jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 If government promotion on this issue were merely of "long-term commitment" as you suggest, then it would be called "friendship" rather than "marriage"--which is legally considered as consummated through, and has as its core essence, sex. If marriage were solely about friendship, you might have a point. It's not. It's about legally sanctioned committed relationships, providing rights, responsibilities, and guarantees in exchange for that legal commitment to each other. But, given the recent effort to ban the public use of the word "homosexual," precisely because it underscores the reality that sex is at the core of homosexual relationships, which underscoring many view as a potential impediment to advancing the cause, and so they wish instead to promote the use of de-sexualized words, or words that obscure the core sexuality of homosexual relationships, such as "gay," then it is not surprising to see you following these cultural shepherds with your bah-ing last post. Thanks, -Wade Englund- I was unaware that people are trying to ban the word "homosexual." What's next? The Oxford comma? Either way, people understand what "gay" means. It's kind of sad to imagine that sexuality is the "core" of any committed relationship where sex is involved. Sex is an important part of my marriage, for example, but the core? No, I don't think so. If one of us became ill or injured such that we were unable to have sex with each other, our marriage wouldn't end. In the same way, I have a good friend who has been with his male partner for 17 years (they married more recently when they could legally do so). His partner is several years older than he is and has some age-related health problems that inhibit sexual function. According to you, the core of their relationship is gone. I just don't see things that way. But it is instructive to learn that you believe that sexuality is the most important aspect--the core, even--of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual (oops, I'm not suppose to use that word anymore).
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I am not current on the debate of accepting homosexuality or not in any form. My heart and mind tell me that keeping the government out of our homes and bedrooms is a correct path. A path I believe is sanctioned in scripture and by our Prophets. We do not need a governing body to tell us how and what way to think, even if our thoughts do not align with others. It seems to me that those who oppose SSM are ridiculed terribly beyond appropriate bounds such as trying to get someone fired because their 1st amendment rights do no coincide with someone else civil rights. I am labeled a hater or bigot for the small reason of disagreeing with a view point. It is a new battlefield with new types of weaponry. If I do not want to bake a cake for a person whom I disagree with, and I should not be forced to do so (and I add I still would not bake that cake and rather take the punishment, rather than someone tell me how I should think). Sin has become acceptable and virtue has become obsolete, archaic and prudish. What a shame. Unfortunately, it's a very divisive issue. There's no reason to believe that opposing gay marriage makes one a bigot, and there's no reason to believe that supporting gay marriage makes one a family-destroying mindless sheep. People just get caught up in the passion of their position and forget that we're all humans. I support same-sex marriage, and I've explained why. I'm happy to talk and even debate with people who disagree, but I hope we can leave the hate at the door. 2
USU78 Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 Oh brother. Do you really believe this crap? Who is anti family in the gay community? We all have a mother and a father. We have brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, grandchildren anunts and uncles. We all grew up in families. Just because you are gay doesn't mean you are not part of a family any longer unless there is some serious shunning going on. If you have this kind of anger issues, you really should seek some professional help to work through some of these issues. Give me one reason why a gay person by being gay should be anti family? I certainly did not get the memo. I shall respond in reverse order: Are you quite certain you wish to personalize this? I have stated and shall continue to state my belief, hard-won and based both upon experience and study, that homosexuality is a destructive syndrome whose causes are little understood, and whose active practitioners tend to share certain traits and behaviors supportive of the notion that it is a form of mental illness. "Choice" is a poor word to describe the series of willful actions and reactions that would tend to lead somebody to become an active practitioner, as it would not tend to feel like conscious choice. I do not hate him who suffers from the ill effects of the syndrome, and I applaud and lionize him who continues in the struggle, no matter how often he fails in little or great things. He is my brother in all things, as his struggles, his failures, his successes are of a kind with my own. I despise the wolf, however, who predates and tears and destroys. And I am the sheepdog, caring for the lambs. The predator wolf, with whom I share nearly all of my dna, is my worst enemy, just as the Canaanite, sharing blood and beliefs with Israel, is Israel's worst enemy. The Canaanite can, and most certainly did, join himself to Israel, just as the predator wolf can eschew predating the flock and join the sheepdog in his holy calling. 2
USU78 Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 Huh...? Do you need me to explain to you what a Call for References means?No evisceration or hyperbole necessary. You claim I said certain things. Answering a CFR means you supply proof of such a claim.That is all I am asking for. If I said what you claim I said, please provide a link or a quotation. I am citing a memory that is my own, probably going back to the old board before FAIR cut itself off from discussion board hosting. I wouldn't know how to go back and find such things. Do you? In any case, one's own memory, which I specifically cited, is not easily posted to a message board, other than as I have done it. Here is what I posted: Yet I remember a time just a couple of years ago when you specifically eschewed and doubted the advisability of homosexual "marriage" . . . and told me I was a fool for fearing its coming anywhere but in outlier areas like MA.Funny. If Dan'l is claiming he has always supported homosexual marriage on the boards, I would like some evidence of that. CFR. See how this works? Sauce for the goose.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Are you USU78? Can he answer for himself? Think of this as being one giant panel discussion in which anybody gets to comment on anything anybody else says.
