Is fairness to Homosexuals an apostate cause and issue?

[_Droopy]

And I'll note again that most of the judges on CA's supreme court are Republican appointees.

Keep noting it, as its utterly irrelevant. This is a matter of principle, not partisan politics (unless one thinks "conservative" is always associated with "Republican").

The right to marry is not explicitly stated in the CA constitution. It was recognized by CA case authority. Do you agree that heterosexuals have a fundamental right to marry? If yes, then that pesky equal protection clause requires the same fundamental right be extended to homosexuals.

1. Thank you for admitting that the substance of the actual ruling was not derivable, in a logically sound manner, from the California constitution as written, but was constructed from preexisting case law. Government by case law. And here, all this time, I understood myself to be living in a Republic. Silly me.

2. As I've said before, no, heterosexuals do not have a fundamental right to marry in any absolute sense. There are bounds and conditions attached to this institution. If marriage is understood as a right, in the American constitutional sense, then it is unalienable and inherent and cannot be abridged under any but the most extreme circumstances. This means, ultimately, that any two people, or any group of people, of whatever subjective gender or sexual orientation, may cohabit under any imaginable sexual and domestic arrangement and term it "marriage", without regard to any particular duty or responsibility to the broader culture, without which the concept of "rights" is rendered meaningless.

Marriage now becomes any form of cohabitation for any number of reasons, many having nothing to do with the furtherance of a civil, morally sustainable society or anything beyond the self referential sexual and emotional needs of various individuals. This is not then anymore a "right", but simply a license to cohabit and engage in sexual activities of whatever kind with the legal imprimatur of "marriage" formally legitimizing the present relationship.

So there is no absolute right then, for heterosexuals to marry as the duties inextricably linked to any right are not clear within any context but the normative heterosexual variety. We do not allow children to marry. We attempt, as adults, to dissuade the young and immature from marrying or engaging in sexual activity. Psychologists may question the motives or underlying attitudes of those considering marriage or, having entered into it, are finding it difficult. If it is a right, it is mediated and conditioned by numerous other considerations, and a primary one is the bearing and rearing of children for the continuance of a civil, ordered, free society. Homosexuality strikes at the very heart of that core value both by its traditional legitimization of aggressive promiscuity (which, by the way, formal marriage rights will do nothing to alter) and its inability to produce future generations.

Homosexuality is a learned behavior, and despite the complexity of its origins for different individuals, there is no substantive reason, save ideological, to argue that point. We know what is optimum for both adults and children, and homosexuality is among the worst possible choice, psychologically, emotionally, and health wise, an individual could possibly make as he or she grows and develops.

I take you to mean that heterosexuals do not have the fundamental right to marry, since it's not mentioned in either the CA state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Am I correct?

No. It is not a fundamental right because it not mentioned in any legal instrument (although this is pertinent), but because conceptually, it doesn't make much sense to understand it as such.

The same could be said for interracial marriage or even heterosexual marriage, along with equal rights for all genders and races, etc. Are you prepared to throw all this away because they are not expressly mentioned in the constitution? Well, are you?

All the rights anyone is ever going to have, or should have, are mentioned in both the Declaration and the Constitution, and all share in them equally already. The game of rights creation is a dangerous game, a place angels fear to tread but where leftist legal elitists cavort with the abandon of a Nietzschean judicial and cultural superman

The idea that racial equality will be thrown away if homosexuals are barred from formal recognition of their sexual relationships is preposterous, and is as slippery a slope as one could ever wish to encounter. Race is not a behavior, nor is it implicated in an specific type of behavior or culture. Not so for the Sodomists.

[_Droopy]

But what about polygamy? If you really want to treat all marriages as a "privilege" rather than a "right," then you are asking for the gov't (as long as its backed by a majority) to make all kinds of exemptions or qualifications for legal marriage -- essentially, if it's a mere "privilege," the gov't can decide who can and who cannot get married. Who knows, may the gov't will require a fertility test for an engaged couple to ensure they can do their part to propogate the species. Perhaps interracial marriage can be banned. Perhaps a particular unfavored group (like Jews ... or, gasp, Mormons) are not allowed to marry because they are not "pure" enough. Your "alternative" is starting to sound an awful like Nazi Germany.

