Church Of Jesus Christ Files Amicus Brief In Marriage Redefinition Case

[Daniel2]

No, I don't think that you can phrase the question any better. Dismissing the clear differences between men and women as a "strawman argument" - without telling us why - begs the question of why the legal establishment cares so little about the real world to think those differences aren't significant. I would suggest that the legal establishment really doesn't have a clue anymore as to what discrimination really entails. Otherwise they - and you and CB - wouldn't take stances concerning gender differences that are so unrealistic.

I don't "dismiss the clear differences." I acknowledged that every individual and parent in every relationship--both generally and specifically--will bring unique aspects to said relationship.

No two parents have all the same strengths or weaknesses as any other set of parents. Some will have more than others. Some will have less. Regardless of gender. Regardless of race. Regardless of religion. It's not the state's role or business to police who qualities for the civil contract of marriage based on parental ability. The right of individuals to choose their spouse rests with the individual, not the government.

As I also said, the question really is, "Are any differences between male-male/female-female relationships and female-male relationships significant enough to justify the government reserving the civil designation of 'marriage' for one type of relationship, while refusing to grant it to the other two types of relationships?"

I noticed you failed to answer the question.

Of course, the reality is your answer isn't really important. The courts are consistently saying, when it comes to civil marriage equality, the differences you're so emphatic about don't actually matter.

[jwhitlock]

I don't "dismiss the clear differences." I acknowledged that every individual and parent in every relationship--both generally and specifically--will bring unique aspects to said relationship.

No two parents have all the same strengths or weaknesses as any other set of parents. Some will have more than others. Some will have less. Regardless of gender. Regardless of race. Regardless of religion. It's not the state's role or business to police who qualities for the civil contract of marriage based on parental ability. The right of individuals to choose their spouse rests with the individual, not the government.

As I also said, the question really is, "Are any differences between male-male/female-female relationships and female-male relationships significant enough to justify the government reserving the civil designation of 'marriage' for one type of relationship, while refusing to grant it to the other two types of relationships?"

I noticed you failed to answer the question.

Of course, the reality is your answer isn't really important. The courts are consistently saying, when it comes to civil marriage equality, the differences you're so emphatic about don't actually matter.

 

The reality is that the differences are significant enough to warrant marriage defined as between a man and a woman. The complementary aspects of men and women that relate to their fundamental differences do not exist in male-male or female-female relationships.

 

That those differences don't matter to the courts is irrelevant as to whether they're really significant or not. It means that the courts are simply increasingly out of touch with the real world. If real people depended on court rulings to shape their perspectives, this world would be far more messed up than it is now.

[Daniel2]

The reality is that the differences are significant enough to warrant marriage defined as between a man and a woman. The complementary aspects of men and women that relate to their fundamental differences do not exist in male-male or female-female relationships.

That those differences don't matter to the courts is irrelevant as to whether they're really significant or not. It means that the courts are simply increasingly out of touch with the real world. If real people depended on court rulings to shape their perspectives, this world would be far more messed up than it is now.

In other words, you can't even identify, let alone provide evidence, of which "complementary aspects" are universally and exclusively true of male-to-female relationships, or why such differences should exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage.

Additionally, you completely ignore the unique benefits and complementary aspects of male-male relationships, and the unique benefits and complementary aspects of female-female relationships.

Instead can only bear your testimony that they're somehow so different that allowing equal marriage recognition is going to make the world "even more messed up," and simultaneously demean the judicial process.

It's no wonder your side is rapidly losing so many court cases, let alone the realm of public opinion.

[jwhitlock]

In other words, you can't even identify, let alone provide evidence, of which "complementary aspects" are universally and exclusively true of male-to-female relationships, or why such differences should exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage.

Additionally, you completely ignore the unique benefits and complementary aspects of male-male relationships, and the unique benefits and complementary aspects of female-female relationships.

Instead can only bear your testimony that they're somehow so different that allowing equal marriage recognition is going to make the world "even more messed up" and demean the judicial process.

It's no wonder your side is rapidly losing so many court cases.