Calm Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Of course, you must keep telling yourself that. Yet I remember a time just a couple of years ago when you specifically eschewed and doubted the advisability of homosexual "marriage" . . . and told me I was a fool for fearing its coming anywhere but in outlier areas like MA.Funny.I find that hard to believe:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/5499-polygamy-helped-the-lds-church/#entry136255
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I find that hard to believe: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/5499-polygamy-helped-the-lds-church/#entry136255 So do I. I think I've known Daniel as long as anyone here, and I've never seen him express any opposition to same-sex marriage but have seen quite the opposite consistently.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I was unaware that people are trying to ban the word "homosexual." What's next? The Oxford comma? Either way, people understand what "gay" means. No, but they are working on the word "Bossy". And no I am not making that one up either.
USU78 Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) I find that hard to believe:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/5499-polygamy-helped-the-lds-church/#entry136255 Entirely possible that I've conflated Dan'l with other participant(s) in such discussions. It happened more than once, and Dan'l was involved to a greater, and california to a lesser extent in such discussions. My problem? I've been involved with online Mormon issues conversations, with a couple of notable absences, constantly since ca 1993. Remember, however, that Dan'l has had 3 different handles over the years. Edited June 4, 2014 by USU78
wenglund Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 If marriage were solely about friendship, you might have a point. It's not. It's about legally sanctioned committed relationships, providing rights, responsibilities, and guarantees in exchange for that legal commitment to each other. My point stands as long as sexual relations are a key component of marriage and a key differentiation from long-term friendships, or business partnerships, or professional/client relationships, etc. Even though all these relationship are committed and may involve sex to one degree or another (though not necessarily), and all but friendships are legally sanctioned by the state, and provide rights, responsibilities, and guarantees in exchange for the legal commitment, only marriage is legally consummated by sex, and only through legal marriage is sex legitimized as well as the results thereof--children. But, I understand that certain cultural shepherds have successfully obscured this key component in the minds of their growing flock of sheep, and along with inanely attempting to take "sex" out of homoSEXUAL, have substantially diluted the meaning of "marriage," and the key tie-in between marriage and sex, so as to advance their agenda, though they likely wouldn't have been successful, or as successful in their efforts if their willing sheep had applied a modicum of critical thought. The notion of same-sex marriage makes no sense because it (marriage) is inherently tied to procreative sex, and it is this very key aspect of marriage which engenders state interest in marriage (wherein the benefits of such marriages--i.e. child-bearing and rearing--out weigh the costs of sanctioning). (See HERE) On balance, the state gains nothing by sanctioning homosexual relationship, and has much to lose in terms of various regards--at least not in ways specific to marriage and different from other relationships like those mentioned above. I say all of this recognizing that the leaky, paper mache boat of SSM has pretty much sailed, and I am here virtually hissing in the wind. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 My point stands as long as sexual relations are a key component of marriage and a key differentiation from long-term friendships, or business partnerships, or professional/client relationships, etc. Could a heterosexual couple who are just friends get married? I know at least one couple (LDS, even) who did just that. Even though all these relationship are committed and may involve sex to one degree or another (though not necessarily), and all but friendships are legally sanctioned by the state, and provide rights, responsibilities, and guarantees in exchange for the legal commitment, only marriage is legally consummated by sex, and only through legal marriage is sex legitimized as well as the results thereof--children. So, is your main objection that you don't like the kind of sex that same-sex couples are having? Is there some reason that this kind of sex disqualifies a couple from the rights, responsibilities, and guarantees of a legal marriage contract? But, I understand that certain cultural shepherds have successfully obscured this key component in the minds of their growing flock of sheep, and along with inanely attempting to take "sex" out of homoSEXUAL, have substantially diluted the meaning of "marriage," and the key tie-in between marriage and sex, so as to advance their agenda, though they likely wouldn't have been successful, or as successful in their efforts if their willing sheep had applied a modicum