Instead of following the various points and counterpoints in a logical and methodical manner, you leap from one extreme slippery slope to another, Phil Donahue-like, in an attempt to derail the continuity of the discussion.

1. What about polygamy? We don't practice it, and probably never will again in mortality. I'm not concerned about that, especially since, in the Gospel, monogamy is the overwhelming norm and plural marriage a distinctly minority phenomena.

2. None of your argumentation follows logically from my positions. I ask the government to do nothing but recognize the from of marriage most likely to maintain and support a free, civil, morally coherent society and within which children have the best shot a moral and psychological health and well being. When I say privilege, I mean something embedded within the traditions, norms, folkways, and cultural patterns of our society, recognized by the state but not inhering in it. For interracial marriage to be banned, race would have to be shown to be a consequential factor in the cultural and moral health of that society. Such of course, is nonsense. Race isn't even a valid concept scientifically or anthropologically, and has no bearing on the content of an individual personality. Homosexuality, however, is a primary personal characteristic (it is a fundamental value, a self concept, and a chosen and sustained form of life, unlike skin color, which is nothing more than a slight genetic modification) and promotes a very different set of values than the Judeo/Christian norm, and does have serious ramifications for the individual who practices it and, if extended too far into the mainstream of that society, for the continuance of that society as both free and civil.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Thank you for admitting that the substance of the actual ruling was not derivable, in a logically sound manner, from the California constitution as written, but was constructed from preexisting case law.

It certainly was. The fundamental right to marry has been around a long time -- the CA supreme court did not just invent it.

Government by case law.

Blame "the people" for setting up the judiciary, not the gov't.

As I've said before, no, heterosexuals do not have a fundamental right to marry in any absolute sense. There are bounds and conditions attached to this institution. If marriage is understood as a right, in the American constitutional sense, then it is unalienable and inherent and cannot be abridged under any but the most extreme circumstances. This means, ultimately, that any two people, or any group of people, of whatever subjective gender or sexual orientation, may cohabit under any imaginable sexual and domestic arrangement and term it "marriage", without regard to any particular duty or responsibility to the broader culture, without which the concept of "rights" is rendered meaningless.

Any couple (hetero or homo) that is legally and civilly married has the same rights and obligations under the law -- that's the whole point. What do you understand "equal protection under the law" to mean?

Marriage now becomes any form of cohabitation for any number of reasons, many having nothing to do with the furtherance of a civil, morally sustainable society or anything beyond the self referential sexual and emotional needs of various individuals.

Not true. The CA supreme court explains in its decision how marriage (for hetero and homo couples) benefits society and individuals (including children growing up in a loving home, which heterosexuals certainly don't have the corner on). Have you even read the 150-page decision by the CA supreme court?

We do not allow children to marry.

Correct, but there is a compelling state interest because children cannot give their consent until a certain age (just like it is statutory rape even if the child "consents").

We attempt, as adults, to dissuade the young and immature from marrying or engaging in sexual activity.

But that's not the gov't. And the gov't can stop a child from marrying or having sex under a certain age (or with an adult).

If it is a right, it is mediated and conditioned by numerous other considerations, and a primary one is the bearing and rearing of children for the continuance of a civil, ordered, free society.

There are many reasons people decide to marry, and having children is not necessarily one of them -- yet, we still let them marry along with those who want children.

Homosexuality strikes at the very heart of that core value both by its traditional legitimization of aggressive promiscuity (which, by the way, formal marriage rights will do nothing to alter) and its inability to produce future generations.

Your "core value" does not form a compelling state interest to legally ban gay marriage. So long as the gov't allows people to marry without the intent or ability to have children, that right to marry has to be extended to all.

Homosexuality is a learned behavior ....

BS. And it doesn't matter, as the CA supreme court noted, because one's religion (also a suspect classification) is a choice, but that person is still entitled to equal protection under the laws.