 

Here's an article that explains the unique complementary nature of male-female relationships quite well. There's quite a bit of literature out there about the complementary nature of men and women that I think it unnecessary to repeat what you can search for in Google. Most men and women understand inherently that there is a significant difference between the relationship they have with their spouse, and the relationships they have with others outside of their marriage, whether they be male or female.

 

Of course, one obvious unique complementary aspect of male-female marriages is that they can produce children. This is vitally important, and something other relationships cannot do. I realize that it's unpopular for the courts to consider such obvious things because it undermines the "progressive" social agenda of experimentation (loosely rationalized as ending "discrimination") taking place.

 

The reason court cases are being lost is not because of any lack of evidence that SSM is problematic. They're being lost because of an agenda that demands the wholesale redefinition of relationships in society, dismissing hundreds of years of experience that indicates that the most inherently stable and beneficial relationships are healthy, complementary male-female marriages.

 

I realize that SSM supporters are not going to accept anything I present that contradicts the alternate reality they've built about relationships. Ultimately my goal is to make sure some of the fundamental problems with SSM - such as differences in relationships - are kept in the limelight so people understand the real reasons for opposing SSM.

 

It's troubling to see indications that our legal system no longer has any real perspective when it comes to family or marital issues and the rulings they make on such things.

[Daniel2]

Here's an article that explains the unique complementary nature of male-female relationships quite well. There's quite a bit of literature out there about the complementary nature of men and women that I think it unnecessary to repeat what you can search for in Google. Most men and women understand inherently that there is a significant difference between the relationship they have with their spouse, and the relationships they have with others outside of their marriage, whether they be male or female.

Of course, one obvious unique complementary aspect of male-female marriages is that they can produce children. This is vitally important, and something other relationships cannot do. I realize that it's unpopular for the courts to consider such obvious things because it undermines the "progressive" social agenda of experimentation (loosely rationalized as ending "discrimination") taking place.

The reason court cases are being lost is not because of any lack of evidence that SSM is problematic. They're being lost because of an agenda that demands the wholesale redefinition of relationships in society, dismissing hundreds of years of experience that indicates that the most inherently stable and beneficial relationships are healthy, complementary male-female marriages.

I realize that SSM supporters are not going to accept anything I present that contradicts the alternate reality they've built about relationships. Ultimately my goal is to make sure some of the fundamental problems with SSM - such as differences in relationships - are kept in the limelight so people understand the real reasons for opposing SSM.

It's troubling to see indications that our legal system no longer has any real perspective when it comes to family or marital issues and the rulings they make on such things.

More bearing testimony, no factual substance.

The article fails to specify any unique complementary aspects of male female couples that is universally true of all male female couples.

"The ability to have sex that results in babies" is NOT a universal trait of all male-female relationships.

Childrearing (whether such children are biologically related or adopted) is not unique to male-female relationships.

Civil marriage is not only about the welfare of children--although that can be one important aspect of it.

Civil marriage is good for children of both opposite-sex AND same-sex couples.

Denying same-sex parents the benefits of civil marriage ignores the stability that the benefits of civil marriage would bring to such children.

Civil marriage is good for adults, even if such couples are barren and incapable of producing children.

Civil marriage is a means by which kin is created even in childless couples, thereby benefiting both the individuals that enter such marriages, as well as benefiting society by reducing the need for government assistance for singles that have no kin to care for them.

The article you quoted ignores all of the above.

[jwhitlock]

More bearing testimony, no factual substance.

 

 

"Bearing testimony" seems to be a rather condescending cheap shot on your part, designed to set the stage for you being dismissive of the points made. It's much easier to be inaccurate, as you are, while being dismissive.

 

The article fails to specify any unique complementary aspects of male female couples that is universally true of all male female couples.

 

 

Since I've been talking primarily about health male-female marriage relationships, this is an irrelevant attempt on your part to redirect the discussion into something you can tear down. Not going to fall for your "universal" red herring.

 

"The ability to have sex that results in babies" is NOT a universal trait of all male-female relationships.

Childrearing (whether such children are biologically related or adopted) is not unique to male-female relationships.

 

 

Another attempt at misdirection by you; the real point is that male-female relationships are THE ONLY ONES that can result in offspring. Child rearing can be attempted by anyone, but healthy, complementary male-female marriages provide the best environment for generally raising children successfully. The discussion, however, is about the complementary nature of male-female relationships, not about child rearing, so you don't have a point here.