of critical thought. I don't know a single person who doesn't understand that same-sex married couples generally have sex. If these mysterious shepherds are trying to obscure this fact, they have failed miserably and absolutely. The notion of same-sex marriage makes no sense because it (marriage) is inherently tied to procreative sex, and it is this very key aspect of marriage which engenders state interest in marriage (wherein the benefits of such marriages--i.e. child-bearing and rearing--out weigh the costs of sanctioning). (See HERE) This is clearly untrue. If it were, marriage licenses would not be granted to people who are incapable of having children or who were simply uninterested in having children. On balance, the state gains nothing by sanctioning homosexual relationship, and has much to lose in terms of various regards--at least not in ways specific to marriage and different from other relationships like those mentioned above. So, in the same way, the state gains nothing by sanctioning childless marriages. What do you suppose is lost to the state by sanctioning homosexual marriages (oops, there I go again)? I say all of this recognizing that the leaky, paper mache boat of SSM has pretty much sailed, and I am here virtually hissing in the wind. You probably shouldn't be standing downwind from the hiss.
california boy Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 You need to take up the alleged anger issue with many of your fellow gay activist who have publicly reviled the traditional family and called for its eradication--and this even though they all had fathers and mothers and grew up in "families." I posted evidence of this in my blog article on Marriage in Crisis. Here is an excerpt: Be that as it may, the decline and potential collapse of traditional marriage and family through same-sex marriage and other cultural trends, isn't entirely accidental, but was set as a goal well in advance by homosexual advocates and others, and strategically planned and executed since then. For example, various gay manifestos and agendas have called for the elimination or radical altering of the traditional family (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), lesbian feminist and others have "regarded the institution as oppressive" and in need of change or elimination (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and certain prominent figures in the gay movement have admitted to being against "marriage"--gay or otherwise (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--which may account for why so few homosexuals choose to legally marry where permitted (see above), though some homosexuals support the idea of civil unions rather than marriage (see HERE and HERE). And, there are those homosexuals who see marriage as conflicting with sexual liberties (see HERE), or who regret the focus on gay marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and who even intimate that same-sex marriage was designed to destroy or radically alter traditional marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), if not also to legitimize homosexual behaviors (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE). "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- Wade, I know your favorite thing to do is to throw in as many links you have and pretend that you have a valid argument. Have you even looked at some of these links you posted? They link to right wing christian properganda web sites. Is all you and they are doing is cherry picking INDIVIDUALS. There is no consensus in the gay community about ANYTHING even gay marriage. Honestly I can not believe you think this tact is any more valid than picking obscure quotes from Brigham Young and stating that ALL Mormons believe what Brigham Young wrote in his Journal of Discourse. Would you say that was official stance of the church? Do you validate evangelic attacks on the church when they cherry pick such quotes? Honestly wade, you need to get a grip. You are so intent on vilifying all gays that I don't think you even realize the silliness of some of your posts. The line between anti-Mormon attackers and your attacks on gays is pretty thin. 1
california boy Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I shall respond in reverse order: Are you quite certain you wish to personalize this? I have stated and shall continue to state my belief, hard-won and based both upon experience and study, that homosexuality is a destructive syndrome whose causes are little understood, and whose active practitioners tend to share certain traits and behaviors supportive of the notion that it is a form of mental illness. "Choice" is a poor word to describe the series of willful actions and reactions that would tend to lead somebody to become an active practitioner, as it would not tend to feel like conscious choice. I do not hate him who suffers from the ill effects of the syndrome, and I applaud and lionize him who continues in the struggle, no matter how often he fails in little or great things. He is my brother in all things, as his struggles, his failures, his successes are of a kind with my own. I despise the wolf, however, who predates and tears and destroys. And I am the sheepdog, caring for the lambs. The predator wolf, with whom I share nearly all of my dna, is my worst enemy, just as the Canaanite, sharing blood and beliefs with Israel, is Israel's worst enemy. The Canaanite can, and most certainly did, join himself to Israel, just as the predator wolf can eschew predating the flock and join the sheepdog in his holy calling. This response says nothing. You were unable to explain why a gay person would be anti family. You and Wade both are so caught up in vilifying gay relationships that you just rant to hear yourself rant. You don't make any valid points. 1
