12 Reasons Why Gays Should Not Be Allowed To Marry

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 25 2004, 08:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 25 2004, 08:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Feb 25 2004, 07:30 PM

Does anyone remember Soddom and Gamorrah(not spelled right)?  That should be it right there! 

Marriage is SACRED, an institution presented and preserved for the building of Family.  Can a homosexual "couple" produce(without adoption) a family?  That would be no.

Please quote the scripture that states that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality.

Also, if marriage is only an institution for the building of a family, why should infertile people be allowed to marry?

I guess you would have to believe God was envolved in the creation of male and female....and the whole Genesis thing.

Like they say....God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 25 2004, 08:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 25 2004, 08:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Feb 25 2004, 07:30 PM

Does anyone remember Soddom and Gamorrah(not spelled right)?  That should be it right there!  

Marriage is SACRED, an institution presented and preserved for the building of Family.  Can a homosexual "couple" produce(without adoption) a family?  That would be no.

Please quote the scripture that states that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality.

Also, if marriage is only an institution for the building of a family, why should infertile people be allowed to marry?

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Genesis 19:1-12 (Inspired Version)

1 And it came to pass, that there came three angels to Sodom in the evening; and Lot sat in the door of his house, in the city of Sodom.

2 And Lot, seeing the angels, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

3 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways.

4 And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

5 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

6 But before they lay down to rest, the men of the city of Sodom compassed the house round, even men which were both old and young, even the people from every quarter;

7 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in unto thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

8 And Lot went out of the door, unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

9 And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him.

10 And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them.

11 Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good.

12 Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom.

As far as your other question, you must not have seen TPD's response up above. But, let me add one thing to it. Infertile people usually don't know they are infertile till some time after they are married and have started to think of having a family, it is then that they find out they are infertile.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 25 2004, 01:09 PM

I would think most people who care about family values would prefer to see homosexuals in monogomous, long term relationships than the promiscuous lifestyles that they are notorious for.

I would think so, too. But that still leaves us with the following questions:

1. Will "gay marriage" serve to channel gays towards "monogomous, long term relationships" and away from the "promiscuous lifestyles that they are notorious for"? From my observations, it seems that those gays who want committed, long-term relationships (mostly women) already have them.

2. Even if there were some such channeling, would any gains be outweighed by the potential downside of further acceptance of alternative sex practices?

Let's say that the current number of gay people who live monogomous lifestyles is 10% (a wild-donkey guess). If "gay marriage" succeeds in channeling 10% of gays away from promiscuous lifestyles, but, by increasing social acceptance of homosexuality, leads to an equivalent 10% increase in the number of people who act on same-sex attractions (i.e. an increase from 5% of the population to 5.5%; I'm using compromise estimates here), what you've done is that for every one gay person you channel away from promiscuity, you've encouraged ten more people to act on gay attractions -- eight of whom will be promiscuous, if the percentages stay the same. So your net gain is -7 people steered away from promiscuity. It's like when Homer Simpson tried to get rich as a sugar magnate.

Of course, my numbers are pretty much pulled out of the air (except for the estimates of the percentage of the population which is actively gay and the percentage of gays who are more or less monogamous). But given the great difference in size between the gay population and the general population, a small percentage change applied to the general population will have a larger absolute effect than a large percentage change applied to the gay population. The numbers would have to be something like a 10% increase in gay monogamy and only a 2% increase in general gay activity for you to see a net decrease in the number of promiscuous gay people. I think that's unlikely.

And that assumes that an increase in gay promiscuity is the only potential downside for "gay marriage." I think a general reinforcement of the ethic that consent is the only basis for evaluating the morality of a sexual practice is a bad thing for society, and I think "gay marriage" would have that effect.

So Curvette, in answer to you, I believe that "gay marriage" is unlikely to be a cost-effective means of delivering the social good you mentioned.