 

Civil marriage is not only about the welfare of children--although that can be one important aspect of it.

 

 

I fail to understand how this applies to the complementary nature of healthy male-female marriages, which gay relationships are not able to replicate.

 

Civil marriage is good for children of both opposite-sex AND same-sex couples.

 

 

Raising children in a healthy, complementary male-female marriage is best for children.

 

Denying same-sex parents the benefits of civil marriage ignores the stability that the benefits of civil marriage would bring to such children.

 

Children are generally most successful when raised in a healthy, complementary male-female marriage.

 

Civil marriage is good for adults, even if such couples are barren and incapable of producing children.

 

 

Marriage is intended to be a lifelong, full commitment of two people, consisting of full monogamy in every sense of the term, including sexual fidelity. SSM weakens that by finally validating "monogamish" relationships where full sexual fidelity is no longer recognized as necessary. Marriage is good because it is a full commitment. Marriage is weakened when that expectation of commitment is watered down. SSM finalizes a weakening of commitment in marriage that has been attacking marriage for years.

 

Civil marriage is a means by which kin is created even in childless couples, thereby benefiting both the individuals that enter such marriages, as well as benefiting society by reducing the need for government assistance for singles that have no kin to care for them.

 

 

Government has its own agenda when it comes to welfare assistance, so that point is irrelevant. Since civil marriage is so important to gays, can you explain why so few of them have taken advantage of it? And can you explain why some gays are so adamantly opposed to SSM, calling marriage a "straight institution" that they want no part of? And can you explain why two thirds of all same sex marriages (where it is legal) have been to lesbian couples, when gay men are so much more numerous than lesbians in the general population? After that, can you explain why the proportion of gays that get married (where it is legal) has remained significantly lower than the proportion of male-female couples that get married in the general population? Or why more men with SSA still end up marrying women, even in areas where SSM is legal?

 

Could it be that the complementary nature of male-female marriage relationships is so much more powerful that many men with SSA feel compelled to try to make it work?

 

And can you explain why men who have no SSA virtually never practice SSM? Wouldn't it be expected that if gay men are split between SSM and mixed gender marriage, that straight men would also be split, if there were no real differences in such relationships?

 

Of course, the courts say that all of that is irrelevant. And I'll bet you wish it was irrelevant also.  But it isn't.

[california boy]

Physical differences, to name the obvious.

 

Otherwise, there's quite a bit that's been written concerning how the genders are very different, such as Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. It's really so clearly evident that males and females think differently, perceive things differently, are hormonally different, physically different, look at relationships differently that this really shouldn't be a question. Two men and not going to have the same kind of complementary relationship that a man and woman are going to have.

 

You contradict yourself in your post in that you infer that you accept that there are differences between male-male and male-female relationships, and then you proceed to attack the concept that men and women are different. This is interesting in that it indicates a need for SSM to try to redefine fundamental, real world facts (such as men and women are different) in order to justify their claim that SSM is equivalent to normal marriage.

 

Ultimately, the complementary relationship between a man and a woman in a healthy, committed (in the real sense of the word) marital relationship is something that cannot be matched by any other relationship. Hundreds of years of experience has shown that to be the case. If you don't think that's so, then you - not I - need to provide clear evidence that SSM provides that same complementary relationship.

 

I don't think that evidence exists. 

 

There are differences in all relationships.  That is my point.  And just as I thought, you were unable to name just ONE attribute that one sex has over another.  Not even one. Is all you can give us is stereotypes, which never are reality for every couple.  Can you name ONE thing that all men think differently about than women?  Can you name ONE thing that all men perceive differently from all women?  Can you give just ONE example of something two men would prevent them from having the same kind of complimentary relationship as any other couple? Do we not allow anyone to marry that does not fit all stereotypes?  

 

Ultimately, the complementary relationship between anyone in a healthy, committed (in the real sense of the word) marital relationship is something that cannot be matched by any other relationship.  Each relationship is different.  Each one has their strengths and weaknesses.  There is no difference simply because of gender.

 

Wanta try again? or do you conceed the point.

