things, agendas within any community tend to represent general interests and intents and rallying point, particularly among activists and leaders of movements, with expected exceptions and differences in points of view, particularly among the broad membership.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

But you're saying that these radicals represent the movement instead of those people who just want the right to be married.

[wenglund]

One thing I have never associated with your unintended consequences is common sense.

 

If I thought you capable of grasping common sense in this regard, I might file your perceptions under "give a care."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

If I thought you capable of grasping common sense in this regard, I might file your perceptions under "give a care."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Doesn't matter. I've never understood your fixation on tolerance of gays. Do you really see tolerance of homosexuals to be an existential threat to life as we know it? It seems like it to me.

[wenglund]

But you're saying that these radicals represent the movement instead of those people who just want the right to be married.

 

No, that is not what I am saying. This is you errantly imposing your binary thinking on my nuanced comment. Please stop.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

No, that is not what I am saying. This is you errantly imposing your binary thinking on my nuanced comment. Please stop.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So, if they don't represent the "movement," what's the point in bringing up these radicals? What exactly are you arguing?

[wenglund]

Doesn't matter. I've never understood your fixation on tolerance of gays. Do you really see tolerance of homosexuals to be an existential threat to life as we know it? It seems like it to me.

 

I can't account for your wild imagination regarding my SSM LUNCs. It is something you have constructed all on your own, and against my seemingly invariable clarfications to the contrary, Have you thought about going into the straw business.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

I can't account for your wild imagination regarding my SSM LUNCs. It is something you have constructed all on your own, and against my seemingly invariable clarfications to the contrary, Have you thought about going into the straw business.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

No, I'm focused on continuing my uninterrupted streak of never understanding you correctly.

[wenglund]

So, if they don't represent the "movement," what's the point in bringing up these radicals? What exactly are you arguing?

 

Who said they dont represent the movement?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Who said they dont represent the movement?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You did. Several posts up.

[cipriano]

I've been considering becoming more active here at mormondialogue.org, but I'm put off by the ongoing obsession over sexuality. It's downright creepy! It even came up in the thread about favorite Bible translations for crying out loud. Something about the Leviticus passage and how it's translated in the year 2014. 

 

Honestly, when looking at what's wrong with the modern world, gay characters in a disney show wouldn't even crack my top 500 issues.

[Storm Rider]

So, your belief is that every gay person who would like to marry agrees with the radicals you cite above. That's like me assuming that every Mormon is a science-rejecting young-earth creationist based on my interaction with some of the people here.

 

The problem is that these are the activists talking and they clearly state their real agenda. We are not talking about the two individuals that have been living together for the past twenty years that are concerned about insurance, pension funds, hospital visitation, etc. The facts are is that the leaders of this little social war are committed to fundamentally changing society to meet their personal beliefs.  The war is about beliefs and the religious beliefs are short-changed and denigrated because they are "religious" and therefore evil and rejected by the enlightened, perceived tolerant, gay activist. Why are religious values so bad and the desire to destroy those values so good?

 

This has nothing to do with "love" and freedom; it has everything to do with destroying a way of life and religious values. 

[rockpond]

I've been considering becoming more active here at mormondialogue.org, but I'm put off by the ongoing obsession over sexuality. It's downright creepy! It even came up in the thread about favorite Bible translations for crying out loud. Something about the Leviticus passage and how it's translated in the year 2014.

Honestly, when looking at what's wrong with the modern world, gay characters in a disney show wouldn't even crack my top 500 issues.

A lot can change when you have a close friend or loved one who happens to be gay and is excluded from full fellowship in the church that they love.

It's also less about sexuality and more about a deep dive into our understanding of revelation and the plan of salvation.

Edited February 26, 2014 by rockpond

[rockpond]

The problem is that these are the activists talking and they clearly state their real agenda. We are not talking about the two individuals that have been living together for the past twenty years that are concerned about insurance, pension funds, hospital visitation, etc. The facts are is that the leaders of this little social war are committed to fundamentally changing society to meet their personal beliefs. The war is about beliefs and the religious beliefs are short-changed and denigrated because they are "religious" and therefore evil and rejected by the enlightened, perceived tolerant, gay activist. Why are religious values so bad and the desire to destroy those values so good?