We know what is optimum for both adults and children, and homosexuality is among the worst possible choice, psychologically, emotionally, and health wise, an individual could possibly make as he or she grows and develops.

I disagree. Heterosexuals have made a mess of marriage (over 50% of heterosexual marriages today end in divorce, and over 50% of children are born today out of wedlock). Loving gay parents are much better for a child than two screwed-up heterosexual parents.

I take you to mean that heterosexuals do not have the fundamental right to marry, since it's not mentioned in either the CA state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Am I correct?

No. It is not a fundamental right because it not mentioned in any legal instrument (although this is pertinent), but because conceptually, it doesn't make much sense to understand it as such.

Well, then you should be fine with the gov't deciding who can and who cannot marry, and that is one big Padora's Box.

The same could be said for interracial marriage or even heterosexual marriage, along with equal rights for all genders and races, etc. Are you prepared to throw all this away because they are not expressly mentioned in the constitution? Well, are you?

All the rights anyone is ever going to have, or should have, are mentioned in both the Declaration and the Constitution, and all share in them equally already.

Well, then, let's put African-Americans back into slavery (since the U.S. Constitution recognized slavery) and take away all constitutional rights from women (who were not included in the U.S. Constitution). Would that make you feel better?

The idea that racial equality will be thrown away if homosexuals are barred from formal recognition of their sexual relationships is preposterous, and is as slippery a slope as one could ever wish to encounter.

But that's exactly why you don't pick and choose who gets fundamental rights -- again, we are back to "equal protection under the law."

Race is not a behavior, nor is it implicated in an specific type of behavior or culture.

Nor is religion (which is chosen, and therefore, certainly a "behavior"). Do you suggest we no longer give "equal protection under the law" because of one's religion?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What about polygamy? We don't practice it, and probably never will again in mortality.

Sure we do, in a limited form. A living man can marry a 2nd eternal companion; a living woman cannot.

I'm not concerned about that, especially since, in the Gospel, monogamy is the overwhelming norm and plural marriage a distinctly minority phenomena.

One-quarter of the current Quorum of the Twelve are spiritual polygamists (widowers who have married a second eternal companion).

I ask the government to do nothing but recognize the from of marriage most likely to maintain and support a free, civil, morally coherent society and within which children have the best shot a moral and psychological health and well being.

A better alternative is to tell the gov't, if it can't give equal protection to all, to get out of the civil marriage business altogether, and leave it up to religion.

For interracial marriage to be banned, race would have to be shown to be a consequential factor in the cultural and moral health of that society. Such of course, is nonsense. Race isn't even a valid concept scientifically or anthropologically, and has no bearing on the content of an individual personality.

Until relatively recently most Americans thought just that way about interracial marriage (got read some BY quotes about blacks).

Homosexuality, however, is a primary personal characteristic ....

Precisely why I believe it is an immutable trait, just like race.

promotes a very different set of values than the Judeo/Christian norm ....

I submit that under constitutional and rule of law, this does not form a compelling state interest.

... if extended too far into the mainstream of that society ....

News Flash: it's here and well into the "mainstream." Get used to it.

... for the continuance of that society as both free and civil.

Pray tell, just how will gay marriage take away our freedom ... or civility?

[_Droopy]

Droopy wrote:
What about polygamy? We don't practice it, and probably never will again in mortality.


Sure we do, in a limited form. A living man can marry a 2nd eternal companion; a living woman cannot.

Yes...one at a time, which poses no problem for the law or for politics.

A better alternative is to tell the gov't, if it can't give equal protection to all, to get out of the civil marriage business altogether, and leave it up to religion.

You don't understand the equal protection clause Rollo, or the contentious history of its interpretation. Its been under discussion for generations and will continue to be. It has not been settled, and hijacking it for ideological purposes is just an exercise in political warfare, not serious political discourse.

Quote:
For interracial marriage to be banned, race would have to be shown to be a consequential factor in the cultural and moral health of that society. Such of course, is nonsense. Race isn't even a valid concept scientifically or anthropologically, and has no bearing on the content of an individual personality.