[california boy]

There are differences in all relationships.  That is my point.  And just as I thought, you were unable to name just ONE attribute that one sex has over another.  Not even one. Is all you can give us is stereotypes, which never are reality for every couple.  Can you name ONE thing that all men think differently about than women?  Can you name ONE thing that all men perceive differently from all women?  Can you give just ONE example of something two men would prevent them from having the same kind of complimentary relationship as any other couple? Do we not allow anyone to marry that does not fit all stereotypes?  

 

Ultimately, the complementary relationship between anyone in a healthy, committed (in the real sense of the word) marital relationship is something that cannot be matched by any other relationship.  Each relationship is different.  Each one has their strengths and weaknesses.  There is no difference simply because of gender.

 

And let's talk about physical differences.  Just what physical differences are important in raising children?  And are physical differences all the same for each gender?  

 

Wanta try again? or do you conceed the point.

[jwhitlock]

There are differences in all relationships.  That is my point.  And just as I thought, you were unable to name just ONE attribute that one sex has over another.  Not even one. Is all you can give us is stereotypes, which never are reality for every couple.  Can you name ONE thing that all men think differently about than women?  Can you name ONE thing that all men perceive differently from all women?  Can you give just ONE example of something two men would prevent them from having the same kind of complimentary relationship as any other couple? Do we not allow anyone to marry that does not fit all stereotypes?  

 

Ultimately, the complementary relationship between anyone in a healthy, committed (in the real sense of the word) marital relationship is something that cannot be matched by any other relationship.  Each relationship is different.  Each one has their strengths and weaknesses.  There is no difference simply because of gender.

 

Wanta try again? or do you conceed the point.

 

I posted a link earlier that talked about complementary differences. And I noticed that you ignored physical differences, which have significant effect on individual perspectives and male-female complementary interactions.

 

As is clear, healthy male-female marriage relationships have fundamental complementary aspects that are missing in same sex relationships. To claim that two gay men have the same types of fundamental complementary differences that a man and woman have is to ignore reality. The difference in gender is significant in contributing uniquely to that complementary relationship.

 

The level of denial needed to ignore that is quite interesting, as demonstrated by you. It is becoming apparent that another aspect of SSM is to demand that innate, complementary differences between males and females be redefined to minimize or eliminate them - because they are inconvenient reminders that SSM relationships in any form are not equivalent to healthy, committed, complementary male-female marriages.

[CV75]

Well, I'd agree that God doesn't get too specific, but I suspect I take that further than you do.

 

Regarding the idea that there is sex in heaven and that's how spirit children are made isn't strictly defined. That's one idea. Another is that God took pre-existing "intelligences", formed them into spirits, and that's that. 

 

Anything regarding premortal or post-mortal existence is always already highly speculative, I think. 

I agree; my remarks are strictly in relation to this realm.

 

But not having revelation on marriage that addresses homosexuality suggests no more allowance for same sex "marriage" than not having revelation on marriage that addresses heterosexuality suggests it is the basis for the divine institution of marriage as it stands. Sexuality is quite irrelevant and a much broader a topic than one allows when he hold up homosexuality as the basis for SS"M". So I'm saying that whole line of argument isn't valid at all.

[Daniel2]

There are differences in all relationships.  That is my point.  And just as I thought, you were unable to name just ONE attribute that one sex has over another.  Not even one. Is all you can give us is stereotypes, which never are reality for every couple.  Can you name ONE thing that all men think differently about than women?  Can you name ONE thing that all men perceive differently from all women?  Can you give just ONE example of something two men would prevent them from having the same kind of complimentary relationship as any other couple? Do we not allow anyone to marry that does not fit all stereotypes?  

 

Ultimately, the complementary relationship between anyone in a healthy, committed (in the real sense of the word) marital relationship is something that cannot be matched by any other relationship.  Each relationship is different.  Each one has their strengths and weaknesses.  There is no difference simply because of gender.

 

Wanta try again? or do you conceed the point.

CB, I doubt he'll verbally concede the point, but his inability to specify anything speaks for itself.

[california boy]

Still unable to list just ONE attribute that is different between men and women.  Why am I not surprised.

 

Nothing but crickets.

