The MADness of the gay marriage debate

[_Seven]

"Seven"
Even if a person- views homsexual behavior as a sin/immoral, I don't understand why Mormons would donate so much money to this issue when there are so many crimes against humanity that should take presedence.

"why me"
You need to be honest with yourself. You still would be complaining about the LDS church. Now lets be logical. Should the LDS church come out and support gay marriage? Yes?? If it did you would be one of the first to condemn the LDS church for trying to be popular due to losing membership stats.

How about the LDS church not getting involved in political issues and pressuring it's members to donate their money and time to it? You know, that whole seperation of church and state thing.
In all my life I have never seen any humanitarian cause embolden Mormons like the church's political involvement in Prop 8.

It's too bad the bretheren don't ignite the same passion to get involved in unison for issues like child abuse, hunger, disease, disaster relief, education, abuse of women, orphans/homeless, human trafficking, etc. After witnessing the force they had in California over gay marriage, imagine the impact they could have on issues that are actually destroying society.

(I'm not saying the church doesn't do humanitarian work so please try to understand my point)

[_Ray A]

It is just one more step on the ladder toward undermining the nuclear family. In some classrooms, those children with a traditional family are in a minority. Gay marriage is just one more step in redefining the nuclear family. Gay marriage has not led to the 50% divorce rate but it does put into question once more the notion of the nuclear family as between a man and a woman who are married together.

So you're saying that if my child is taught this, he/she will likely become homosexual? You really think that teaching tolerance towards Gay people is going to make my child homosexual? Did the whites who advocated racial equality turn Black?

My children were all taught about gender equality in government schools. They are all heterosexual.

So where's the bogeyman?

[_Jersey Girl]

My objection was not just to the lack of support by the LDS church for the social issues I raised regarding child abuse case. It was directed at the religious community at large.

Imagine what would happen if the LDS and say, Dobson's Focus on the Family were to integrate it's members into the social services agencies for volunteer hours.

Imagine that. Seriously.

[_Seven]

This poster from MAD makes a great point I wanted to share. I just had this exact conversation with a family member who supports equal rights for gays in civil unions but is strongly opposed to same sex marriage, believing it will bring destruction upon the traditional family. Her views are illogical. What further damage to society would follow allowing them to "marry" vs. civil unions with equal rights?

So for the Prop 8 supporters on this board, do you also oppose equal rights for gays in civil unions and any gay couple from adopting or raising children?

a post from Bardman

As I read through the CA court's decision, the court makes it abundantly clear that the only thing Proposition 8 achieves is to reserve the word "marriage" for an officially recognized relationship between a man and a woman. It in no way affects the fundamental constitutional right of same-sex couples to enter into an officially recognized relationship with a designation other than "marriage."

So what I want to know is, where is the victory for proponents of "traditional marriage?" Is it really just about a word? If it is, then how would granting the use of a word to same-sex couples somehow threaten or undermine the institution described by the word? If it's not about a word, if it's about the substantive rights involved in an officially recognized relationship, then it's clear the proponents of Proposition 8 have won nothing.

In post after post on this board, I read that the problem people have with "gay marriage" is that homosexuals want to have official government "sanction" or "approval" or "recognition" for their relationships to justify their "lifestyle." Same-sex marriage opponents appear to want official societal and governmental recognition of family relationships to be limited to heterosexual couples.

If that's the case, then in CA, at least, the same-sex couples still win. They still have officially sanctioned, recognized family relationships.

I think what same-sex marriage opponents need to ask themselves is whether they would support full equality under the law, including at the federal level, for same-sex couples as long as their relationships aren't designated "marriages," in which case it's really just about not using the word "marriage" to refer to same-sex couples in an official relationship; or whether they oppose the substantive rights of an officially recognized and sanctioned relationship for same-sex couples no matter what it's called.

It seems to me that if the argument that same-sex marriage will weaken traditional marriages is true, it must be because same-sex couples have the same rights and privileges as opposite-sex couples, thereby promoting and defending the "gay lifestyle." In other words, there has to be some substantive, measurable threat posed by those relationships, rather than a simple "usurpation" or "redefinition" of a single word.

The bottom line is, if you're going to champion "traditional marriage," shouldn't you be opposed to the granting of any official recognition or sanction for any relationships other than "traditional marriage?"

