PeterVenkman

Except for the fact that the movement to criminalize marijuana started with individual states in the US starting in the 1860s and then spread to other countries...including, for example, Russia. Different countries use marijuana laws to disenfranchise different groups of people. Sometimes it is the poor that use marijuana, sometimes it is the immigrants...in virtually every case marijuana laws are directed at the dispossessed. See the second paragraph I have posted from the wikipedia page on legality of cannabis: Under the name cannabis, 19th century medical practitioners sold the drug (usually as a tincture), popularizing the word amongst English-speakers. It was rumored that Queen Victoria's menstrual pains were treated with cannabis; her personal physician, Sir John Russell Reynolds, wrote an article in the first edition of the medical journal The Lancet about the benefits of cannabis.[3] In 1894, the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission commissioned by the UK Secretary of State and the government of India, was instrumental in the decision not to criminalize the drug in those countries.[4] From 1860 different states in the United States started to implement regulations for sales of Cannabis sativa.[5] In 1925 a change of the International Opium Convention[6] banned exportation of Indian hemp to countries that have prohibited its use. Importing countries were required to issue certificates approving the importation and stating that the shipment was to be used "exclusively for medical or scientific purposes". In 1937 the F.D. Roosevelt administration crafted the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, the first US national law making cannabis possession illegal via an unpayable tax on the drug. The name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana, mariguana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant's psychoactive use. The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s. Mexico itself had passed prohibition in 1925, following the International Opium Convention.[7] The prohibitionists deliberately used a Mexican name for cannabis in order to turn the US populace against the idea that it should be legal by playing to negative attitudes towards that nationality. (See 1937 Marihuana Tax Act). Those who demonized the drug by calling it marihuana omitted the fact that the "deadly marihuana" was identical to Cannabis sativa, which had at the time a reputation for pharmaceutical safety.[8] However, due to variations in the potency of the preparations, Cannabis indica in the 1930s had lost most of its former popularity as a medical drug

True, tobacco is not much like pot in the sense that tobacco kills you fast by destroying your lungs and throat. Marijuana does not do that (according to many studies). It simply cannot be true that marijuana is illegal because it is mind altering. Caffeine and alcohol are mind altering and they are legal. Sugar is mind altering and it is legal. Fatty foods are mind altering and they are legal. Philosophical books and movies are mind altering and they are legal too. Marijuana is illegal because of (1) racism and (2) paranoia. But mostly racism against latinos and blacks.

So true. If there is anything people should be put in jail for, it is CLEARLY being a lazy bum and/or relaxed.

Whatever, ignore my actual argument, nothing new here... Just because your state has legal MJ does not mean they get to bypass federal laws. I live in a state with medical marijuana and I regularly interact with people that operate the dispensaries. If you really knew so much about marijuana regulation in your state I doubt your original post would have been so flippant. There are no property rights over marijuana because that violates federal law. Maybe YOU are the one that should do some more research about the relationship between state and federal laws on marijuana possession before kicking up the condescension.

Bad form Loudmouth Mormon... First, the article does not draw a connection between smoking pot and committing violence at all. It's a 2 paragraph article that says a person stole a car and crashed it into a pot dispensary. There is no evidence the driver was high, and there was no evidence that anything was taken from the dispensary. This seems to imply that the driver was not intending to rob the dispensary and so the connection between the driver and marijuana is dubious. Second, intentional or not, your post misrepresents the real political dimensions of marijuana stereotypes and law. You say everyone just accepts that pot smokers are calm and non-violent, which oversimplifies the issue. In truth, smoking marijuana does calm people and rarely leads to violence. However, that does not mean that there is no violence associated with the marijuana trade. The answer to the violence is legalization, not making fun of pot smokers. Let me break it down for you simply. The reason why there is violence associated with marijuana is precisely because marijuana is illegal. See, in the US, we have this legal concept called "Property rights." I have property rights over the stuff that I own and I have legal remedies for protecting my property. For instance, if someone steals my computer, I can sue them in a court of law to get compensation. I don't have to resort to fighting the thief myself because I can use the legal system to recover my losses. Alcohol is legal, and therefore people have property rights over alcohol and may sue people that infringe on their rights. Marijuana, on the other hand, is not legal, which means there are no property rights associated with possession of marijuana. If someone steals my marijuana, I cannot use the police, the legal system, or any other legal mechanism to protect my rights. Therefore, I have to have a gun or some other form of weapon to protect my stash. Legalizing marijuana provides property rights to users, and takes away the INCENTIVE for violence. Legalizing marijuana would cause such a sharp decrease in gun violence that it is enough of a justification on its own to legalize and tax. After all, there is a reason why you don't see armed militia's guarding Tecate trucks as they bring beer across the border... Generally, pot smokers are a lot more caring and responsible than people who regularly use other drugs. The World Health Organization just released a study that classified the most dangerous drugs in the world. The WHO found that the two most dangerous substances on the face of the planet earth are (1) alcohol and (2) tobacco. And they are the only two legal substances in America!! Something is wrong with this picture.