california boy Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Entirely possible that I've conflated Dan'l with other participant(s) in such discussions. It happened more than once, and Dan'l was involved to a greater, and california to a lesser extent in such discussions. My problem? I've been involved with online Mormon issues conversations, with a couple of notable absences, constantly since ca 1993. Remember, however, that Dan'l has had 3 different handles over the years. Like most of your rants, you got nothing. I have always believed that equality for all Americans was an important part of our constitution. Evidently the courts do as well. I have had that opinion of our constitution long before gay marriage was even an issue. Never changed my position. I thought every American believed in that principle. Evidently it is optional to some. 1
wenglund Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 I was unaware that people are trying to ban the word "homosexual." Here is a sample, starting with the NYTimes article that fanned the flames: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html?_r=0http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/hot-topics-1/archives/the-word-homosexual.htmlhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/04/24/lord-chancellor-bans-use-of-word-homosexual/http://www.steynonline.com/6206/gays-n-ghaithhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/29/798367/-Queer-by-Any-Other-Name-Harvard-Divinity-Professor-on-Terminology#http://www.journal14.com/2014/03/24/apparently-i-shall-be-offensive/comment-page-1/http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/02/26/will-the-nfl-ban-infamous-gay-slur-alongside-n-word/http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensivehttp://americablog.com/2007/07/dear-washington-post-please-stop-calling-me-a-homosexual.htmlhttp://www.joekort.com/homosexual_n_word.htmlhttp://www.bilerico.com/2014/04/america_cleans_up_its_homophobic_lexicon.phphttp://jmuwomensstudentcaucus.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/can-we-please-stop-saying-homosexual-lifestyle/http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/24/fox-news-still-uses-homosexual-to-describe-gay/198587http://www.rense.com/general32/world.htmhttp://www.outinperth.com/homosexual-bad-word/http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2011/nov/18/mind-your-language-word-homosexualhttp://www.truthrevolt.org/news/advocate-fox-news-clings-term-homosexualhttp://thewhitevoice.com/fsfsfsfsfsq41/2014/4/5/homosexual-is-an-offensive-hate-word-what-you-must-knowhttp://www.gaystarnews.com/article/america-cleans-its-anti-gay-language-what-words-should-we-use150414 Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 This response says nothing. You were unable to explain why a gay person would be anti family. You and Wade both are so caught up in vilifying gay relationships that you just rant to hear yourself rant. You don't make any valid points. Projection much? 1
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Here is a sample, starting with the NYTimes article that fanned the flames: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html?_r=0http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/hot-topics-1/archives/the-word-homosexual.htmlhttp://www.pinknews.co.uk/2006/04/24/lord-chancellor-bans-use-of-word-homosexual/http://www.steynonline.com/6206/gays-n-ghaithhttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/29/798367/-Queer-by-Any-Other-Name-Harvard-Divinity-Professor-on-Terminology#http://www.journal14.com/2014/03/24/apparently-i-shall-be-offensive/comment-page-1/http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/02/26/will-the-nfl-ban-infamous-gay-slur-alongside-n-word/http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensivehttp://americablog.com/2007/07/dear-washington-post-please-stop-calling-me-a-homosexual.htmlhttp://www.joekort.com/homosexual_n_word.htmlhttp://www.bilerico.com/2014/04/america_cleans_up_its_homophobic_lexicon.phphttp://jmuwomensstudentcaucus.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/can-we-please-stop-saying-homosexual-lifestyle/http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/24/fox-news-still-uses-homosexual-to-describe-gay/198587http://www.rense.com/general32/world.htmhttp://www.outinperth.com/homosexual-bad-word/http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2011/nov/18/mind-your-language-word-homosexualhttp://www.truthrevolt.org/news/advocate-fox-news-clings-term-homosexualhttp://thewhitevoice.com/fsfsfsfsfsq41/2014/4/5/homosexual-is-an-offensive-hate-word-what-you-must-knowhttp://www.gaystarnews.com/article/america-cleans-its-anti-gay-language-what-words-should-we-use150414 Thanks, -Wade Englund- I learn something new every day. I don't have a problem with the word. Maybe I should because my extremist overlords want me to, and I'm just a mindless sheep. Reading the NYT article, I understand some of the sensitivity, as it's true that for some people, it's all about the sex, whereas most people are a little more than the sum of their sex drives. 1