On top of all that, I can't shake the impression that for a large number of "gay marriage" advocates, the movement to impose such an institution on the country (and since a majority of the people will almost certainly continue to oppose it, it will have to be imposed by activist courts in opposition to public sentiment -- a major difference between this issue and desegregation, which a national majority supported), while it may contain many people of good will who are motivated by the concerns you cite, it contains as many or more people who simply want to see the moral consensus in favor of marriage as the sexual ideal further diminished. In short, I think a good number of the "gay marriage" advocates are not acting in good faith, and would not themselves be likely to enter into such "marriages" even if they were recognized.

[sgallan]

**** If something is viewed by society as acceptable, society will get more of that thing. ****

One: Well okay..... if so, I have no real problem that. Once it societally acceptable few will.

Two: Could you become Gay? I couldn't. But from the movie Stripes, "I am willing to learn. Is there a school they send you too?" LOL.... still wouldn't work though. Sadly, I am a flaming heterosexual.

The rest of your argumentation, while good, is Lawyerly rationalization to win a point, or debate. High level spin if you will. I can rationalize anything myself. But I am nonetheless not compelled. Instead I see a person held hostage to a political party, and it's agenda, combined with an in-bred religious paradigm, with the additional factor of being raised in a conservative family in what was once the bastion of California conservatism.... Orange county.

This is all cool. It's part of what makes politics so interesting......

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Feb 25 2004, 08:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Feb 25 2004, 08:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 25 2004, 01:09 PM

I would think most people who care about family values would prefer to see homosexuals in monogomous, long term relationships than the promiscuous lifestyles that they are notorious for.

I would think so, too. But that still leaves us with the following questions:

1. Will "gay marriage" serve to channel gays towards "monogomous, long term relationships" and away from the "promiscuous lifestyles that they are notorious for"? From my observations, it seems that those gays who want committed, long-term relationships (mostly women) already have them.

2. Even if there were some such channeling, would any gains be outweighed by the potential downside of further acceptance of alternative sex practices?

Let's say that the current number of gay people who live monogomous lifestyles is 10% (a wild-donkey guess). If "gay marriage" succeeds in channeling 10% of gays away from promiscuous lifestyles, but, by increasing social acceptance of homosexuality, leads to an equivalent 10% increase in the number of people who act on same-sex attractions (i.e. an increase from 5% of the population to 5.5%; I'm using compromise estimates here), what you've done is that for every one gay person you channel away from promiscuity, you've encouraged ten more people to act on gay attractions -- eight of whom will be promiscuous, if the percentages stay the same. So your net gain is -7 people steered away from promiscuity. It's like when Homer Simpson tried to get rich as a sugar magnate.

Of course, my numbers are pretty much pulled out of the air (except for the estimates of the percentage of the population which is actively gay and the percentage of gays who are more or less monogamous). But given the great difference in size between the gay population and the general population, a small percentage change applied to the general population will have a larger absolute effect than a large percentage change applied to the gay population. The numbers would have to be something like a 10% increase in gay monogamy and only a 2% increase in general gay activity for you to see a net decrease in the number of promiscuous gay people. I think that's unlikely.

And that assumes that an increase in gay promiscuity is the only potential downside for "gay marriage." I think a general reinforcement of the ethic that consent is the only basis for evaluating the morality of a sexual practice is a bad thing for society, and I think "gay marriage" would have that effect.

So Curvette, in answer to you, I believe that "gay marriage" is unlikely to be a cost-effective means of delivering the social good you mentioned.

On top of all that, I can't shake the impression that for a large number of "gay marriage" advocates, the movement to impose such an institution on the country (and since a majority of the people will almost certainly continue to oppose it, it will have to be imposed by activist courts in opposition to public sentiment -- a major difference between this issue and desegregation, which a national majority supported), while it may contain many people of good will who are motivated by the concerns you cite, it contains as many or more people who simply want to see the moral consensus in favor of marriage as the sexual ideal further diminished. In short, I think a good number of the "gay marriage" advocates are not acting in good faith, and would not themselves be likely to enter into such "marriages" even if they were recognized.