This has nothing to do with "love" and freedom; it has everything to do with destroying a way of life and religious values.

I don't see, in real life, what you are describing above. If you take away the small handful of radicals that Wade quoted, does your description fit reality? When you look at those couples who joyfully lined up outside city hall in SLC in anticipation of getting a marriage license, do you see a social war?

How are your way of life and your religious values being destroyed? Or were you just using hyperbole there as Wade's quotes possibly were?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't see, in real life, what you are describing above. If you take away the small handful of radicals that Wade quoted, does your description fit reality? When you look at those couples who joyfully lined up outside city hall in SLC in anticipation of getting a marriage license, do you see a social war?

How are your way of life and your religious values being destroyed? Or were you just using hyperbole there as Wade's quotes possibly were?

I'd say its very similar to how the John Birch society, Elder Benson and others fought the civil rights movement by trying to link it to radical communism and the downfall of life and freedom as we know it.

[jkwilliams]

I've been considering becoming more active here at mormondialogue.org, but I'm put off by the ongoing obsession over sexuality. It's downright creepy! It even came up in the thread about favorite Bible translations for crying out loud. Something about the Leviticus passage and how it's translated in the year 2014. 

 

Honestly, when looking at what's wrong with the modern world, gay characters in a disney show wouldn't even crack my top 500 issues.

 

Yup. I don't understand the obsession, either. When I read the scriptures, I get the impression that Jesus had other priorities.

[subgenius]

It was interesting when it came out in Gospel Doctrine class on Sunday that Abraham married his half-sister Sarah.  Nobody seemed to have an issue with that.

Is Abraham trying to claim the marriage deduction on his taxes this year?

Exactly how is your comment here contextual or even relevant? - especially given that Abraham lived well before Mosaic Law....incest was not prohibited until 500 years after his marriage.

Edited February 26, 2014 by subgenius

[jkwilliams]

The problem is that these are the activists talking and they clearly state their real agenda. We are not talking about the two individuals that have been living together for the past twenty years that are concerned about insurance, pension funds, hospital visitation, etc. The facts are is that the leaders of this little social war are committed to fundamentally changing society to meet their personal beliefs.  The war is about beliefs and the religious beliefs are short-changed and denigrated because they are "religious" and therefore evil and rejected by the enlightened, perceived tolerant, gay activist. Why are religious values so bad and the desire to destroy those values so good?

 

This has nothing to do with "love" and freedom; it has everything to do with destroying a way of life and religious values. 

 

No, this is some of the activists talking. I look at the Human Rights Campaign's literature, and there's nothing about destroying or replacing marriage. They say, "A hallmark of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights movement is the fight to have our relationships recognized as equal under the law. Full marriage equality is the true measure of our success in this area." There's nothing about religion being "bad" and nothing about destroying our values. It's about being treated equally under the law.

 

I'm sure some people are going to say that this is just a façade, that Wade's quotes from radicals represent the real agenda. What this means is choosing one set of public statements over another for the simple reason that we find the one set outrageous and think it useful to tar the entire movement with it. That's about as fair as quoting Glenn Beck and saying his views represent all Mormons and all conservatives.

 

Legal recognition of same-sex marriages does not destroy a "way of life" or religious values. My 27-year marriage is unaffected by the recognition of someone else's marriage, nor does it infringe on the religious rights or values of me or anyone else. If and when same-sex marriage is recognized in all 50 states, you and I will be able to maintain our way of life, teach our children our values, and worship however we please, just the same as we do now.

[jkwilliams]

I'd say its very similar to how the John Birch society, Elder Benson and others fought the civil rights movement by trying to link it to radical communism and the downfall of life and freedom as we know it.