wenglund Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Could a heterosexual couple who are just friends get married? Yes. However, these kinds of rare exceptions don't negate the rule, but are beside the point. (See more below) So, is your main objection that you don't like the kind of sex that same-sex couples are having? Is there some reason that this kind of sex disqualifies a couple from the rights, responsibilities, and guarantees of a legal marriage contract? My main objection is that sex between people of the same gender is perverse and harmful and entirely lacking in state interest and thus shouldn't be promoted by the state through sanctions and benefits, particularly if done by inanely mangling the term "marriage." However, if homosexual couples wish to commit to each other, and enter into a legal contract with each other, and obligate themselves to various responsibilities and guarantees, that is their business, and the government has no business preventing it. I don't know a single person who doesn't understand that same-sex married couples generally have sex. If these mysterious shepherds are trying to obscure this fact, they have failed miserably and absolutely. They haven't failed in the way they intended, which was to minimize public mindfulness of gay sex--your oblivious prior comments being a perfect case in point.This is clearly untrue. If it were, marriage licenses would not be granted to people who are incapable of having children or who were simply uninterested in having children. False. Read the linked Harvard JLPP article above to see why this sheeple talking-point is a non-sequitur.So, in the same way, the state gains nothing by sanctioning childless marriages. What do you suppose is lost to the state by sanctioning homosexual marriages (oops, there I go again)? Again, non-sequitur comparison. Exceptions don't equate well with rules. We don't consider cap guns to be military grade weapons on the basis that some AK 47's may fail to fire bullets. We don't consider "little people" to be professional basketball players, with all the rights and privileges and benefits attendant thereto, simply because some NFL players may not be able to dunk the ball or hit 3-pointers. You probably shouldn't be standing downwind from the hiss. Particularly after eating garlic and broccoli (see HERE) Thanks, -Wade Englund- 1
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Yes. However, these kinds of rare exceptions don't negate the rule, but are beside the point. (See more below) I don't see why not. If an exception can be made for a childless or sexless heterosexual couple, then the same exception can be made for a same-sex couple. My main objection is that sex between people of the same gender is perverse and harmful and entirely lacking in state interest and thus shouldn't be promoted by the state through sanctions and benefits, particularly if done by inanely mangling the term "marriage." That's what I thought. We've been through this a number of times, but the bottom line is that we don't know what harm comes from committed, married same-sex couples until we actually have committed, married same-sex couples. However, if homosexual couples wish to commit to each other, and enter into a legal contract with each other, and obligate themselves to various responsibilities and guarantees, that is their business, and the government has no business preventing it. Well, that's what marriage is, and what civil union is. Is your objection using the word "marriage," or is it just that you don't think the state should legally define a standard contractual relationship between same-sex couples? They haven't failed in the way they intended, which was to minimize public mindfulness of gay sex--your oblivious prior comments being a perfect case in point. Don't be silly. Gay couples have sex. My "oblivious" comments were that you define the relationship as solely about sex. I think that's a rather narrow view. False. Read the linked Harvard JLPP article above to see why this sheeple talking-point is a non-sequitur. Why don't you just explain why it's a non sequitur? If having children and the possibility of having children are not required for marriage, you can't say it's about protecting children. It's quite simple. Again, non-sequitur comparison. Exceptions don't equate well with rules. We don't consider cap guns to be military grade weapons on the basis that some AK 47's may fail to fire bullets. We don't consider "little people" to be professional basketball players, with all the rights and privileges and benefits attendant thereto, simply because some NFL players may not be able to dunk the ball or hit 3-pointers. What a silly comparison. Little people have equal protection under the law, which is what we're talking about. Whether "little people" can make it in the NBA has nothing to do with whether they are treated as citizens with the same rights as every other citizen. Really, Wade, you can do better than this.