But my point is that simply calling a same-sex relationship a marriage can't be what infringes "on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches." Just using a word is not enough to infringe on those supposedly threatened institutions. It has to be the actual governmental and societal endorsement, recognition, and protection of same-sex unions that does the threatening, not nomenclature. In other words, if sticks and stones my break your bones, but words will never hurt you, then is the word "marriage" the stick or stone, or is it the official recognition?

It is illogical to suppose that keeping the word marriage reserved for the use of opposite-sex couples is what will prevent the supposed danger to the traditional family. I just don't see how words can be of more "danger" than actions.

The true opponent of same-sex marriage must, in my opinion, be opposed to granting not only the word marriage, but also the attendant rights and priviliges that accompany it. Anything less is hypocritical.

[_Ray A]

Two comments from the thread in question:

maxrep12:

Am I the only one reading this thread who is astonished at the 3 day suspension placed on Beastie?

Yamaha:

I think Beastie was just trying to present her argument. I did not find her offensive.

The rest fiddle while Chronos acts like Torquemada.

[Anonymous]

"beastie"
So I’m looking for feedback on two points. One, do you agree or disagree with my primary point that when the younger generation takes over, gay marriage will be legalized, if it hasn’t been before then?

I agree. (and also believe it will happen before then)

And two, was what I said really that bad that I – out of all the people on that thread – deserved to be suspended?

I didn't see anything, but Charity's condemning attack should have caused a suspension.
Nothing new.


I have watched my once very conservative parents grow more liberal in their views on social issues like homosexuality as they get older.

I've also noticed more LDS teens/young adults (raised in very orthodox Mormon homes) this generation, are surprisingly very open minded on gay marriage.

[_why me]

Now can you acknowledge that what happened to Miss Cal is similar to what was done to Beastie by MAD, per my previous post?

No. MAD is perfectly clear on its rules. I remember years ago, that FAIR stated that its board would give leeway to the LDS more than to critics. And it has more or less followed that idea. Most critics know this. They may bitch and moan about it but...that is the way it is.

What happened to Miss California was a disgrace and the liberal wing of the media let Perez Hilton off the hook for his sexist comments.

[_Brackite]

And of course, for religious people, the Bible does not sanction the gay lifestyle nor gay marriage.

And of course, for religious Mormon People, the Book of Mormon does Not sanction the Polygamous lifestyle nor Plural Marriage.

The Book of Mormon:

Jacob 2:23-28:

[23] But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

[24] Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[25] Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

[26] Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

[27] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

[28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

The Lord God intended for Marriage to be between one man and one woman.

[_truth dancer]

A few houses down from me live a wonderful family consisting of two moms and three children. The children are great, the parents loving and kind, the home lovely.

Now, could someone please tell me how this fabulous family is destroying the world?

No one in my neighborhood has turned gay because of the moms; no marriage has broken up on my street; no children have been harmed.

What in the world is the big deal. I really do not understand the problem.

They are a strong, healthy, incredible family participating in the community, volunteering at the school, bringing dessert to our neighborhood BBQs.

Who in the heck cares if they have a marriage license or not? What difference will it make to anyone at all, except their little family?

They are a family with or without a marriage license so claiming gays and lesbians change the definition of a family is nonsense. And, in my opinion, allowing these women to further strengthen their relationship can only help the family.

Again, could someone please tell me how my neighbors are destroying the world? Tell me how they are following Satan? Explain how they are hurting ANYONE!

Oh, and did I mention two of these children were adopted from an orphanage in Siberia?

~td~

[_Phouchg]

...I don't understand why Mormons would donate so much money to this issue when there are so many crimes against humanity that should take presedence.

Because this is the Mormon version of indulgences. McKonkie and his hate-the-Catholics bunch always bag on the church of Rome for receiving indulgences for the forgiveness of sin...this is just the LDS version to score celestial brownie points with the stake leadership. Pay tribute to the old geezers in Salt Lake and you may just get that Stake Presidency calling you have been lusting after. Look at that douchebag L. Whitney Clayton - from Orange County stake president to Presidency of the Seventy in just a decade, leading the church's indulgences...err...fundraising campaign in California.


fook