 

This. The "unintended consequences" stuff is eerily similar to dire warnings of the end of the American way of life if civil rights laws were passed. When we moved here to Virginia, I learned that the town where we live was originally a planned community where only people of the "Caucasian race" were allowed to purchase property or even reside within the town's limits. This was 1962, or two years before I was born. Such a town charter is unthinkable today, but no one gave it a second thought in 1962.

 

In the future our country will probably look back on this time in our history as being another speed bump on the road to realizing the promise of our Constitution and its guaranteed freedoms and responsibilities. We will look back on such things as Arizona's attempt to legalize anti-gay discrimination with the same revulsion we have now for overt racist policies such as my town's original charter.

[subgenius]

No, this is some of the activists talking. I look at the Human Rights Campaign's literature, and there's nothing about destroying or replacing marriage. They say, "A hallmark of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights movement is the fight to have our relationships recognized as equal under the law. Full marriage equality is the true measure of our success in this area." There's nothing about religion being "bad" and nothing about destroying our values. It's about being treated equally under the law.

 

I'm sure some people are going to say that this is just a façade, that Wade's quotes from radicals represent the real agenda. What this means is choosing one set of public statements over another for the simple reason that we find the one set outrageous and think it useful to tar the entire movement with it. That's about as fair as quoting Glenn Beck and saying his views represent all Mormons and all conservatives.

 

Legal recognition of same-sex marriages does not destroy a "way of life" or religious values. My 27-year marriage is unaffected by the recognition of someone else's marriage, nor does it infringe on the religious rights or values of me or anyone else. If and when same-sex marriage is recognized in all 50 states, you and I will be able to maintain our way of life, teach our children our values, and worship however we please, just the same as we do now.

Your 27-year marriage is also unaffected by a lot of things - all of which are irrelevant to the argument; besides you obviously have not considered the reality that codifying homosexuality will influence your life and marriage. But, for kicks, let us apply your measure the other way - prohibiting SSM will also not affect your marriage - in fact either condition has no influence on your life at all, correct?

 

 

 SSM influences legal, financial, and cultural systems. For example:

1. Federal tax deductions are subsidized by taxpayers. Marriage is the highest standard deduction (for obvious reasons). SSM will obviously increase the amount of taxes being deducted from the system. As a taxpayer one has the right and obligation to argue for/against the operations of the tax system. The marriage deduction is an incentive...an incentive rooted, no doubt, in cultural tradition and socially held virtues.

 

Consider:

In America, the legal marriage tradition is a contract based upon a "voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife".[1]

Marriage has been viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization as is echoed by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Oklahoma v. Skinner (1942) "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."[2].

Marriage is indeed a Civil right as affirmed by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia (1967). The ability of a Homosexual Partnership to be afforded the Civil right of Marriage relies upon an empirical case being made that a homosexual partnership and a Marriage are indistinguishable - for SSM cannot be considered legal on arbitrary and unjust foundations[3]. - In other words, a homosexual partnership must be proved to be an actual marriage before it may be afforded any justification for Civil right protection(s). Following is an example of how the empirical case distinguishing between Marriage and Homosexual Partnerships -

National Center for Health Statistics study on Marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with 50 percent lasting twenty years or longer.[4]

contrasted by:

Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census survey found that only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with 5 percent lasting more than twenty years.[5]

The distinction exemplified above prevents the required empirical case for Homosexual Partnerships from being made that they indistinguishable from Marriage and therefore SSM is not, nor can it be, a Civil right in America.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[2] http://supreme.justia.com...

[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

[4] Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001)

[5]"Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, www.glcensus.org

[jkwilliams]

Your 27-year marriage is also unaffected by a lot of things - all of which are irrelevant to the argument; besides you obviously have not considered the reality that codifying homosexuality will influence your life and marriage. But, for kicks, let us apply your measure the other way - prohibiting SSM will also not affect your marriage - in fact either condition has no influence on your life at all, correct?

It's not irrelevant to the argument. The claim was made that same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriage and deny me the right to express and live my life by my own values and religious beliefs. So, not irrelevant.