PD--you seem to think that social acceptance of gay life style is somehow going to result in greater acceptance of alternate sexual practices. What exactly do you mean?

Do you mean that more people will begin practice homosexuality as a result of the fact that gays can marry? If so, what statistics can you site that indicate this?

If it is refering to some other sexual practices, exactly what practices are these and how are they connected to gays getting married?

Frankly, I don't see how gays getting married is any concern of anyone but GAYS! Just how has it affected YOUR life? How does it damage ANY heterosexual relationship? Are you afraid that the gay lifesyle is so ATTRACTIVE that the rest of us are going to rush out and become GAY?

I predict that someday we will look back at the discrimination against gays the same way we look back at the racial discrimination prohibited blacks and whites from marrying.

[Cal]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Feb 25 2004, 07:30 PM

Let's remember one thing.  Homosexual activity in any sense, in any degree, is abominable before God.  The purpose of marriage is for the sanctity of Celestial progression.  Does anyone remember Soddom and Gamorrah(not spelled right)?  That should be it right there!  Now, do I think there should be a law prohibiting them from such activity as marriage.  That's tough, one thing we must all do is ask, do we allow drinking, smoking, gambling, pornography...etc?  The answer to the latter is yes.  So one hand you would have to say "Should we take away the rights to things that don't damage us personally?"  However, as Latter-Day Saints we must stand with our conviction.  Marriage is SACRED, an institution presented and preserved for the building of Family.  Can a homosexual "couple" produce(without adoption) a family?  That would be no.  Can a homosexual "couple" be married in the Temple for all eternity...no.  Can a homosexual(male) couple hold the priesthood while practicing said sexual lifestyle?  The answer again is no.  If we are to break through the barrier of Satan's influence we must prevent the opportunity of promoting and further recognizing homosexuality as a union of sorts before ever festering beyond control of the means by which it was brought forth.  In short all man has the agency to live WITHIN the law, part of that agency is to MORALLY influence through process of Democracy, that which the LAW entails.

Yeah, God made them that way, but, by golly, he's going to punish them for being what they are

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Feb 25 2004, 08:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Feb 25 2004, 08:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 25 2004, 01:09 PM

I would think most people who care about family values would prefer to see homosexuals in monogomous, long term relationships than the promiscuous lifestyles that they are notorious for.

I would think so, too. But that still leaves us with the following questions:

1. Will "gay marriage" serve to channel gays towards "monogomous, long term relationships" and away from the "promiscuous lifestyles that they are notorious for"? From my observations, it seems that those gays who want committed, long-term relationships (mostly women) already have them.

2. Even if there were some such channeling, would any gains be outweighed by the potential downside of further acceptance of alternative sex practices?

Let's say that the current number of gay people who live monogomous lifestyles is 10% (a wild-donkey guess). If "gay marriage" succeeds in channeling 10% of gays away from promiscuous lifestyles, but, by increasing social acceptance of homosexuality, leads to an equivalent 10% increase in the number of people who act on same-sex attractions (i.e. an increase from 5% of the population to 5.5%; I'm using compromise estimates here), what you've done is that for every one gay person you channel away from promiscuity, you've encouraged ten more people to act on gay attractions -- eight of whom will be promiscuous, if the percentages stay the same. So your net gain is -7 people steered away from promiscuity. It's like when Homer Simpson tried to get rich as a sugar magnate.

Of course, my numbers are pretty much pulled out of the air (except for the estimates of the percentage of the population which is actively gay and the percentage of gays who are more or less monogamous). But given the great difference in size between the gay population and the general population, a small percentage change applied to the general population will have a larger absolute effect than a large percentage change applied to the gay population. The numbers would have to be something like a 10% increase in gay monogamy and only a 2% increase in general gay activity for you to see a net decrease in the number of promiscuous gay people. I think that's unlikely.

