Proposition 8: Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Gay Marriage Ban Amendment

[Michael_Newman]

You need glasses.

Elphaba

Yes, you are right. The regular font size is too small for me to read, and if I leave my reading glasses on all day - then my eyes start to hurt. That's why I click the font size up one notch. :)

[De_Wallen]

It's not so much that the legalization of homosexual marriage will bring an 'end to the country', but that it is a step in the wrong direction. It is a symptom of the degeneration of civilized society, and we are commanded by Christ to halt the flow as much as we are able.

Thank you Maxel. I am afraid that I must not agree with this position as I am a homosexual woman, and do no feel that I make the degeneration of civilized society as you say, but I am glad to hear your thoughts and have respect for them.

This is just difficult for me to understand this line of thinking, because in my thought, many places where people like me can marry, such as my country, Canada, Spain, Norway, and others...they are quite civil and clean, with order and low crime. Truly, they tend to be the cleanest, safest, most civil countries in the world.

Again, I have full respect for your postion, and please I hope not to make offense, but I am still quite mystified by this line of thinking.

[Islander]

Thank you Maxel. I am afraid that I must not agree with this position as I am a homosexual woman, and do no feel that I make the degeneration of civilized society as you say, but I am glad to hear your thoughts and have respect for them.

This is just difficult for me to understand this line of thinking, because in my thought, many places where people like me can marry, such as my country, Canada, Spain, Norway, and others...they are quite civil and clean, with order and low crime. Truly, they tend to be the cleanest, safest, most civil countries in the world.

Again, I have full respect for your postion, and please I hope not to make offense, but I am still quite mystified by this line of thinking.

There is a significant difference in the level and intensity of the advocacy of the SSM lobby. In other countries other than "marriage" they have not pushed to overturn the social order. They do not use the power of the government to force the rest of society to conformity with their life style and social order, they do not threaten and intimidate the livelihood of countless and bully their way into every aspect of society.

What happens in other countries in regards to SSM is completely irrelevant when it comes to the impact it can have in the US.

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

There is a significant difference in the level and intensity of the advocacy of the SSM lobby. In other countries other than "marriage" they have not pushed to overturn the social order. They do not use the power of the government to force the rest of society to conformity with their life style and social order, they do not threaten and intimidate the livelihood of countless and bully their way into every aspect of society.

What happens in other countries in regards to SSM is completely irrelevant when it comes to the impact it can have in the US.

I would also point out that Europe is not the Promised Land. The standards the Lord expects from the people are much stricter here.

[Moksha]

Pale had to stop and look to see what color the Horse is that he is riding......thought you were talking about me...:lol:

We could speculate that you are the white horse that has been writen down as though it were prophecy. If you are, what is your position on hanging threads? Hanging chads? Just hanging around and getting the hang of it?

[De_Wallen]

I would also point out that Europe is not the Promised Land. The standards the Lord expects from the people are much stricter here.

I was not aware of this teaching of your faith. Hearing this helps me to at least further understand your point of view, so thanks.

Also, I think that maybe I should like to stay in Europe if the rules of god are easier here.

[john doe]

I was not aware of this teaching of your faith. Hearing this helps me to at least further understand your point of view, so thanks.

Also, I think that maybe I should like to stay in Europe if the rules of god are easier here.

It should be pointed out here that Book_of_Mormon_Warrior is not of the LDS faith.

[Vort]

Thank you Maxel. I am afraid that I must not agree with this position as I am a homosexual woman, and do no feel that I make the degeneration of civilized society as you say, but I am glad to hear your thoughts and have respect for them.

Civilization is built around the family, which consists of a (male) father, a (female) mother, and any children they might produce or adopt. To this "nuclear" family might be added "extended" family, such as grandparents/grandchildren, cousins, etc. But the nuclear family is the core of society. Homosexual "marriage" is a mockery of this nuclear family and disestablishes the entire basis of our civilization.