A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Or, to put it another way: "You don't have a right to marry your loved one because I might have to see it or recognize it." Then it becomes a problem.

As a note, this line of thinking is a textbook example of the interplay between heteronormativity and homophobia. The whole, "gay people in public are icky and shouldn't do it why should I have to explain to my child why two women are kissing at a basketball game" so perfectly illustrates the concept that this line is used by queer theorists all the time to show/explain the concepts.

Yep. Generally the term is used to denote someone who feels threatened by the presence of homosexuality around them. Feeling fear/threatened does not necessarily mean that you are afraid a gay person is going to attack you or overwhelm you, it means that your actions towards them derive from your revulsion. Anytime you place a group of people into the category of the "abject", one consequence is abuse and violence. After all, we have a tendency to want to be as far away from the abject as possible. Compare homophobia with the concept of heteronormativity. Homophobia is literally a fear of gay people. That fear can manifest in a variety of ways. Heteronormativity is a more subtle assumption that heterosexual sex/culture is "normal" while anything that falls outside that paradigm is deviant. In my opinion, heteronormativity as it exists today is a relatively new (and pervasive) social force that sets the stage for homophobia. The two are interrelated.

Yep. I believe it's called feint praise.

WOW. Here's an interesting thought experiment regarding cognitive dissonance: Compare the responses to the proposal to sign a petition to reinstate a gay Boy Scout leader in this thread with the responses to the proposal to sign a petition to boycott Groupon for offering a coupon to tour an armory that is also used to film porn in the next thread over. Just wow.

Um, yes, there are good porn companies and bad ones. I understand that you think all porn is bad and immoral and all that, but that shouldn't prevent you from seeing that some purveyors of pornography are worse than others. Some are more manipulative and violent, etc. As a very basic example, there is a HUGE difference between Playboy and Hustler magazines. Even people who oppose all pornography should be able to tell the difference. Sigh, you missed my point about the lawyers. It's not that S&M porn has better lawyers, it's that S&M porn knows its going to be subjected to legal inquiry more often, so it tends to follow the rules more than other porn companies...

Yeah, and I agree generally with what you said. Although many people are turned off by the content and find it immoral, it does seem to be legal. One of my best friends from law school worked as an attorney for Kink. It's funny because the nature of the content provided by Kink actually submits them to much higher standards and review by watchdog groups than other pornography companies. In other words, since they specialize in S&M (which has a much larger following than anybody wants to admit), they have less of an opportunity to skirt the rules as opposed to your average fraternity boy pornography hub...This is anecdotal evidence from one of their legal representatives, so I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kink was more "above the table" than more mainstream porn companies.

I think encouraging gay people to marry into heterosexual relationships destroys the institution of marriage because it requires them to maintain a type of relationship that many LDS admit is not what marriage should be about.

I've taken a tour of the castle in question for an art exhibit. Didn't see anyone getting assaulted. Regardless, I've searched and cannot find any official relationship between Groupon and Kink...