And that assumes that an increase in gay promiscuity is the only potential downside for "gay marriage." I think a general reinforcement of the ethic that consent is the only basis for evaluating the morality of a sexual practice is a bad thing for society, and I think "gay marriage" would have that effect.

So Curvette, in answer to you, I believe that "gay marriage" is unlikely to be a cost-effective means of delivering the social good you mentioned.

On top of all that, I can't shake the impression that for a large number of "gay marriage" advocates, the movement to impose such an institution on the country (and since a majority of the people will almost certainly continue to oppose it, it will have to be imposed by activist courts in opposition to public sentiment -- a major difference between this issue and desegregation, which a national majority supported), while it may contain many people of good will who are motivated by the concerns you cite, it contains as many or more people who simply want to see the moral consensus in favor of marriage as the sexual ideal further diminished. In short, I think a good number of the "gay marriage" advocates are not acting in good faith, and would not themselves be likely to enter into such "marriages" even if they were recognized.

PD-I don't have time right now to respond to everything you have said but:

1) What exactly do you think gay marriage imposes on the rest of us?

IMHO opinion gays just want to be left to enjoy the same right to cohabitaion and protections under the law as the rest of us. How does that impose on YOU?

2) What exactly do you mean when you imply that gay marriage is going to somehow encourage other alternate sexual practices? What are they? And what is the connection to gay marriage.

3) Who is being damaged by gays getting married? As cuvy said, it encourages them to have more stable relationships. Your speculation that it encourages some other kind of aberant behavior is just that, speculation. Unless you have some hard statistics to connect gay marriage to any other aberant and socially damaging behavior, maybe you should rethink your position.

IMHO someday we will look back and see that discrimination against gay marriage will fall into the same category and the discrimination that prevented blacks and white from marrying.

[Cal]

PD-you have yet to provide any real basis for saying that gay marriage will lead to any other kind of sexual practices. Can you provide some examples of what you are talking about?

[Cal]

PD--ban gay marriage? And while we are at it, lets go back and reinstate the laws against blacks and whites marrying--if I recall my history, there was every bit as much uproar over this as there is gay marriage, and probably more.

[Guest Starsky]

I think that okaying gay marriages is just one more step in the progressive steps to illiminating identifications of sin which has been the agenda for several modern decades....

It has happened before...like in Pompai....as well as the ancient Sodom and Gamorah.

Once all things are rationalized into acceptence.....there is no boundaries, no safety, no respect, and no black and white....all muddy gray.

It is clearly taught in the BofM that we need both good and evil. Once you remove the concept of 'evil' out of the people's minds and teachings and life styles.....you remove God completely.

I believe it is a totaly oxymoron to say someone is a Godfearing Gay.

Be all the tolerant you please...but it will not bring you to the place you think it will.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 25 2004, 08:39 PM

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Genesis 19:1-12 (Inspired Version)

1 And it came to pass, that there came three angels to Sodom in the evening; and Lot sat in the door of his house, in the city of Sodom.

2 And Lot, seeing the angels, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

3 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways.

4 And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.

5 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

6 But before they lay down to rest, the men of the city of Sodom compassed the house round, even men which were both old and young, even the people from every quarter;

7 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in unto thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

8 And Lot went out of the door, unto them, and shut the door after him, and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

9 And they said unto him, Stand back. And they were angry with him.

10 And they said among themselves, This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them.

11 Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do with them as seemeth us good.

12 Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom.

As far as your other question, you must not have seen TPD's response up above. But, let me add one thing to it. Infertile people usually don't know they are infertile till some time after they are married and have started to think of having a family, it is then that they find out they are infertile.