If a man can "marry" a man and a woman can "marry" a woman, then:

• Why shouldn't a man be able to marry his brother, or a woman her sister?
• Why shouldn't a man be able to marry his mother? Their sexual relations are THEIR business, after all.
• Why shouldn't I be able to marry you? I want to marry you; the fact that you don't wish to marry me is irrelevant. You don't have to marry me, but I want to marry you. Who are you to deny me my right to be happy in the manner I see fit?
• Maybe you want to legally marry your pet hound. Who's to say that's wrong?
• My sister wants to legally marry the planet Mars. Well, why not?

Because marriage is sacred, that's why not. If you expand the definition of "marriage" to include any relationship with any person or inanimate object you enjoy having some form of sex with, then marriage becomes meaningless. Marriage is not about self-gratification, or ultimately even about sex; it is the very basis of civilization.

The fact that your country has existed all of eight years while still permitting homosexual "marriage" is not an indication of the success of such "marriage". Rather, it is an indication that the established structure is strong enough to withstand such a destructive idea for, well, at least eight years. But you cannot show me a civilization that embraced homosexual "marriage" and lasted a thousand years, or a hundred, or even two or three generations. No civilization of which I am aware has ever, throughout recorded history, sanctioned "marriage" between members of the same sex. Even the ancient Egyptians, who had a penchant for marrying their siblings, did not recognize a legal marital union between same-sex partners. Even the ancient Greeks, famously randy and sexually perverted though they were, limited the legal concept of marriage to a man and a woman. There is a reason for this, and it doesn't have anything to do with hating homosexuals.

This is just difficult for me to understand this line of thinking, because in my thought, many places where people like me can marry, such as my country, Canada, Spain, Norway, and others...they are quite civil and clean, with order and low crime. Truly, they tend to be the cleanest, safest, most civil countries in the world.

Did homosexual "marriage" make them clean and civil? Or were they that way to begin with?

When your country has successfully lived through two or three generations of homosexual "marriage", I will be forced to rethink some of my foundational arguments. Until then, I am appalled that we as a society are willing to risk our stability that has taken hundreds if not thousands of years to achieve just so we can try out a new idea of "marriage" based on sexual perversion. Really, it's unbelievable to me.

[De_Wallen]

Thank you Vort for your well articulated response.

I admit to being troubled by one section although:

Because marriage is sacred, that's why not. If you expand the definition of "marriage" to include any relationship with any person or inanimate object you enjoy having some form of sex with, then marriage becomes meaningless. Marriage is not about self-gratification, or ultimately even about sex; it is the very basis of civilization.

I have every respect in your position, but I think it unfortunate to imply that a homosexual only care about sex. We care for marriage for every reason that a hetero couple might. Not all hetero marriages may have children for various complications, so should an infirtile be denied marriage? They could adopt, but a homo couple may also adopt and rescue a child from government care and give it a happy home.

Also, why not then make divorce illegal, or adultry as these are truly destructive of a "nuclear" family.

I am truly greatful to hear your points of view.

[Vort]

I have every respect in your position, but I think it unfortunate to imply that a homosexual only care about sex.

Forgive me for my poor wording choice, De Wallen. I certainly do not believe that all homosexuals "only care about sex", and I apologize for sounding like I did.

But consider: If someone publicly defines himself/herself by his/her sexuality, what does that say? Obviously our sexuality is a central part of who and what we are; but saying "I am a homosexual" is like saying "I am a porn masturbator" or "I am someone who has sex with goats". It is a definition of self based on who or what one wants to stimulate one's genitals. Should not such things be kept private?

I live in an area that recently had a scandal when a newspaper reported that a man died of a perforated bowel from having sex with a horse. Can you imagine if all the people who liked having sex with horses started saying, "We're LOUD and we're PROUD! Horse sex is BEAUTIFUL! We demand societal recognition of our sacred horse sex relationships! We demand all legal marital rights!"

If you find the "bestiality marriage" idea overly offensive, substitute in marriage to five-year-olds, or marriage to parents, or marriage between siblings. These things are illegal because they are not conducive to a stable society; rather, they are destructive to it.