Spirit Being Confronting the REAL Authenticity Beauty (in its platonic form) the Sublime Nonordinary reality Apriori Knowledge God the Holy Ghost Transcendence & Immanence I believe that most, if not all, human beings have an experience like this at some point...and I also believe that influential people want to capture this experience and use it to help support the ideology (knowledge system) they promote. I am not surprised that a variety of religious leaders, philosophers and thinkers have all latched on to the feeling that there is something DEEPER going on than we are attuned to in our everyday reality. Personally, I've felt it before so I believe it exists, but I'm undecided about whether it is a function of biology (the god gene / a specific component of our brain that creates the experience), spirit (an energy within, or a tapping into more primal flows), language (the point at which language begins to fail to capture meaning), or chemicals (DMT or an interplay between neurotransmitters). Regardless, it seems everyone wants to take this (very human) feeling and use it as an instrument to lend credibility to their beliefs. The fact that there are so many different names for the same feeling seems to prove as much. I do find it fascinating, though, that these feelings/emotions/experiences are triggered most often in 3 specific situations: 1. Religious ritual 2. Meditation 3. Use of psychedelic drugs

My responsibility to engage critical thinking is facilitated by the opinions of 3 or more prophets, which is the opposite of abrogation. By understanding how multiple different perspectives can reach the same conclusion, I can learn how to evaluate the strength of claims and ethical positions, identify the best arguments and determine their desirability. In other words, their "counsel" is more about persuasion than dictation. Not sure how I feel about this. Sometimes children make better ethical decisions than adults, and I wouldn't exactly put an age limit on morality. In a broad sense, I don't believe people are inherently good, but I believe that humans internalize good as a function of their continued existence in the infant stage. I don't "allow" anyone to do anything. People do what they do. Any time I interact with someone I am projecting meaning that influences them in some way...whether it be my children or my spouse or the girl at the ticket counter at the movies. That is the nature of being part of a social web of meaning. Yes, not only is everyone capable of making their own judgments, I would say that is the nature of individualism. True enough. You don't have to take me seriously or believe me for my goal to be achieved. Have you ever heard of the logic of the gift? It's a philosophical concept presented by Jean Baudrillard. The basic premise is that giving someone a gift creates a relationship with them, which they cannot ever escape. They can reject the gift, which will have consequences for the future of the relationship, or they can accept the gift, which will also have consequences for the future of the relationship. I'm not saying I'm giving you a gift. I'm only saying that my expression here in this forum will have consequences for all of the people that read what I write, in whatever way (big and small). Some might react by strengthening their own testimony about gay marriage. Some may react by changing their minds. Either way, the fact that my written words are influencing the thoughts of others is valuable, even if my judgment is questionable and my opinions worthless. lol I'm on it I promise. I'm really not a fan of the confessional. I've eluded to the reason why I think gay marriage helps traditional marriage in my 2008 post. I'm not sure if I'm going to answer your other questions yet, for now let's just say I'm...different. Most successful religions have some level of malleability or they wouldn't survive very long. This is a totally different and interesting doctrinal discussion that I think should be its own thread. For example, what if my patriarchal blessing encourages me to take an "a'la carte" approach to the LDS faith? What if every single member of my family has a patriarchal blessing that says something to that effect? From different people in different regions of the US? Just something to think about...

Again with the investigation about my authenticity. I shouldn't have to tell you about graduating seminary or being an eagle scout or attending church or doing baptisms for the dead or doing splits with missionaries or preparing and delivering the sacrament or personally baptizing people and I sure don't have to tell you about the content of my own prayers or patriarchal blessing...so either come out and tell me why you think any of this is relevant to the conversation we are having or leave your doubts about my religious disposition out of the conversation. People on this forum love to tell me that I'm too fringe to be part of the group. That's fine, it's not the first time I've heard it. But I haven't resigned, and I haven't been excommunicated, and after all these conversations I'm glad LDS.NET doesn't have the power to do it. Do I think following Monson is dangerous? I will keep saying it as many times as I need to: I think it is dangerous to follow any human being without being skeptical of what they are saying. This goes for Monson as much as it goes for the Pope and Carl Sagan and Charles Manson and Jim Jones. Then why did you say this on page 1: Didn't he say those arguments were made in 2008? Let's have a fresh discussion instead of looking up old threads. Forums would be quite dead if we couldn't discuss anything that had been discussed previously. and why did you say this on page 2: PeterVenkman's detailed arguments are not there. This thread is supposed to be focused on Constitutional "Rights" rather than "Youtube and my faith reduced to rubble". and why did you use my arguments to start a thread about the constitution and rights guaranteed by it if you did not want my perspective? and why did you run away from the conversation about the constitution as soon as I chimed in? ZING! Congratulations, I mistyped the scripture from which your quote came. I must be a heathen. In truth, haven't read it all at once since 2008. I don't take the doctor's opinion at face value if that's what you mean. It's always good to get a second opinion and compare the thoughts of multiple doctors...that would be an appropriate use of skepticism and critical thinking for me in the context you provided. As a side note, I also think morality / ethics is an area where there aren't really experts. We commonly conflate technical knowledge with moral knowledge, but we all have the ability to understand and evaluate moral / ethical decisions. To me, this is one of the presumptions underlying the holy ghost and baptisms at age 8 rather than newborn. AHA, but I already beat you to the punch. I already conceded that I don't know or understand anything (see Socrates quote). I'm not offended that you feel this way, if I seem ignorant, then that's true. No false claims to wisdom here! What do you suggest is the appropriate punishment for my abysmal ignorance about the function of the church?