I posted a link earlier that talked about complementary differences. And I noticed that you ignored physical differences, which have significant effect on individual perspectives and male-female complementary interactions.

 

 

I read your link that only speaks to stereotypes, yet, like you failed to cite ONE example of a single attribute that is different between men and women.  Same problem you are having.

 

Nothing but crickets.

 

And actually I did not ignore your statement about physical differences.  This is what I stated.

And let's talk about physical differences.  Just what physical differences are important in raising children?  And are physical differences all the same for each gender? 

 

The ignoring question came from you which seems to be a one sided problem.  You couldn't answer this question either.  While men and women have different body parts, there is no physical difference that is important to raising children.  Your answer to this statement???  

 

Nothing but crickets.

 

 

As is clear, healthy male-female marriage relationships have fundamental complementary aspects that are missing in same sex relationships. To claim that two gay men have the same types of fundamental complementary differences that a man and woman have is to ignore reality. The difference in gender is significant in contributing uniquely to that complementary relationship.

 

Anyone can make such claims, the difficulty is supporting such claims.  Can you name ONE attribute that a gay couple could not have that all straight couples have??

 

So far, crickets

 

 

The level of denial needed to ignore that is quite interesting, as demonstrated by you. It is becoming apparent that another aspect of SSM is to demand that innate, complementary differences between males and females be redefined to minimize or eliminate them - because they are inconvenient reminders that SSM relationships in any form are not equivalent to healthy, committed, complementary male-female marriages.

 

Another of your statements that you have been unable to substantiate.  

 

Look Whitlock.  I am willing to engage in a conversation with you, but if you are unable to answer a single question that challenges your statements.  Typically of you, making claims that just don't stand up to questioning.  It is really pointless to try and have a conversation with you when you reiterate statements that you have previously made but have been utterly unable to back up.  I haven't asked for anything difficult.  I have only asked for ONE SINGLE ATTRIBUTE that women posess and men are unable to posess.  If you can't answer that question, then our conversation is finished.  I have no interest in repeating over and over the same question and getting no answer.

 

Gay marriage will pass, not because of some conspiracy or liberal agenda or any other irrelevant denial reason.  It will pass because, like you, no one has given a logical reason why it should not be passed.  Like you, they are unable to answer these simple reasonable questions to back up their claims. 

[Daniel2]

OK, I'm now sitting at a keyboard, instead of trying to post on my phone, so it's much easier to type more of what I'm thinking.

Jwhit,

I think one of the most frustrating things about this conversation is that you're attempting argue--and make a focal point of civil marriage recognition--a point that CaliforniaBoy, I, and virtually every other gay man and lesbian woman I know agree with--but find irrelevant to civil marriage equality:

Heterosexual men and heterosexual women--and heterosexual parents--compliment each other.

It's true; they do. When we're speaking of heterosexual men and women.

The frustration is that you then overgeneralize that truth to be universally true of all men and women--including homosexual ones. And perhaps that's where the disagreement starts.

When a man is heterosexually-oriented, it's obvious and clear that a woman will bring unique aspects to his life and relationship that another man could never bring. And vice-versa with a heterosexually-oriented woman.

However, as CaliforniaBoy and I can attest, as a general rule, homosexually-oriented men and women do NOT experience that same sense of complementariness towards a heterosexually-oriented spouse. And, although the strengths or weaknesses of parenthood cannot be boiled down to a single characteristic such as gender or sexual orientation, I would assert the same is generally true when considering mixed-orientation parents.

For the majority of us that are homosexual, attempting to live and find complementariness with a spouse of the opposite-sex is just as disastrous as it would be for a heterosexually-oriented man to live with and attempt to form a romantic relationship with another man (or for a heterosexually-oriented woman to live with and attempt to form a romantic relationship with another woman).

Of course, there are examples of gay men who attempt to live with women--almost always because of deep-seated religious convictions towards the need to do so. And that is their right and prerogative.

However, in general, I would suggest:

A straight man is most complimented through a relationship with a straight woman.

A straight woman is most complimented through a relationship with a straight man.

A gay man is most complimented through a relationship with a gay man.

A lesbian woman is most complimented through a relationship with a lesbian woman.

A bisexual man may be complimented through a relationship with a man or a woman.