As for your cut-and-paste job, someone else's tax deduction does not affect my marriage. Sure, it will cut other people's income taxes, and as a conservative I am all in favor of that.

And regarding your insistence that marriage is not a civil right, I'll just note that US judicial precedent established marriage as a "basic civil right" some 47 years ago, and that has not only never been overturned but has been upheld many times since then. I'll just quote Chief Justice Earl Warren:

 

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

 

The question before the courts now is whether states can deny this fundamental freedom based on gender. So far, the courts have given the same answer: no.

[jkwilliams]

The fallacy of trying to equate homosexuality with race is propaganda and is an insult to the real civil rights movement of this country.

Being a black man or a chinese woman is an immutable position and as such are protected classes...whereas being a sexual deviant is not an immutable position and thus not protected. Do not confuse the LGBT's recent increase in political and financial power with a position of being right or just because you would be wrong. If having lots of political power and money meant that you were "right" then you would be forced to extend the same courtesy to Oil companies and Pharmaceutical companies.

 

Nonsense. Two groups that have been discriminated against legally and socially ostracized are directly comparable. That you think gays are "sexual deviants" and that one's sexual orientation is "not an immutable position" is the insult.

[subgenius]

It's not irrelevant to the argument. The claim was made that same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriage and deny me the right to express and live my life by my own values and religious beliefs. So, not irrelevant.

As for your cut-and-paste job, someone else's tax deduction does not affect my marriage. Sure, it will cut other people's income taxes, and as a conservative I am all in favor of that.

And regarding your insistence that marriage is not a civil right, I'll just note that US judicial precedent established marriage as a "basic civil right" some 47 years ago, and that has not only never been overturned but has been upheld many times since then. I'll just quote Chief Justice Earl Warren:

 

 

The question before the courts now is whether states can deny this fundamental freedom based on gender. So far, the courts have given the same answer: no.

The legal question of SSM is not whether marriage is a civil right (which i do not even dispute if you read my post) but rather if homosexual partnerships are indistinguishable from marriage. SSM cannot be codified into law by arbitrary means. There must be an empirical case made, and to date that case has not been made. Homosexual partnerships are not equivalent to marriage pure and simple.

But don't feel bad, there are several "relationships" that are not equivalent to marriage and yet their civil rights are not being violated (i.e. an eight year old boy cannot get married not can a Father and his Daughter...no bigotry there).

 

(p.s. loss of revenue in one area for the government equates to an increases in another...the marriage deduction is a subsidy that i do not have to extend to homosexual relationships as it places that tax burden on citizens that recognize SSM holds no virtue(s) for a modern and progressive society).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1. Federal tax deductions are subsidized by taxpayers. Marriage is the highest standard deduction (for obvious reasons). SSM will obviously increase the amount of taxes being deducted from the system. As a taxpayer one has the right and obligation to argue for/against the operations of the tax system. The marriage deduction is an incentive...an incentive rooted, no doubt, in cultural tradition and socially held virtues.

Interesting you should say this. Many conservative members of this board (including Wade) disagree with you:

It is misleading, though quite common these days, to equate tax-exemptions with subsidies. The former is where people and organization get to keep more of their own money and not have the government take as much away; whereas the other is where the government takes money from others and gives it to people and organizations.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

Wrong, other people pay no more in taxes because someone else is exempt.

 

 

It is neither fair nor accurate since the second usage abuses the meaning of the term "subsidy"--though it may prove use when propagandizing. What would be fair and accurate is to rightly distinguish between tax breaks and subsidies.

 

Think of it as analogous were a thief to rob homes "A" and "B" and not homes "C" through "Y", and were the thief to give the spoils to home "Z", it would be fair and accurate to say that the thief subsidized home "Z." It would be inane to say that the thief also subsidized homes "C" through "Y."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

In all my years doing tax, I have never seen taxes increase for anyone due to someone else not paying taxes.

 

For the tax system these days (in the US at least)  revenue generation is almost an afterthought.