I find this attitude very dangerous because it clearly rejects the value of critical thinking, and I think critical thinking is something to be cherished and encouraged. I reject the notion that we should accept the word of any human being at face value, simply due to their title. Hypothetical example: Let's say there was a person you considered to be a prophet and this person asked you to do any of the following things: 1. Drink poisoned kool-aid with your children. 2. Invade a non-hostile country. 3. Murder a pregnant actress in her home. 4. Drop bombs on a family that supposedly lived on your land. Then what? Should we take an action that our personal conscience abhors while carrying the flag of faith? I read it, but I disagree with many parts of it. I know you are leaving the conversation, but I would be fascinated to hear your explanation of why the equal rights amendment was a bad idea. lol ok, you are the one that started the thread, and you are the one that asked for my explanation. You are obviously free to dismiss my points as "the logic of wicked judges" and "the arts and cunning of the people", but we live in a secular society, and therefore arguments like mine are the ones that will eventually make it to the Supreme Court when they inevitably turn to this issue. As for your bible quote about false wisdom, my counter-quote is from Socrates: "I know that I know nothing." The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I know. skepticism sure is hard to square with faith, but I refuse to abandon skepticism.

You started this thread by quoting me from another thread. You asked for me to break down the arguments I presented 4 years ago and I have done so. I hope that you will actually think about the positions I've laid out and respond to those positions, rather than investigating my authenticity. In other words, I'm not sure why this question is relevant. It's not that I'm unwilling to answer the question, I just don't know what you mean. Do I believe that there are some selectively chosen individuals that commune with god on a daily basis? Do I believe that there are individuals that guide and enhance spiritual understanding? Do I believe that there are people with a special access to "truth" that others don't have? These are all very different questions. What about all of those other people at Mormons for Marriage The mormon church is very large, and only some actively participate on this website. It may not be easy to accept, but there is a growing portion of the LDS community that feels like I do about gay marriage. So if there is going to be discipline for reading/thinking, then I'm not going to be the only one getting it. Other than that, I'd have to say that if I'm ever going to be subject to discipline by the church, my philosophical beliefs about homosexuality will probably take a backseat to other transgressions. As far as your ERA post is concerned, I support an amendment that protects people from discrimination on the basis of sex. It's a good thing we have the 14th amendment and 5th amendment since the ERA didn't pass. Not sure why it relates to constitutional law about the issue of marriage though.