Not all hetero marriages may have children for various complications, so should an infirtile be denied marriage?

Perhaps I'm misremembering something, or perhaps you are. I don't remember saying anything about fertility or childbearing, so I do not understand the genesis of this argument.

They could adopt, but a homo couple may also adopt and rescue a child from government care and give it a happy home.

Yes, and I am sure that in some ways a homosexual couple would be far preferable to no family at all. But a homosexual couple cannot model a true nuclear family, because they are not a true nuclear family. This is the case, regardless of whether the government has granted their relationship the status of "marriage".

Also, why not then make divorce illegal, or adultry as these are truly destructive of a "nuclear" family.

I could not agree more. If our society were capable of living by such standards, I would heartily endorse them. Adultery should be legally punishable, and divorces much, much more difficult to obtain. Unfortunately, our society is so morally lax and filled with grown-up children instead of adults that we are incapable of living to such a standard. Since a society can't function with 60% of its people incarcerated, we cannot (yet) live to that standard. But I agree, it would be much better.

Nice conversing with you, De Wallen.

[aranyborju]

This debate could go on forever without either side being satisfied with an answer. De Wallen, you brirng up excellent points regarding same sex relationships, and relationships in general, and from a purely academic standpoint, it is even possible that the reasons for same sex marriage outweigh the reasons against it.

The only true reason that I could state to support the viewpoint that it is wrong, would be that according to the doctrines of my church it is wrong. I hear academic reasons supporting same sex marriage on an almost daily basis (due to the large homosexual population where I live) and they make sense in my mind...but I learned long ago to trust in my faith instead of my mind when the doctrines of the church are at issue. I have been called a "sheep" and worse for this, but that is my reason for believeing what I believe.

I understand if this reasoning doesn't sit well with you, and I hope that you understand that the position of the church regarding same sex marriage is not an attack personally on homosexuals, and that the church welcomes all people who are actively seeking the truth, with pure intent.

[Vort]

This debate could go on forever without either side being satisfied with an answer.

I think you are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the nature of this exchange, aranyborju. De Wallen is not looking to be convinced; rather, she wants to understand why we think as we do. I have been attempting to explain to her what we (or at least I) think and why we (I) think that way.

it is even possible that the reasons for same sex marriage outweigh the reasons against it.

I think you throw in the towel far too easily. Since heterosexual-only marriage is the historical norm throughout the world and the current norm in the US and most of the rest of the world outside of Europe, it is for the homosexual-"marriage" supporters to prove their case that homosexual "marriage" is good, not for us to prove the opposite.

The only true reason that I could state to support the viewpoint that it is wrong, would be that according to the doctrines of my church it is wrong.

Then you may wish to examine the issue more closely and more foundationally until you can understand reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage beyond those of pure religious doctrine.

I have been called a "sheep" and worse for this, but that is my reason for believeing what I believe.

I believe the Savior called all people "sheep". I'm pretty sure he wasn't insulting them, just explaining the truths of human nature. He did not characterize his enemies as "just sheep", nor did he call his followers "better than mere sheep". Rather, he said that the difference was that his followers knew their shepherd and followed his voice.

Yes, I'm a sheep. I seek to follow the voice of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd. You're a sheep, too, whether you want to believe it or not. Whose voice do you follow?

[De_Wallen]

Perhaps I'm misremembering something, or perhaps you are. I don't remember saying anything about fertility or childbearing, so I do not understand the genesis of this argument.

In this I was refering to the argument about the nuclear family as the purpose of marriage. I assumed that you spoke of child bearing and raising, and that this is the purpose of marriage. Meaning that because two woman can have no children, this is why they should not marry. My sincire apology if I misunderstood the meaning.

[Vort]

In this I was refering to the argument about the nuclear family as the purpose of marriage. I assumed that you spoke of child bearing and raising, and that this is the purpose of marriage. Meaning that because two woman can have no children, this is why they should not marry. My sincire apology if I misunderstood the meaning.