I'm not advocating gay marriage, but I have some questions about the reasons people are so opposed to it. I still don't see any scripture that states that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. Fornication exists in hetro and homosexual relationships. "Strange" means "foreign" in Biblical language, not "same". In the Genesis account, God had already decided to destroy the city when this event happened. The people were obviously depraved and deserved God's wrath. They wanted to rape whatever they could get their hands on. I agree that there are scriptures that specifically state that a man sexually lying with a man is an abomination. But I can't see the specific condemnation of homosexuality in the Sodom and Gomorrah story. I see condemnation of a depraved, evil society who had no regard for other human beings (or even angels!)

[Outshined]

You know, I live in the area with the second-highest per-capita population of homosexuals in the country. Among the gay couples I know, the issue of same-sex marriage is a much smaller issue than it is among "outsiders". They just don't seem to care if they get legally married or not.

I believe this has become such an issue because it is an election year, and someone needed a hot-button topic.....

[porterrockwell]

Wow, unfortunately some of you are misssing the point. One, God didn't make anyone gay...that is a very sad suggestion. Whether or not that is a temptation a person must deal with is another story; but no more a temtptation than I have to keep my pants on when I meet a chick who wants to get at it between the sheets. Homosexuality is wrong, not because we are discriminatory or biggots of any sort, but because the Lord has brought forth as much concerning this grievous sin. Being that the Lord has asked OBEDIENCE of us that kind of ends the argument on whether it is right or not. As far as rights go, why would you want an act that is not recognized by God to be legalized. Wouldn't that make you a social token? I thought the "homosexual movement" was trying to move out of the shadows of novelty and obscurity and into "normalcy"(for lack of a better phrase). Anyway, if you asking me whether or not I think it should be allowed. That is based purely on my conviction as a Latter-Day Saint. I would never IMPOSE anything on someone because I believe freedom to choose is key, however, democracy is the voice of the VOTE. Therefore I would much rather see such practices of homosexuality nullified. Remember, when you stand before the Judgement Bar of God, do you really want to be known to have supported acts of abomination. Affiliation or association with any such movements is getting too close to the line, and that is what the adversary wants. Also, merely opposing in standard is not biggotry, persacution and hate is biggotry. I don't hate those who "think" they are homosexual, however, I ABHOR that sin...just as the Lord does. I would hope to see all those caught in that web break free and find their true calling within the Lord's church...His Kingdom on Earth.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 25 2004, 10:05 PM

**** If something is viewed by society as acceptable, society will get more of that thing. ****

One: Well okay..... if so, I have no real problem that. Once it societally acceptable few will.

Two: Could you become Gay? I couldn't. But from the movie Stripes, "I am willing to learn. Is there a school they send you too?" LOL.... still wouldn't work though. Sadly, I am a flaming heterosexual.

The rest of your argumentation, while good, is Lawyerly rationalization to win a point, or debate. High level spin if you will. I can rationalize anything myself. But I am nonetheless not compelled. Instead I see a person held hostage to a political party, and it's agenda, combined with an in-bred religious paradigm, with the additional factor of being raised in a conservative family in what was once the bastion of California conservatism.... Orange county.

This is all cool. It's part of what makes politics so interesting......

Arguments first, analysis of my subconscious "hostage" status second.

Two: Could you become Gay? I couldn't. But from the movie Stripes, "I am willing to learn. Is there a school they send you too?" LOL.... still wouldn't work though. Sadly, I am a flaming heterosexual.

As I am now, I don't think I could, either. If my early sexual development had taken a different course, who knows. Any further detail would probably provide WAY too much information to be posted on a message board.

But isn't it reasonable to conclude that some people who identify themselves as gay could be physically attracted to members of the opposite sex? Look at the co-founder of Word Perfect, who decided he liked men after fathering a family. Clearly at least some, er, parts of some gay men are capable of arousal by women.

Likewise, doesn't the existence of bisexuality support the idea that some people are attracted to either sex? Or, to put it more crudely, that plenty of men would screw a snake if someone held it straight for them?