wenglund Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Wade, I know your favorite thing to do is to throw in as many links you have and pretend that you have a valid argument. Have you even looked at some of these links you posted? They link to right wing christian properganda web sites. Is all you and they are doing is cherry picking INDIVIDUALS. There is no consensus in the gay community about ANYTHING even gay marriage. Honestly I can not believe you think this tact is any more valid than picking obscure quotes from Brigham Young and stating that ALL Mormons believe what Brigham Young wrote in his Journal of Discourse. Would you say that was official stance of the church? Do you validate evangelic attacks on the church when they cherry pick such quotes? Honestly wade, you need to get a grip. You are so intent on vilifying all gays that I don't think you even realize the silliness of some of your posts. The line between anti-Mormon attackers and your attacks on gays is pretty thin. I understand your need to sweepingly dismiss my documentation through false caricatures, while ironically assuming I am the one pretending. You have a pronounced prejudice against and barrier to material that doesn't fit your mindset. It is becoming an increasingly more common form of censorship among gay activist, not unlike their silencing or dismissive misuse of the word "homophobic." Fortunately, critical thinking readers can click on the links themselves and see your duplicity. What few "right wing christian" websites I linked to (of the 36 links, 3 are clearly Christian, and 6 are clearly right-wing, while 8 are clearly pro-gay, with the remainder either indeterminate or left-leaning media outlets), they each quoted gay activists. They all simply conveyed what gay activist, themselves, believe. You may not like what your fellow gays may have to say, but that is your problem, not mine. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited June 5, 2014 by wenglund 2
USU78 Posted June 5, 2014 Author Posted June 5, 2014 Little people have equal protection under the law, which is what we're talking about. Whether "little people" can make it in the NBA has nothing to do with whether they are treated as citizens with the same rights as every other citizen. Really, Wade, you can do better than this. A person's stature is, to a great extent, determined by his genes, though diet and other environmental factors may well play a role. A sufferer of same sex attraction disorder syndrome cannot point to any genetic factor with anything like confidence as a cause of his disorder. His behavior is what is used to determine whether he belongs to a class of persons to be granted extra-marital marriage "rights," often (indeed almost universally) based upon an illusory in-born-ness of his disorder. Just what is it that makes this such an important thing to you that you must defend it against all comers? There is no science, only a series of testimonies, supportive of it. Pretty sandy foundations for so enthusiastic a defender.
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 A person's stature is, to a great extent, determined by his genes, though diet and other environmental factors may well play a role. A sufferer of same sex attraction disorder syndrome cannot point to any genetic factor with anything like confidence as a cause of his disorder. His behavior is what is used to determine whether he belongs to a class of persons to be granted extra-marital marriage "rights," often (indeed almost universally) based upon an illusory in-born-ness of his disorder. Just what is it that makes this such an important thing to you that you must defend it against all comers? There is no science, only a series of testimonies, supportive of it. Pretty sandy foundations for so enthusiastic a defender. Why is this important to me? I don't see any reason under our Constitution why such people should be denied the right to marry, and I believe that committed relationships ought to be encouraged by legal sanction. I am not arguing for a "protected class" or any such thing. And I'm not arguing about the origins of homosexuality (there's that word again), as I don't think it's relevant. What I find interesting is that you think I must have some secret reason for standing up for what I think is right. Go figure.
