Same-sex Marriage.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _beastie »

wenglund wrote:
Solely? I recall saying that becoming like Christ is my ultimate objective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


So it's not your "sole" objective, it's just that discussing problematic elements of church history aren't seductive enough to tempt you away from your ultimate objective, while pontificating - once again - on homosexuality is.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _Maksutov »

wenglund wrote:
huckelberry wrote:Just shortly ago I followed the links to read all about the Church's push for protecting religious liberty. You should be sure to respect the beliefs of others as well as your own I read. That sounds like good policy. It should apply to respecting the beliefs of homosexuals who believe they should marry.


Respecting beliefs does not equal agreeing with those beliefs or legalizing them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


You say beliefs. I say rights.

You have the right to believe that gay people should not have the right to marry. But unless you're a majority of the Supreme Court, what authority do you have? Zip. :wink:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _wenglund »

sock puppet wrote:Parading a list of horribles often causes one to not consider what the real issue is. Pedophilia is vastly different than the age of consent to marry. Even as just sex, pedophilia does not involve only consenting adults; a child has not had enough life experience and mental maturity to make anything approaching the decision and thus give consent.


I realize this. However, "age of consent" is a form of discrimination and inequality. We, as a society, may generally believe that such discrimination and inequality is appropriate. However,, it violates the notion of "marriage equality."

Bestiality is vastly different than being a legal 'person' that can enter into a relationship with another that will be legally recognized--which is marriage and the topic under discussion, by your own thread title.


Again, I realize this. However, limiting marriage to "persons" is discriminatory and unequal and a violation of "marriage equality."

Polyandry and polygamy involve more than two legal persons, with exponential complications beyond what are attendant to a marriage involving just two consenting adults. The law recognizes a marriage between two as experience has shown it has a civilizing effect; the complications that come with more than two involved has a disruptive effect.


Okay. However, limiting marriage to two people, regardless of rationality, is discriminatory and unequal and a violation of "marriage equality."

Incest is defined by degrees of consanguinity (how closely related), and have been drawn to prevent genetic deficiencies common in offspring of parents too closely related biologically.


True. However, restricting marriages based on the degree of consanguinity, even if for reasonable heath concerns, is discriminatory and unequal and a violation of "marriage equality."

The real issue is why should two consenting adults not be permitted to enter into a legally recognized relationship, commonly referred to as marriage, because the are of the same sex as opposed to opposite sex?


The notion of "marriage equality," as Jaybear intimated, doesn't concern itself with rational reasons for permitting or not permitting legal recognition. It only concerns itself with whether, in their minds, there is inequality or not, and if there is, then things must be made equal regardless.

This is quite different from how I think. The key issue for me isn't equality, but what is in everyone's best interest.

Society will get more mileage towards avoiding those ills by making condoms regularly available and openly advocating their use than trying to argue for or legislate anti-human abstinence. It's not a workable solution to those ills.


That has been the liberal argument for decades. And, to the extent that it has had public and governmental sway, the results have been the opposite from what they theorized. As I indicate in my blog, by far the safest place for homosexuals has been the "closet." And, for heterosexuals, the safest time for them was when traditional marriage was actively promoted and valued and promiscuous behavior stigmatized and made illegal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Last edited by Gadianton on Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _wenglund »

gramps wrote:Wade,

You say you are looking for a wife.

Might I suggest that you aren't going to find one writing all this crap all day and night.

Get out and dance, Wade. And when you do, I won't believe it unless you post pics here.

Looking forward to the pics, Wade.

Thanks, -gramps-


[Like]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _wenglund »

beastie wrote:So it's not your "sole" objective, it's just that discussing problematic elements of church history aren't seductive enough to tempt you away from your ultimate objective, while pontificating - once again - on homosexuality is.


Kinda. To me, looking backwards and quibbling about what I view as relatively and comparatively minor qualms about the distant past that can't be changed and may have since been rendered moot or irrelevant or impertinent (except where we can learn from the past to make our current and future life better), doesn't have anywhere close to the pragmatic "seduction" as exploring certain prominent issues of our day that may impact me and others, and about which I may affect some change in hopes of a brighter future.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _wenglund »

Maksutov wrote:You say beliefs. I say rights.


And, I say beliefs about rights.

You have the right to believe that gay people should not have the right to marry. But unless you're a majority of the Supreme Court, what authority do you have? Zip. :wink:


My only authority is one-man-one vote and my power of persuasion--which, admittedly, is nil in certain quarters.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _gramps »

wenglund wrote:
gramps wrote:Wade,

You say you are looking for a wife.

Might I suggest that you aren't going to find one writing all this crap all day and night.

Get out and dance, Wade. And when you do, I won't believe it unless you post pics here.

Looking forward to the pics, Wade.

Thanks, -gramps-


[Like]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Might I suggest, Wade, that you consult with the dance guru of Mormonism, Teryl Givens. I'm sure he has some pointers for you.

Thanks, -gramps-
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_Jaybear
_Emeritus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:49 pm

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _Jaybear »

wenglund wrote:
Jaybear wrote:Wade is wrong.