Isn't it possible that some people, who felt somewhat physically attracted to both men and women, might choose to pursue one attraction over the other as a result of social conditioning or moral conviction?

In other words, I think it's likely that while there probably is a small core of effeminate men who are so hard-wired that way that they would never be attracted to a woman (I think my old singles ward had a couple of these guys), there's a larger group who's capable of going either way, under particular circumstances. (And some of them do!) As I said, I think society's outlook is a significant factor for this fence-sitting group.

As for characterizing my arguments as "high level spin," I guess I'm flattered; the partner I work for spends most of every other day telling me how low level my spin is. I'm a little surprised you'd consider me held "hostage" to caricatured Orange County conservativism, having been around so long. (Is there anyone on these boards who's been around as long as we have?) Most people at BYU and my extended family considered me fairly liberal with respect to religion. Some people on these boards would probably agree. I think for myself, not some "agenda" (it's curious that one's own ideas are "principles" and the other side's are its "agenda!").

Part of the disadvantage my side has in this debate is that we've only recently had to articulate the practical grounds for positions that, only a decade or so, pretty much everyone took for granted. Where was the press for gay marriage in the liberal decade of the 1970s? The idea was a non-starter, because the worth of marriage as currently constituted was considered so long proven that long, thoughtful defenses weren't necessary.

But now, here comes the other side, simply slapping a "civil rights" sticker on their position and expecting the rest of the country to roll over and accept, or be branded bigots and have our arguments dismissed as mere rationalizations. Marriage, I think, is one of those things like courage or patriotism that is strongest when least analyzed: it's a good thing, period. But make us defend it, and argue against what we consider to be ill-advised proposed changes to it, and our arguments must necessarily be long and involved, because so many practical arguments over the years have gone into making marriage as unquestionably good an institution as it was once considered. We have to unpack those centuries of experience, and restate the arguments. That's a lot harder to do, and harder to keep an audience interested in, than simple slogans about "civil rights" and "people who love each other."

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 25 2004, 10:17 PM

2) What exactly do you mean when you imply that gay marriage is going to somehow encourage other alternate sexual practices? What are they? And what is the connection to gay marriage.

IMHO someday we will look back and see that discrimination against gay marriage will fall into the same category and the discrimination that prevented blacks and white from marrying.

I don't know that it has a direct link to alt. sexual practices but if homosexuality is like anyother thing in the world, then publicizing it, encouraging it, making it easier, glamorizing it, etc, leads to a wider adoption of it. Think of tobacco and alcohol and consider how the image of them that is presented affects the use of them. They say you can't make a straight gay or vice-versa, but when don't you think that a breakdown of sexual mores leads to promiscuous lifestyles. It is quite the rage in certain circles for girls to have lesbian relationships with other girls, even though they aren't really homosexual, it's just for kicks, just for the fun of it.

3) Who is being damaged by gays getting married?

That's not the way I would look at it. I would say that society has a vested interest in promoting and protecting and entitling certain kinds of institutions. In this case that would be institutions that tend to create the best citizenry possible. It can be argued that standard, man-woman, nuclear families, on balance, are more likely to produce a stable, law-abiding, well-adjusted, population than are, say, child farms ran by an all-male staff. If it is true that traditional marriages produce, on balance, the best citizenry, then society should protect, and encourage it.

I am not saying that it is absolutely true, but I have never seen evidence, scientific or antedoctal that gay unions are as likely to produce as good a citizenry as tradition unions. Since it is our traditional accepted model that is being changed, I think some burden of proof is in order to change it.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 25 2004, 10:23 PM

ban gay marriage? And while we are at it, lets go back and reinstate the laws against blacks and whites marrying--if I recall my history, there was every bit as much uproar over this as there is gay marriage, and probably more.

What about the two do you think is analogous?