Until relatively recently most Americans thought just that way about interracial marriage (got read some BY quotes about blacks).

Homosexuality is a behavior with an associated culture and philosophy, not a predetermine genetic characteristic over which one has no control. Discrimination of some kind can be considered in the one case, but is clearly illegitimate in the other.

Quote:
Homosexuality, however, is a primary personal characteristic ....


Precisely why I believe it is an immutable trait, just like race.

Illogical. How do you derive "immutable trait" from "primary personal characteristic" in isolation from any other variables or conditions? Do you believe one's taste in food, art, musical talent, or mood, affect, and temperament are immutable traits? Or are these simply inherent biological biases or tendencies (your position here is, to be sure, bereft of scientific support, happily for my part...)?

Quote:
promotes a very different set of values than the Judeo/Christian norm ....


I submit that under constitutional and rule of law, this does not form a compelling state interest.

I submit that the destruction of society, in any civil or ordered form, which could very well result from the redefinition of marriage and family inherent in any conceptual equalization between heterosexual and homosexual coupling is (and its future and far reaching implications) to say the least, is in the states serious interest.

Quote:
... if extended too far into the mainstream of that society ....


News Flash: it's here and well into the "mainstream." Get used to it.

1% to 2%, and perhaps, at the outer fringes, 3% of the population (those who identify as exclusively homosexual in modern industrial societies) are "mainstream"? We are going to turn our entire culture upside down for this tiny, vocal, politically powerful minority of sexual fetishists of the male body?

Come now...

Pray tell, just how will gay marriage take away our freedom ... or civility?

By conceptually destroying (by deprivileging and relativising) the only mode of family and sexual relations, upon which a free, civil, and ordered society can be maintained. Once that is gone (and we've already seen the this coming in the last several decades in the colossal increase in violent crime beginning in the middle sixties through the late seventies, the explosion of drug use and associated social pathologies, and the massive breakdown of the family, and associated social pathologies), the primary tasks of government will be maintaining order and protecting us all from one another. Not a government we would want to live under.

The Lord has warned us, time and again, that this kind of gross wickedness can, upon reaching a critical mass, end a society as a civilized entity. Homosexuality is not the only danger we face, but it is among those with the potential to do the most harm.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi mok, a good question well answered by Neilson... Thanks for putting his letter forward. Warm regards, Roger

[_Rollo Tomasi]

What about polygamy? We don't practice it, and probably never will again in mortality.

Sure we do, in a limited form. A living man can marry a 2nd eternal companion; a living woman cannot.

Yes...one at a time, which poses no problem for the law or for politics.

Nope. The man is married to both at the same time, it's just that he's sleeping with only one. Perhaps not illegal, but certainly hypocritical of a church which claims to have no connection to the FLDS and polygmay.

You don't understand the equal protection clause Rollo, or the contentious history of its interpretation. Its been under discussion for generations and will continue to be. It has not been settled, and hijacking it for ideological purposes is just an exercise in political warfare, not serious political discourse.

This is funny, given the ignorance you have displayed about any kind of equal protection.

Homosexuality is a behavior with an associated culture and philosophy, not a predetermine genetic characteristic over which one has no control. Discrimination of some kind can be considered in the one case, but is clearly illegitimate in the other.

It's not a choice, just like you didn't choose to be right or left handed.

Illogical. How do you derive "immutable trait" from "primary personal characteristic" in isolation from any other variables or conditions? Do you believe one's taste in food, art, musical talent, or mood, affect, and temperament are immutable traits? Or are these simply inherent biological biases or tendencies (your position here is, to be sure, bereft of scientific support, happily for my part...)?

Many of the things you mention are personal immutable traits we have as individuals. In any event, as the CA supreme court pointed out, it's not even necessary to show homosexuality is an immutable trait (although it certainly is), because of the precedent set by one's religion being accepted as a suspect classification.

I submit that the destruction of society, in any civil or ordered form, which could very well result from the redefinition of marriage and family inherent in any conceptual equalization between heterosexual and homosexual coupling is (and its future and far reaching implications) to say the least, is in the states serious interest.