A bisexual woman may be complimented through a relationship with a woman or a man.

Even acknowledging the above, it is inappropriate and impossible to make a universal declaration that any of our individual experience MUST be true for everyone else. And THAT forms the backbone of preserving individual freedoms for ALL of us to make the choice for ourselves.

I will "bear my own testimony" (not a phrase I find demeaning, by the way-----------UNLESS I were to assert my own testimony MUST be universally "true" or "fact" for everyone[/i[ else): I lived for 8 years with a woman. There was VERY little that was "complimentary." In fact, she and I were at odds more often than not. Our personalities, attitudes, approaches to communication, intimacy, compromise, and parenting were usually like oil and water. It was 8 years of Hell (and I do not use the term lightly). Our relationship was not complimented due to our opposite genders---the problems were compounded.

Since my divorce, I have experienced two different relationships with men. In both cases, I can attest that my relationships have been enhanced because both gender and sexual orientation finally matched and complimented my own gender and sexual orientation.

Today, my boyfriend and I now share a level of intimacy, partnership, communication, parental style, and virtually every other trait that I can think of, in ways that never worked when I attempted a relationship with my wife. I accept this is true of myself. I also accept this would not be true for the vast majority of other men (given that the vast majority of other men are straight).

I appreciated my heterosexual parents. In no way do I want to diminish or find fault with the way I was raised, even though I can simultaneously understand that my parents were not and are not perfect. I honor and respect them and the many blessings they brought to my life. And yet... I acknowledge that my life would have been blessed in other ways had I been raised by a same-sex couple that may have understood me in ways my heterosexual parents never have been able to. I love my parents; I cannot say that it is a universal truth that "one mother and one father" are ALWAYS better.

Every child has parents that bless their lives in some ways, and lack in others. That is the deck we are all dealt. Although I would hope that our government hopes for and finds non-coercive ways to educate and help every parent be the best parent each of us can be, I believe our society--and our children--are best served when government respects each individual couples' right to live according to the dictates of our own consciences, and respects each citizen's right to worship--and parent--"how, where, and what [we] may."

[jwhitlock]

CB, I doubt he'll verbally concede the point, but his inability to specify anything speaks for itself.

 

I've been very specific. You and CB dismiss it without acknowledging it. Neither of you offer any supporting evidence for your claims, which is ironic. I supply an article, and it gets dismissed out of hand. I then am continually told that I don't supply anything or give any reasons.

 

Dismiss, demean, and claim victory. I've seen this methodology by SSM supporters over and over and over.

 

Perhaps you can actually engage and answer the questions I asked of you earlier.

[jwhitlock]

Still unable to list just ONE attribute that is different between men and women.  Why am I not surprised.

 

You're probably not surprised because you have determined that this is the way you're going to respond no matter what I provide. The fact that you fail to even acknowledge physical differences as supplying "one attribute" is proof of that.

 

Dismiss, demean and claim victory. You have the methodology down to a science.

[jwhitlock]

I think one of the most frustrating things about this conversation is that you're attempting argue--and make a focal point of civil marriage recognition--a point that CaliforniaBoy, I, and virtually every other gay man and lesbian woman I know agree with--but find irrelevant to civil marriage equality:

Heterosexual men and heterosexual women--and heterosexual parents--compliment each other.

It's true; they do. When we're speaking of heterosexual men and women.

 

Finally an attempt - though still missing the point - to address the fact of the complementary nature of men and women, something that is highly relevant to marriage.

 

You'll note that I'm talking about fundamental complementary traits, such as the way men and women perceive things differently. These are affected by physical differences and hormonal differences, among other things, but it is very clear that men and women have fundamental differences. In a healthy normal marriage, these differences become strengths that work in a complementary way to strengthen the relationship and raise children in a way that is best for them. Men and women can be united and yet have very different approaches and perspectives that can complement each other and strengthen the relationship in fundamental ways.

 

Those fundamental differences that are necessary for the optimal relationship in marriage do not exist in two men. Men, whether gay or straight, share some very fundamental characteristics that make them men. They do not complement each other in relationships; they may compete, they may cooperate, they may interact in a variety of ways, but they do not fundamentally complement each other. Again, that's because they're both men. And that means that they are fundamentally the same.