[sgallan]

**** In other words, I think it's likely that while there probably is a small core of effeminate men who are so hard-wired that way that they would never be attracted to a woman (I think my old singles ward had a couple of these guys), there's a larger group who's capable of going either way, under particular circumstances. (And some of them do!) As I said, I think society's outlook is a significant factor for this fence-sitting group. *****

I think you have your groups reversed. The far larger group is NOT capable of going either way. Even when they try. Clifford and the late Michael are very illustrative of this. Both raised in the same 70's era as me. Clifford raised in Bible Belt Arkansas, to this day is not effeminate. And when young he had an "older" women take him under wing to "teach" him. Yet despite this, despite the effeminate thing, despite being raised in a cultural that frowns on such things (perhaps even more than Utah), he nonetheless is Gay, and has always been gay, in an attraction sort of way. In a sexual way as soon as he reached that age. Michael was a little more on the swishy side. To the point you might wonder. But not to the point you would know for sure. This was especially true before he came out. Even after he came out, he had girls trying to "change" him. He was quite the looker. He even lived with a girl at one point. But he was what he was.

See so many get lost in the screwing part of the debate and forget that this is an attraction issue. The sex is just what committed couples like to do. I mean men have sex in prisons all of the time. With other men, perhaps even a snake if it wanders through. But while they may be participating in homosexual sexual activity, they are NOT really homosexuals. It's the difference between a heavy drinker and a true alcoholic.... if you will. So this is where the civil rights part comes in. For whatever reason this is how they are wired. They just want to be left to live their lives like the rest of us. Without the harrassments. Without having to spend major amounts of money to protect themselves and their property in the case of the death of the other one. To be able to work without threat of dismissal. You know..... they want to be treated like humans.... versus the deviants so many of the social conservatives would like. And for the record.... save the HIV scourge..... most Gays I know do not have a problem with being Gay. Especially now that so much of the hassle, and persecution has been taken out. It's what they are and many to most are living rich rewarding lives. Now if the occasional fence sitting bi-sexual goes Gay (more common in women)..... so what? I have a kid. If that's what ended up happening.... while not my first hope.... I still wouldn't have an issue with it.

Oh, and I'll concede this point...... in comparison to more TBM type LDS, you are indeed an almost flaming liberal!

[sgallan]

**** I think for myself, not some "agenda" (it's curious that one's own ideas are "principles" and the other side's are its "agenda!"). ****

On this, most people who are active card carrying members of a political party have an agenda.... that of their (or at least a wing of their) political party. It is NOT just you crazy right wingers. ;-)

[Cal]

Originally posted by sgallan@Feb 26 2004, 03:58 PM

**** In other words, I think it's likely that while there probably is a small core of effeminate men who are so hard-wired that way that they would never be attracted to a woman (I think my old singles ward had a couple of these guys), there's a larger group who's capable of going either way, under particular circumstances. (And some of them do!) As I said, I think society's outlook is a significant factor for this fence-sitting group. *****

I think you have your groups reversed. The far larger group is NOT capable of going either way. Even when they try. Clifford and the late Michael are very illustrative of this. Both raised in the same 70's era as me. Clifford raised in Bible Belt Arkansas, to this day is not effeminate. And when young he had an "older" women take him under wing to "teach" him. Yet despite this, despite the effeminate thing, despite being raised in a cultural that frowns on such things (perhaps even more than Utah), he nonetheless is Gay, and has always been gay, in an attraction sort of way. In a sexual way as soon as he reached that age. Michael was a little more on the swishy side. To the point you might wonder. But not to the point you would know for sure. This was especially true before he came out. Even after he came out, he had girls trying to "change" him. He was quite the looker. He even lived with a girl at one point. But he was what he was.