That's just your paranoid bigotry at play, which a rational person (or judge)would never recognize as a compelling (not "serious") state interest.

1% to 2%, and perhaps, at the outer fringes, 3% of the population (those who identify as exclusively homosexual in modern industrial societies) are "mainstream"? We are going to turn our entire culture upside down for this tiny, vocal, politically powerful minority of sexual fetishists of the male body?

More around 10% (I think it's even greater). Heck, African Americans make up around 13% of the population. Besides, didn't you leave out the female body from your diatribe?

By conceptually destroying (by deprivileging and relativising) the only mode of family and sexual relations, upon which a free, civil, and ordered society can be maintained. Once that is gone (and we've already seen the this coming in the last several decades in the colossal increase in violent crime beginning in the middle sixties through the late seventies, the explosion of drug use and associated social pathologies, and the massive breakdown of the family, and associated social pathologies), the primary tasks of government will be maintaining order and protecting us all from one another. Not a government we would want to live under.

In other words, we wouldn't want the people to be too free, right?

The Lord has warned us, time and again, that this kind of gross wickedness can, upon reaching a critical mass, end a society as a civilized entity. Homosexuality is not the only danger we face, but it is among those with the potential to do the most harm.

Bigotry has always been the greater danger. And you are a perfect example.

[_Analytics]

Is fairness to Homosexuals an apostate cause and issue?

Yes. "Apostate causes and issues" are those issues where the Church teaches and promotes things that are false, wrong, or harmful. The church's position on homosexuality is distinctly harmful and unenlightened, and thus is an apostate issue.

[Guest]

Many of the things you mention are personal immutable traits we have as individuals. In any event, as the CA supreme court pointed out, it's not even necessary to show homosexuality is an immutable trait (although it certainly is), because of the precedent set by one's religion being accepted as a suspect classification.

Evidence?

More around 10% (I think it's even greater). Heck, African Americans make up around 13% of the population. Besides, didn't you leave out the female body from your diatribe?

I knew, I just knew if I waited long enough, and gave you enough rope, you, apparently having received most of your knowledge about the world from a comfortably supportive leftist pop mainstream media culture would eventually produce this long dead and discredited Kinsey junk science whopper.

I thought the only place this long debunked clap trap survived was in the New York public school system and at CNN.



Quote:
By conceptually destroying (by deprivileging and relativising) the only mode of family and sexual relations, upon which a free, civil, and ordered society can be maintained. Once that is gone (and we've already seen the this coming in the last several decades in the colossal increase in violent crime beginning in the middle sixties through the late seventies, the explosion of drug use and associated social pathologies, and the massive breakdown of the family, and associated social pathologies), the primary tasks of government will be maintaining order and protecting us all from one another. Not a government we would want to live under.

In other words, we wouldn't want the people to be too free, right?

No, not free enough to destroy the possibility of my own. Freedom then becomes a war of all against all for ever more autonomy, ending in the destruction of autonomy to ensure order.

Quote:
The Lord has warned us, time and again, that this kind of gross wickedness can, upon reaching a critical mass, end a society as a civilized entity. Homosexuality is not the only danger we face, but it is among those with the potential to do the most harm.

Bigotry has always been the greater danger. And you are a perfect example.

Just more leftist can't and name calling, the only thing the Left has ever had and ever really will have in its intellectual arsenal. I take comfort in the happy fact that the Left actually lost all of their arguments in the marketplace of ideas a long time ago, and now must be content to control the courts where they can attempt to control the marketplace or render it impotent by rendering, as the CA court just did yet again, and as you yourself all but admitted, the legislative apparatus of a democratic republic moot.

[_moksha]

Is fairness to Homosexuals an apostate cause and issue?

Yes. "Apostate causes and issues" are those issues where the Church teaches and promotes things that are false, wrong, or harmful. The church's position on homosexuality is distinctly harmful and unenlightened, and thus is an apostate issue.

Sounds fairly analytical. ;-)