 

The real strength in marriage comes from the complementary nature of men and women, and only between men and women. When a male-female married couple understands that, and leverages those fundamental differences in the relationship, then that male-female married relationship works better than anything else.

 

We're not talking about talents such as one handles finances better or cooks better or chooses better movies or whatever. We're talking about fundamental differences in how men and women perceive and deal with life. Men and women together cover the bases far better then two men or two women do.

 

Healthy married couples know that they often do not understand the perspective the spouse is coming from. They know that's not a bad thing, because when it comes to raising the kids, or dealing with life's problems, both of them together will be able to cover those bases to get the job done. It's something that can be levereged only in a male-female relationship.

[california boy]

This is probably my last post on this subject because you are unable to support anything you are saying by one sinple example.  You are perpetuating a myth that women are different from men.  The truth is and can easliy be demonstrated is that there are no two people that are exactly the same.  Each of us come to a relationship with strengths and weaknesses regardless of what sex we are.  Being from one sex or another does not magically endow you with some universal point of view.  Yet this is the myth that you continue to perpetuate without being able to provide ONE single shred of evidence to support that.  Each answer you gives only finds a different reason why you can not support your claim.  To continue to try and get you to provide just ONE example to support your claim at this point is obviously not something you are able to do.  Yet you continue to hang on to this myth as if it were true.

 

Finally an attempt - though still missing the point - to address the fact of the complementary nature of men and women, something that is highly relevant to marriage.

 

You'll note that I'm talking about fundamental complementary traits, such as the way men and women perceive things differently. These are affected by physical differences and hormonal differences, among other things, but it is very clear that men and women have fundamental differences. In a healthy normal marriage, these differences become strengths that work in a complementary way to strengthen the relationship and raise children in a way that is best for them. Men and women can be united and yet have very different approaches and perspectives that can complement each other and strengthen the relationship in fundamental ways.

Can you name just one thing that men perceive differently than women?

 

I thought not.  So why do you make a claim that they perceive things differently?

 

 

Those fundamental differences that are necessary for the optimal relationship in marriage do not exist in two men. Men, whether gay or straight, share some very fundamental characteristics that make them men. They do not complement each other in relationships; they may compete, they may cooperate, they may interact in a variety of ways, but they do not fundamentally complement each other. Again, that's because they're both men. And that means that they are fundamentally the same.

 

 

Can you name just ONE fundamental difference that exists in a mixed orientation marriage that does not exist in a two men marriage?

 

I thought not.  So how can you make such a claim?

 

The real strength in marriage comes from the complementary nature of men and women, and only between men and women. When a male-female married couple understands that, and leverages those fundamental differences in the relationship, then that male-female married relationship works better than anything else.

 

 

The real strength in any marriage comes from the different perspectives each person has.

Can you name ONE thing that is different between men and woman?

 

Nope.  You can not.  You have not been able to come up with a single one.  You only regurgetate the same myth without providing a single example to support that myth.

 

 

 

We're not talking about talents such as one handles finances better or cooks better or chooses better movies or whatever. We're talking about fundamental differences in how men and women perceive and deal with life. Men and women together cover the bases far better then two men or two women do.

 

 

Ok then.  Name one fundamental difference on how men and women perceive and deal with life differently.  Just ONE.  Something that all men do and all women do differently.

 

Healthy married couples know that they often do not understand the perspective the spouse is coming from. They know that's not a bad thing, because when it comes to raising the kids, or dealing with life's problems, both of them together will be able to cover those bases to get the job done. It's something that can be levereged only in a male-female relationship.

 

 

 

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but even in same sex mariages, both do not always understand the perspective of the  the spouse.  Everything you have stated here is true in same sex relationships as well as in mixed sex relationships.  There is no difference simply because the sex is different.

 

The proof I offer is you being unable to name a single example of ONE thing that is different in attitudes, perspective, talents, or what ever you want to bring up that is unique to one sex but not the other.

 

I am not going to continue to point out the same thing post after post.  CFR for just ONE difference is or withdraw the claim.  That is how this board functions. Go through all your references, use the search engine, scour the internet, ask everyone you know, and give us just one example....or withdraw the statement.