Childbearing and childrearing certainly are two good reasons for marriage, but they do not constitute THE reason for marriage. Indeed, as you say, there are childless couples who are unable to conceive, but their marriage is no less valid because of it.

People come in two general types: Male and female. For realistic purposes, there is no middle ground between these two poles; you're one or you're the other. The very perpetuation of the species is dependent on both of these types. The basis of social interaction is the regulation of how we treat each other, and this starts with how men treat women and how women treat men.

Marriage represents the fundamental union of the two poles, and is without doubt the most important relationship in all of society, with the parent/child relationship the only one that even approaches it in importance. Indeed, this is the very reason that marriage was created: To sanction and protect this most holy of all unions between human beings. Boys and girls both NEED to see interaction between father and mother. They NEED to understand the normative relationship between man and woman. They NEED to see their own place in that web of relationships.

Occasionally, this ideal can't be reached. The mother dies in childbirth, or the father dies in an accident, or one dies of illness, or whatever. In such cases, the surviving spouse raises the children (if there are any) as best s/he can, and the rest of the society pitches in to help out and give the kids the extra boost they need because they lack a parent. This is inevitable, and the societal response is good.

But it's another matter entirely when we begin to socially engineer such disastrous circumstances. Single women (or men) adopting?! Homosexual couples adopting?! What on earth are people thinking? Answer: They aren't thinking. They are responding to political pressures and societal trends. They have ignored three hundred thousand years of human societal evolution, and instead have decided to declare by fiat, "We hereby proclaim that two men (or two women) are equally capable of rearing societally healthy children as a normative heterosexual couple. In fact, we hereby declaim the existence of any 'normative' couples."

You might as well declare by fiat that gravity no longer exists.

I have framed this in terms of child-rearing, since that's the issue you raised, but it goes far beyond that. Every facet of our culture is built around or heavily influenced by the necessity and centrality of the male-female marriage bond. To replace that bond is to invite societal degeneration and disaster in a matter of a few generations.

Hope I've explained myself better this time. Thanks for your patience.

[Vort]

Also, I think that maybe I should like to stay in Europe if the rules of god are easier here.

I know you were joking based on what the previous poster had said, but you bring up a good point that merits comment.

Many people see God's commandments as being restrictive limits on our "fun". Latter-day Saints see commandments as a way to happiness. We recognize that God gives us commandments because he loves us. A small child might not understand that when Daddy says "Stay away from that hot stove", it's done out of love, not out of a desire to restrict the child's fun. But it is, as the child discovers when she disobeys Daddy and burns her fingers on the hot stove.

In a book of scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants, God says:

"Yea, blessed are they whose feet stand upon the land of Zion, who have obeyed my gospel; for they shall receive for their reward the good things of the earth, and it shall bring forth in its strength. And they shall also be crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time—they that are faithful and diligent before me." (D&C 59:3-4)

During his mortal ministry, the Lord taught: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) We Latter-day Saints believe, perhaps counterintuitively, that the commandments of God set us free rather than restrict us. As we don't use tobacco, alcohol, or drugs, we are free from enslavement to them and the deadly effects they can have on us. As we avoid adultery and fornications, we are free from unholy desires and the evil effects of those desires and actions.

So joking aside, it's really a tremendous blessing to have more commandments, not fewer. But this is only true if the person actually obeys the commandments; obviously, having a bunch of commandments given that you refuse to obey doesn't do you any good, and in fact puts you in more jeopardy, since you will be ignoring God's counsel.

[De_Wallen]

So joking aside, it's really a tremendous blessing to have more commandments, not fewer.

This is quite interesting. I find that it is quite a commitment to be able to think this way, and help me to understand a bit more about you Vort.

Thank you for your patience.

Thank you for your patience. I am so glad to have been able to create this discussion with you, and others too. I find it is difficult to learn of a religious point of view for my way of life, because most people of faith do not want to say other than that I go to hell, but that is not the case here.

I appreciate all that you share with me, but I think to finish the discussion so people do not think of me as a "one issue kinda gal":lol:

Thanks again to everyone who has discussed with me on this thread.