Stone holm Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 A person's stature is, to a great extent, determined by his genes, though diet and other environmental factors may well play a role. A sufferer of same sex attraction disorder syndrome cannot point to any genetic factor with anything like confidence as a cause of his disorder. His behavior is what is used to determine whether he belongs to a class of persons to be granted extra-marital marriage "rights," often (indeed almost universally) based upon an illusory in-born-ness of his disorder. Just what is it that makes this such an important thing to you that you must defend it against all comers? There is no science, only a series of testimonies, supportive of it. Pretty sandy foundations for so enthusiastic a defender.We put ourselves on a very slippery slope if we base our argument on the current scientific status of genetics. We could very well wake up some morning to discover a scientific consensus that a "gay gene" has been discovered. Better to approach it from a different perspective.
wenglund Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) I don't see why not. If an exception can be made for a childless or sexless heterosexual couple, then the same exception can be made for a same-sex couple. Legislative or judicial exceptions aren't being made for the heterosexual exceptions to the childbearing rule. They are covered under the heterosexual rule, and have been for all time (see the Harvard article for additional explanation). This is quite different from the homosexual rule--which logically isn't covered under the heterosexual rule, but is its own rule, and was only introduced relatively of late, and necessitated making legislative and judicial exception under existing marital law for the homosexual rule. As such, your comparison doesn't fit, but as demonstrated with a comparable analogy, is, by your own words, silly. That's what I thought. We've been through this a number of times, but the bottom line is that we don't know what harm comes from committed, married same-sex couples until we actually have committed, married same-sex couples. Even if you are correct (I don't believe you are), then not knowing whether the costs outweigh the benefits, or the potential harm, is hardly a rational basis for social experimentation. If needs be (I don't believe it is), a sensible thing to do would be to scientifically test such legally committed relationships over due time and on a small scale, using civil unions if so desired or some homosexual specific legislation, to see if the benefits outweigh the cost and is thus worth making the legal changes on a grander scale. Or, we could just wait a little longer and see what comes of the social experiment in Europe. {quoteWell, that's what marriage is, and what civil union is. Is your objection using the word "marriage," or is it just that you don't think the state should legally define a standard contractual relationship between same-sex couples? Edited June 5, 2014 by wenglund
jkwilliams Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 As demonstrated above, the comparison is only silly in the sense that it bears out the silliness of your comparison. Principally speaking, not making legal exceptions for the exceptions to a given general rule, is not logical justification for making exceptions for a different rule. Fortunately, the courts have disagreed with this since Loving. Furthermore, in truly rational terms (not to be confused with rash emotional appeals), this has absolutely nothing to do with equal protection, and everything to do with the real meaning of "marriage" and rational state interest. It makes sense for the state to promote legitimate conjugal relationships regardless of the exception to the general rule, whereas it makes no sense for the state to promote perverse and harmful sexual relationships that are the rule. Thanks, -Wade Englund- I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this. I've discussed this with you many times, and when we've gone through the statistics you've cited, I've repeatedly shown that the statistics don't say what you claim they do and in many cases say the opposite of what you claim. In the end, as you say, the real issue here is that you think these relationships are perverse and harmful, and that's a value judgment. Fair enough. I don't think that's a good enough reason to deny equal protection under the law, and you do. The courts appear to agree with me. In the end, what matters is how the law is decided, and we are obviously heading toward a decision. I don't think your opposition to same-sex marriage is based on prejudice or bad faith, and I hope you will stop insisting that people like me are just stupid sheep, as that's not the case. I've given this issue a lot of thought and prayer, and we simply disagree.
Recommended Posts