My post from 2008: Whether you base the decision on the constitutional guarantee of due process of the law or whether you base the decision on equal protection grounds, they both come out allowing gay people to marry. I'm even kind of persuaded by this argument: Relationships come in all types. Some of them are secret like Romeo and Juliet. Marriage is different from a "relationship" because marriage is a public expression of love for another person, and there is no expression more public than a legal codification. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom to publicly express ourselves how we see fit. Since the institution of marriage is a public statement of love, homosexuals have the right to publicly express that love under the First Amendment. It's a unique argument, but it intruiges me. When you get to the legal details of gay marriage, it doesn't even matter what suspect class homosexuality falls into. The laws are usually written in such an exclusive way that courts have no choice but to strike them down. In the case of Proposition 8, to vote for a constitutional amendment over the court's order is to use emotion against reason. It is akin to a national vote to amend the constitution to reinstate slavery. Legally, it defies reason. Unfortunately, emotions on gay marriage have not yet reversed like emotions on slavery. Hence, we have ballot initiatives like Prop. 8. This is not to say that we shouldn't be careful. Some cases, such as Hernandez v. Robles, painted marriage as a way to reign in straight male tricksters who would otherwise be fleeing children. Keeping men from wandering is apparently the real reason why the institution of marriage is so important (according to these judges). Here are some other arguments I have been kicking around: 1. Protect the Institution of Marriage - Those who oppose gay marriage argue that it erodes the institution of marriage and the heterosexual meaning it carries. I say that denying homosexuals the right to marry itself undermines the institution of marriage by refusing admittance for people who feel the same love and compassion. I will take this argument a step further to say that this problem is rooted in the difference between state marriage and religious marriage. As a religious artifact, marriage can mean whatever the particular church defines it as. But, as a state sanctioned relationship, marriage must be equal for everyone. If some people can't get married because of who they choose to form relationships with, then no one should be able to get legally married. The state should only issue civil unions, and leave the whole "marriage" business to religion. 2. Biotechnology Solves Everything - I read an article a few months ago which stated that it is now possible to implant a womb into a man, grow a fetus to maturity, and give cesarian birth. Oh wait, did I mention that the fetus is actually a human being constructed from the DNA of both men? Literally, two men (and two women) can now have babies! Ok, it's probably not ready yet, but I think this gets to one of the common concerns of critics of gay marriage. If it is now technologically possible to add more humans to the pool regardless of what each partner has under their zipper, then what's the big deal? I suspect that critics will say, "It's not the fact that gay people can't have children, it is that the most healthy way to raise a child is in an environment with diverse genders such as a mommy and a daddy." There are so many flaws with this argument that they are hard to count. First, single parents don't have this diversity and we don't take their kids away. Second, it is empirically disproven. We live in 2008, and there are thousands of healthy adults that were raised by gay parents who lead happy productive lives. I saw the Birdcage. That guy didn't seem too imbalanced. Third, this argument plays into gender stereotypes. It implicitly sends the message that children need to be raised by a father and a mother so that they can absorb how the man acts masculine and how the woman acts feminine. 3. Post-Structuralism - I don't know who came up with this whole "protect the meaning of marriage" thing anyway. Words don't have intrinsic meanings. That is why poetry works. That is why literature excites us. That is why the game of telephone is so much fun. Words (also known as signifiers) are not intrinsically tied to what they represent (also known as the signified). Structuralists argued that we understand the meanings of words through relationality. I know what a tree is because I know what isn't a tree. Structuralists argued that there was one word that was cosmically tied to its representation and everything else fell into place from that foundational brick. I can say with confidence that the "transcendental signifier" is not "MARRIAGE". It's GOD. But even the structuralists were proved wrong and we now believe all language is relational. How does this relate to marriage? Marriage means whatever you want it to mean. It does not undermine the meaning of marriage to allow others to interpret it differently, since the meaning of marriage is something that is internalized differently by everyone. 4. Fundamental Right - The United States Supreme Court uses different levels of scrutiny when deciding whether or not to overturn laws. The Court is toughest on laws that only relate to a suspect class (such as race), while it is much more lenient on laws of general applicability. The level of scrutiny the court uses is determined by either (1) the identity of the person challenging the law or (2) the importance of the right at issue. People challenge laws because they think those laws infringe on our rights. If a law infringes a right that is fundamental, then the court will use the highest level of scrutiny. If the law infringes a right that is not fundamental, the court will be more lenient. Many heterosexuals wouldn't even skip a heartbeat to tell you that marriage is a fundamental right. In other words, I have a fundamental right to get married. If this is true, then the court has to examine marriage laws with the highest level of scrutiny and make sure everyone has equal access. After all, if the right is fundamental, then everyone deserves it. Ultimately, marriage is a fundamental right, and therefore, it is subject to strict scrutiny. If the court examines any law restricting marriage to a heterosexual union under strict scrutiny, that law will be struck down every single time because it overtly violates equal protection. Again, voting for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is like saying all of this critical thought on the issue is irrelevant. It appeals to people's emotions. Unfortunately, I believe it capitalizes on the abject. People are personally grossed out by homosexual acts, and therefore they demonize them and try to get them as far away as possible. It's the same way we treat our poop (and it's a reason we don't think about converting it into electricity). For the love of our transcendental signifier, please don't vote for Proposition 8. Ultimately, I hope it will not pass. Not only is this a general election with a lot more people voting, but the constitutional amendment requires a much larger majority to actually pass than a referendum statute. California already passed the statute, it was overturned by the court, and how California voters have to clear a very high hurdle to amend the Constitution. My hope is that it aint gonna happen. EDIT: It happened. Although even that has been overturned by the courts.