[thesometimesaint]

Still unable to list just ONE attribute that is different between men and women.  Why am I not surprised.

 

Nothing but crickets.

I read your link that only speaks to stereotypes, yet, like you failed to cite ONE example of a single attribute that is different between men and women.  Same problem you are having.

 

Nothing but crickets.

 

And actually I did not ignore your statement about physical differences.  This is what I stated.

The ignoring question came from you which seems to be a one sided problem.  You couldn't answer this question either.  While men and women have different body parts, there is no physical difference that is important to raising children.  Your answer to this statement???  

 

Nothing but crickets.

 

 

 

Anyone can make such claims, the difficulty is supporting such claims.  Can you name ONE attribute that a gay couple could not have that all straight couples have??

 

So far, crickets

 

 

Another of your statements that you have been unable to substantiate.  

 

Look Whitlock.  I am willing to engage in a conversation with you, but if you are unable to answer a single question that challenges your statements.  Typically of you, making claims that just don't stand up to questioning.  It is really pointless to try and have a conversation with you when you reiterate statements that you have previously made but have been utterly unable to back up.  I haven't asked for anything difficult.  I have only asked for ONE SINGLE ATTRIBUTE that women posess and men are unable to posess.  If you can't answer that question, then our conversation is finished.  I have no interest in repeating over and over the same question and getting no answer.

 

Gay marriage will pass, not because of some conspiracy or liberal agenda or any other irrelevant denial reason.  It will pass because, like you, no one has given a logical reason why it should not be passed.  Like you, they are unable to answer these simple reasonable questions to back up their claims. 

 

The inability of a homosexual couple by themselves to produce children. But I'm not using that as a reason to deny them the right to marry.

[jwhitlock]

This is probably my last post on this subject...

 

Thank heavens.

 

 You are perpetuating a myth that women are different from men.

 

 

Your single-minded irrationality on this has become absurd.

[california boy]

The inability of a homosexual couple by themselves to produce children. But I'm not using that as a reason to deny them the right to marry.

Thank you. Of course the ability to have children has nothing to do with the ability to RAISE children which is what Whitlock is claiming.

[thesometimesaint]

Thank you. Of course the ability to have children has nothing to do with the ability to RAISE children which is what Whitlock is claiming.

 

The evidence so far is conflicted, SS couples are pretty new in sociological terms. Only time will tell on that one. In the mean time there are plenty of kids in need of stable homes regardless of the sex of their parents.

[Gray]

Yet the courts are using the same rationalization of discrimination you are in opening up rest rooms to children who decide that they have a different gender preference than their physical characteristics.

 

In the end, "discrimination" can be claimed for just about anything. Your application of it to SSM is rather tenuous, at best.

 

What the courts are doing is finding that there is no compelling or necessary reason to deny marriage rights to gay couples.

[Gray]

Try directly addressing what I said, rather than dismissing it out of hand. You made the claims above without providing any evidence. You provided an unsupportable interpretation of John 7:17 as justification for SSM. The fact that male-male relationships are very different than male-female relationships is so clear from real world experience that the claim that there is no real difference between the two must be supported by evidence provided by you - which you have not done.

 

Since male-male relationships are different than male-female relationships, then it follows that the way a SSM functions is going to differ from the way a male-female marriage functions. They're not the same, and claims saying there is no difference between the two types of marriage are simply false.

 

How are male-male relationships very different than male female relationships? Please cite your sources. An argument from assertion isn't really an argument.

 

 

 

Since male-male relationships are different than male-female relationships, then it follows that

 

You have yet to demonstrate that your premise is true - any conclusions you make don't really follow.

[Gray]

You provided an unsupportable interpretation of John 7:17 as justification for SSM. T

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth#Reports_and_studies

 

 

The fruits of anti-gay rhetoric are misery and death. The Savior gave us the key to recognize his doctrine. Any doctrine that results in such misery cannot be His.

[california boy]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth#Reports_and_studies

 

 

The fruits of anti-gay rhetoric are misery and death. The Savior gave us the key to recognize his doctrine. Any doctrine that results in such misery cannot be His.

That is really a thought provoking video.  Thanks for sharing it. More people should see it.  It certainly speaks in a more Christ-like attitude about this issue.