See so many get lost in the screwing part of the debate and forget that this is an attraction issue. The sex is just what committed couples like to do. I mean men have sex in prisons all of the time. With other men, perhaps even a snake if it wanders through. But while they may be participating in homosexual sexual activity, they are NOT really homosexuals. It's the difference between a heavy drinker and a true alcoholic.... if you will. So this is where the civil rights part comes in. For whatever reason this is how they are wired. They just want to be left to live their lives like the rest of us. Without the harrassments. Without having to spend major amounts of money to protect themselves and their property in the case of the death of the other one. To be able to work without threat of dismissal. You know..... they want to be treated like humans.... versus the deviants so many of the social conservatives would like. And for the record.... save the HIV scourge..... most Gays I know do not have a problem with being Gay. Especially now that so much of the hassle, and persecution has been taken out. It's what they are and many to most are living rich rewarding lives. Now if the occasional fence sitting bi-sexual goes Gay (more common in women)..... so what? I have a kid. If that's what ended up happening.... while not my first hope.... I still wouldn't have an issue with it.

Oh, and I'll concede this point...... in comparison to more TBM type LDS, you are indeed an almost flaming liberal!

sgallan--that was an excellent posting--you particularly made a good point when you said that it is not just about sex. The attraction thing is clearly NOT something a person can do anything about.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Feb 25 2004, 11:39 PM

I think that okaying gay marriages is just one more step in the progressive steps to illiminating identifications of sin which has been the agenda for several modern decades....

It has happened before...like in Pompai....as well as the ancient Sodom and Gamorah.

Once all things are rationalized into acceptence.....there is no boundaries, no safety, no respect, and no black and white....all muddy gray.

It is clearly taught in the BofM that we need both good and evil. Once you remove the concept of 'evil' out of the people's minds and teachings and life styles.....you remove God completely.

I believe it is a totaly oxymoron to say someone is a Godfearing Gay.

Be all the tolerant you please...but it will not bring you to the place you think it will.

Peace--do you actually think that God would make it a sin to be something that HE, the very creator of all of us, made. For example, he made you heterosexual (I assume). How would you feel if, all of a sudden, God made being heterosexual a sin?

[Guest Starsky]

I don't think it is how anyone is wired...physically, but phsycologically, possibly.

There is a few stages in our developing years where our bodies become very interesting to ourselves.

One is early on when we are less than 1 year old.

Another is when we are changing from child to teen.

I believe that it is during these times when something happens to disrupt normal forward movement into being interested in the opposite sex, that homosexuals are 'created'.

It has been just announced (again) that a study proved that there was significant biological changes caused by patients who took placebos instead of an actual drug.....and these changes were exactly the same as what the drug would produce.

The finding was that just the 'thought' that they were taking a drug that was to do thus and so....caused thus and so to happen.

So the power of our minds....how we perceive ourselves, how we are made to feel about ourselves, by experience or lack of it....can actually creat who we become.

As a man thinketh in his heart....so is he.

Putting this into the context of human developement...from new born (and even inside the womb) to adult, many things can be placebo effects on our biological out look...

[Outshined]

I have to agree with Peace. My wife's brother did not "become" gay until he was in his early 30's. He had been married for ten years, had two children, and decided he liked men instead.

Even now, he says he just decided one day that he preferred men. Until then it had never crossed his mind.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 27 2004, 07:25 AM

I have to agree with Peace. My wife's brother did not "become" gay until he was in his early 30's. He had been married for ten years, had two children, and decided he liked men instead.

Even now, he says he just decided one day that he preferred men. Until then it had never crossed his mind.

Well, there you go--proof positive.

Oh, and by the way, I have a brother who was a devout Mormon (served mission, temple marriage, member of a bishopric for several years). One day he just up and decided it was all a sham and quit the church. Go figure.

[Outshined]

Yes, your brother made a decision, just as my brother-in-law did. He wasn't BORN Mormon or non-Mormon, he made his own choices.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 27 2004, 07:56 AM

Yes, your brother made a decision, just as my brother-in-law did. He wasn't BORN Mormon or non-Mormon, he made his own choices.

Oh, but he WAS born a Mormon. You'ld be wont to meet another more heavily dyed in the wool.