We will take them one at a time shall we? 1. Right to marriage under Equal Protection and Due Process - Most rights recognized by the United States Constitution are deemed to be "fundamental rights" under the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment. As rights incorporated into the 14th amendment guarantee of equal protection, all fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny. In other words, to deny a fundamental right to a group of people based on a classification that makes them different from other people, you have to prove that such classification meets a compelling government (not religious) interest, is narrowly tailored to meet its goals, and is the least restrictive means to achieve such a goal. Privacy is a right that derives from the 4th amendment and it has been deemed to be a fundamental right. Marriage is a part of the right to privacy...and marriage itself has been determined to be a fundamental right by the following Supreme Court cases: Loving v. Virginia (1967) Zablocki v. Wisconsin (1968) Turner v. Safley (1987) As well as a number of appellate court cases. In fact, the courts seem to side pretty heavily on marriage equality precisely because it cannot rest its justifications on religious principles. You say marriage is not a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment because single people are not losing out on any protections, but that misstates the law and the nature of the right. Marriage is a fundamental right in that people shall have the right to choose who they wish to marry. This was the logic of the decision in Loving v. Virginia and Turner v. Safely. Now, I'm sure someone like Vort will say this logic justifies child abuse because someone may choose to marry a 5 year old, but that totally ignores all of those other laws about the age of consent and the age at which the law determines that you are capable of choosing. 2. How is marriage a form of expression? Well, marriage is a public declaration of one's love and commitment for another. A marriage is a form of expression because it is the legal codification of a relationship, which is a form of speech. I am going to post my original comments about this from 2008 since you have asked for them, so you can read more about the 1st amendment argument in my second post. 3. Why must there be a secular justification? Laws are based on morals! Yes, laws are based on morals, but laws are NOT based on religious morals. This is a broader philosophical point that religion does not own ethics. It is not only possible but desirable to create an ethics out of logic, because logic is the only fair way to make sure we are not forcing each other to accept our very different beliefs. For example, if you want to make abortion illegal, you cannot stand in congress and say abortion should be illegal because god said so. Instead, you have to make arguments that can rationally relate to anyone of any religion (you know, like a fetus is a person, so killing a fetus is the equivalent of murder). If a religious ethic cannot be reduced to non-religious justifications for its existence, then it should not be codified as law pursuant to the second amendment separation of church and state. We can talk a lot more about this if you want, but it really boils down to the fact that you can have morals without religion. 4. No thoughts on heteronormativity You should check it out. May present you with a different perspective. I can recommend some texts for you if you are interested. Below find my post from 2008 that makes some of these arguments. By the way, pornography IS protected speech...OBSCENITY is not protected speech, but even then you would be hard pressed to find any good examples of the US Supreme Court banning speech for being obscene. It must shock the conscience on both a local and national level to meet that test, which is very hard. I think child porn is the only thing that currently fits this framework.

Or...maybe the reason there is so much child abuse is because there aren't enough conversations about how to deal with such a huge problem. Child abuse is rampant all over the world, and maybe that is because any discussion of the matter is silenced as quickly as possible. In a previous post I recommended the writings of Michel Foucault, who argues in a separate text that exposing violent power is a method for disarming it. I'm not sure who you are associating with that keeps defending child abuse in your debates, and I don't agree with the line of thinking you've presented, but then again you are making a slippery slope argument so I guess it doesn't matter. My point is that more conversation about a topic sharpens its logical justifications rather than making them more ambiguous. For instance, debate about the age of consent has given rise to the best arguments why it is not arbitrary. Vort, you and I probably disagree about everything except for the power of reason. I believe the power of reason will ultimately pave the way to federal legal marriage equality. More conversations will eventually sharpen the arguments. I wouldn't be surprised if you felt similar about the opposite conclusion.

And to the others in this thread: Klein Helmer I like your writing style and its not just because I agree with your arguments. Give us more of you to read. Not sure whether to post this in this thread or the other homosexuality thread that is happening right now (Gay LDS students make video), but I have been thinking about how to more clearly express an opinion on this. A few years ago the Proposition 8 campaign was happening and there was a very robust debate about gay marriage on this forum. I had a big part in those discussions and posted some arguments that I think are still relevant today. Specifically, I made arguments about: 1. the right to marriage under equal protection and due process (constitutional guarantees) 2. marriage as a form of expression protected by the first amendment 3. the need for a secular (non-religious) justification for denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians (which doesn't exist) 4. the social implications of heteronormativity Despite the fact that we are re-hashing some of the same issues, I am glad that the discussion is still occurring today. In truth, the fact that we are still discussing the exact same concepts as we were in 2008 seems to show that, as much as some would like, this topic is not going away. Gay rights will continue to be a topic of conversation until something changes. Simply put, the status quo is no longer sustainable. I could type out an extremely long post laying out the basic concepts once again (since they are starting to bud in this thread), but instead I simply refer you to a few books from which many of my arguments derive. I HIGHLY recommend that you read these books, because they present important arguments about sexuality, power and relationships: 1. The History of Sexuality (volumes 1, 2 and 3) by Michel Foucault 2. Gender Trouble by Judith Butler We talk so much about the "institution" of marriage, but marriage today is vastly different than it was 100 years ago. Aspects of human behavior that we consider "human nature" today didn't exist or were reversed at the turn of the 19th century. This is an important part of the conversation.

DevtheWind, I know that many people in this thread are encouraging you to abandon the debate, to read the scriptures and strengthen your testimony. Many people in this thread say that you have nothing to gain from talking about this issue with others. I disagree, and I truly hope you keep up the spirit of intellectual debate! I am a college and high school debate coach. One thing that I have learned as a debate coach is that there is immense value in disagreement (also known as "agonism"). I believe agonism is inevitable, and that debating is the key to actualizing a true democracy. The real promise of democracy is that people can govern themselves, but that requires the public to desire a robust discussion about different perspectives and promote education and critical thinking. Running away from disagreement isn't going to solve anything. In fact, running away from disagreement seems to cause more hardship. If your faith is being tested by your debates with others on Youtube, I say that is AWESOME! There are two reasons why I say this: 1. The LDS church invites and encourages every member to question the truth of the gospel. It is common in the church to hear church leaders say that meditating about the gospel and questioning its truth will lead to a sign or a message or a spiritual feeling that will guide you to the truth. When people bear their testimonies, they usually say "I know this church is true", but they have to come to that knowledge some how. In my opinion, this requires some sort of inner searching. It seems to me that your debates online with other people are a means of testing the contours and limits of your faith, which is good. After all, the church believes that the holy spirit will step in to defend you (like the power to speak in tongues) and that may be the most powerful sign you can ever encounter regarding the truth of the gospel. 2. In my experience with debate, I have learned that every good argument has a good response. I fundamentally believe that learning the arguments of your opponents and understanding the positions that you absolutely hate are a method for strengthening your own beliefs. I think that your debates online will most likely have the effect of strengthening your testimony, because it will force you to develop THE BEST arguments in defense of your beliefs. After all, you can't make a diamond without a little bit of pressure. Finally, I just want to repeat a line from law school that was very valuable to me: "The answer to bad speech is not censorship. The answer to bad speech is more speech." In other words, if you disagree with someone's perspective, you should not ignore them. On the contrary, you should talk about it EVEN MORE because that is the only way you can overcome what you consider to be bad speech. It helps you think through your arguments and strengthen your resolve. So, ultimately, my point is that continuing to debate and challenge yourself will actually strengthen your testimony in the long run.