As a leftest (like Jesus), I can assure you that I support gay marriage for purposes of promoting the principle of equality ... hence the phrase "marriage equality". My position would not change even if you could actually show that legalizing gay marriage means .... gasp ... more gay promiscuity.


The brief introduction you quoted was not meant to be all inclusive, but a general lead-in to the material covered in the body of the related articles. That is why it is called an introduction.


The introduction contained the premise of your argument.
Take away the premise, and your argument fails.

However, you will be pleased to know that I addressed the issue of "marriage equality" here: [url=http://leftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/06/same-sex-marriage-no-marriage-equality.html]No Marriage Equality


Have you noticed that your arguments against marriage equality are essentially the same arguments raised to support laws against interracial marriage? No doubt had we had this conversation in the 50s, you would side with the racists.

If you are genuinely for "marriage equality," and this apparently regardless of the consequences, then can we expect you to advocate as passionately for legalizing marriage for various other types of alternative sexual relationships, like polyandry and polygamy and incest and pedaphilia and bestiality?


No. Because those issue you raised are outside the scope of "marriage equality." Liberals are opposed to marriage laws seeking to discriminate based on race, ethnic origins, religion, sex and sexual orientation.

Have you ever heard a liberal complain that laws agaisnt bank robbery discriminating against bank robbers? Funny how liberals have an innate ability to see a line that distinguishes between homosexuals and pedophiles that conservative just can't see when they raise these stupid stupid arguments.

The only people who think that the government should play a role in passing laws for the purpose of hindering/preventing/dissuading adults from having sex are social conservatives. So the argument that you think you are addressing is an argument that is made to garner gay marriage support by conservatives.


The "argument" is addressed to anyone and everyone who cares about the significant and sometimes devastating societal problems (including death) resulting from certain sexual behaviors and lifestyles.


In Wade's nanny world, would each child be fitted with a government issued chastity belt, where the key is delivered to the state approved spouse and the conclusion of a state sanctioned heterosexual wedding?

If you and other social liberals could care less about STD's and AIDS and out-of-wedlock births, and the social ills rippling there from (poverty and crime), then that may explain why they continues to escalate in liberal environs. Now there is compassion for ya.


Liberals believe in freedom, education, and free access to birth control and abortions.
Do you really want to compare liberal bastions of Oregon and Mass. to conservative Texas, and Alabama?
_Tchild
_Emeritus
Posts: 2437
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _Tchild »

wenglund wrote:I only had a moment this morning before heading out of town for a couple of days, and I thought that since the issue of same-sex marriage was raised tangentially on another thread, I would start a new thread on the topic.

As fodder for the discussion, may I offer a series of brief articles I have written on the unintended negative consequences of SSM, starting here: "Leftist LUNCs (Law of Unintended Negative Consequences)--Same Sex Marriage: Intro."

Feel free to respond in my absence. I will engage in the discussion when I return.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My wife and I were noticing something very peculiar Wade. Seemingly, after every state that has legalized same-sex marriages, our heterosexual marriage has greatly improved. We laugh and talk together more frequently, go on dates, are kinder and more considerate of each other. Hell, I even do the dishes half the week. It is like I am even more heterosexual than before. My heterosexuality has been fortified and strengthened in some inexplainable way!

Thank you gays and gay marriage! Keep up the good work.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Same-sex Marriage.

Post by _Chap »

wenglund wrote:...

Society will get more mileage towards avoiding those ills by making condoms regularly available and openly advocating their use than trying to argue for or legislate anti-human abstinence. It's not a workable solution to those ills.


That has been the liberal argument for decades. And, to the extent that it has had public and governmental sway, the results have been the opposite from what they theorized. As I indicate in my blog, by far the safest place for homosexuals has been the "closet." And, for heterosexuals, the safest time for them was when traditional marriage was actively promoted and valued and promiscuous behavior stigmatized and made illegal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


I suppose Wade Englund has me on ignore ...

Chap wrote:The indications are that just telling young people not to have sex does not work, but giving them good clear sex education and strong advice about contraceptive/prophylactic precautions does.

See for instance:

http://depts.washington.edu/hserv/articles/71

Authors found that 67% of heterosexual adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19 received comprehensive sex education (education about how to say no to sex in addition to education about birth control). About a quarter of adolescents received abstinence-only education and 9% received no sex education at all.

Adjusted for potential confounding factors, those who received comprehensive education were 60% less likely to report teen pregnancy than those who received no sex education and 50% less like to report teen pregnancy than those who received abstinence only education. There was also a strong trend indicating that those who received comprehensive education were less likely to engage in sexual intercourse compared to those who received no sex education. No significant decrease in risk for either pregnancy or engaging in sex was found for abstinence only education.

In an accompanying editorial in the Journal of Adolescent Health, Norman Constantine of the University of California, Berkeley states, "Moral values do have a place in public policy discourse, yet it is imperative for all sides to recognize that there is no evidentiary basis for AO [Abstinence Only] education and that a growing foundation of convergent evidence favors CSE [Comprehensive Sex Education]."


I just thought I should repeat this bit:

There was also a strong trend indicating that those who received comprehensive education were less likely to engage in sexual intercourse compared to those who received no sex education.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply