Continuing revelation in action.

[Soulsearcher]

It seems that you're giving up and giving in to that which will corrupt society in the end. While there are many who are thriving in less than ideal situations because of the host of situations that create it (my own kids, for example, live with their mom because of my actions so I'm not a saint here by any means), to say because that's what you believe is prevalent seems to say "well, since we can't have it, there's no use living for it." There are some things worth fighting for. Marriage and complete families, I believe, are one of them.

I'm a realist. The kids you say I can't adopt aren't being adopted by the perfect family. Are you adopting them? If all these kids have their perfect loving family why are they still looking for a family? I know what the ideal is, keep working for it, but while you work there are kids who need families. I want you to be able and look at them and say " you are 100% better off with no home than a gay home" Tell them you don't care enough to adopt them and give them a home, but you will deny the people who are willing cause they aren't your ideal. Shall we remove your kids from their mother because that home isn't ideal and put them in the system being only the ideal is really worth the effort and settling for anything in between is just a corruption? You keep fighting for family and marriage, I'll keep worrying about the kids who people keep forgetting while they fight their moral battle. Until every person telling me I am not a fit parent adopts one or more of these kids i pretty much think they can keep quiet. Take action then speak other wise it's just empty bravado really.

[slamjet]

I'm a realist. The kids you say I can't adopt aren't being adopted by the perfect family. Are you adopting them? If all these kids have their perfect loving family why are they still looking for a family? I know what the ideal is, keep working for it, but while you work there are kids who need families. I want you to be able and look at them and say " you are 100% better off with no home than a gay home" Tell them you don't care enough to adopt them and give them a home, but you will deny the people who are willing cause they aren't your ideal. Shall we remove your kids from their mother because that home isn't ideal and put them in the system being only the ideal is really worth the effort and settling for anything in between is just a corruption? You keep fighting for family and marriage, I'll keep worrying about the kids who people keep forgetting while they fight their moral battle. Until every person telling me I am not a fit parent adopts one or more of these kids i pretty much think they can keep quiet. Take action then speak other wise it's just empty bravado really.

I stood on a corner with prop 8 signs, three times. Does that count? Actually, as I re-read my post, I'm dangerously starting to sound like Bert10 :eek: My apologies if it came off as judgmental.

As for families, there is something to be said about children being in a loving environment other than in state run systems. I need to think and ponder on this more before I jump on anyone. But for me, I'd love to adopt. But my past actions will preclude me from ever having the chance.

[Soulsearcher]

I stood on a corner with prop 8 signs, three times. Does that count? Actually, as I re-read my post, I'm dangerously starting to sound like Bert10 :eek: My apologies if it came off as judgmental.

As for families, there is something to be said about children being in a loving environment other than in state run systems. I need to think and ponder on this more before I jump on anyone. But for me, I'd love to adopt. But my past actions will preclude me from ever having the chance.

I look at it this way, you have had your past and made mistakes, but you love your kids and still get time with them. As you said you are no saint, but you are trying to be the best you can be from what it seems. Now imagine, by the moral extremes some people see this argument in, because you can no longer provide the perfect family for your kids you a)should never see your kids again, and b) should never have more kids cause you failed your first ones. the trouble with only accepting the ideal as an absolute is that those that fall short of the ideal are marginalized and dismissed even though they are very real and may actually make up the majority. Me and a partner might not be the most ideal best perfect family out there, but to think we wouldn't put our all into a child and do the absolute best and fall very short of the mark just cause we are gay seems a lil silly. One comment was made about gay parents adopting. With all the extra hoops and examination and always being under a microscope, when a gay couple does adopt you know it's for the right reasons cause for them to go through all that they really want that kid to take care of other wise they'd just get a dog and be done with it.

Also a reminder as a gay guy i had to step in and help raise 5 kids off and on for over a decade cause their straight temple going father just couldn't be bothered as he was preying on teenagers. I put in a lot of time and effort and heart into those kids when their father wouldn't. There's a reason i got called daddy, we can do it, maybe not perfect, but we have more to offer than some might think.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[slamjet]

a)should never see your kids again...

b) should never have more kids cause you failed your first ones.

I've already been told this.

Thank you for explaining more. I now have a clearer understand of your position and understand your stance much better. I'll have to adjust my thinking and opinion on the matter of gay adoptions to be more sympathetic not only to include the humanity side of the couple, but the placement of the children who would not have a chance in a loving environment in the first place.

Also a reminder as a gay guy i had to step in and help raise 5 kids off and on for over a decade cause their straight temple going father just couldn't be bothered as he was preying on teenagers. I put in a lot of time and effort and heart into those kids when their father wouldn't. There's a reason i got called daddy, we can do it, maybe not perfect, but we have more to offer than some might think.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance because I don't know any gay couples who have adopted children (grew up next door to a gay couple, but they adopted dogs). It's difficult at times for me to temper the teachings of the Church, the Family Proclamation and keep a sense of humanity for the gay community and their plight. I tend to be kind-of black and white on issues and am still learning to live and accept the gray areas in between. I still feel a strong need to be a proponent of traditional marriage and families. However, I should accept that, as you said, the ideals taught to me are not always the available norm. As much as I'd like them to be, I need to accept that there is a more complex world out there and there are blessings to be had even though it's not 100% within the Gospel guidelines.

I don't think any of this makes sense, but I'm going to have to brain my way through this. Thanks for your insight.

[Soulsearcher]

I've already been told this.

Thank you for explaining more. I now have a clearer understand of your position and understand your stance much better. I'll have to adjust my thinking and opinion on the matter of gay adoptions to be more sympathetic not only to include the humanity side of the couple, but the placement of the children who would not have a chance in a loving environment in the first place.

You'll have to forgive my ignorance because I don't know any gay couples who have adopted children (grew up next door to a gay couple, but they adopted dogs). It's difficult at times for me to temper the teachings of the Church, the Family Proclamation and keep a sense of humanity for the gay community and their plight. I tend to be kind-of black and white on issues and am still learning to live and accept the gray areas in between. I still feel a strong need to be a proponent of traditional marriage and families. However, I should accept that, as you said, the ideals taught to me are not always the available norm. As much as I'd like them to be, I need to accept that there is a more complex world out there and there are blessings to be had even though it's not 100% within the Gospel guidelines.

I don't think any of this makes sense, but I'm going to have to brain my way through this. Thanks for your insight.

You do make sense, and you actually show some of the misconception that many on the religious side have, and not in a bad way. Many see homosexuals making a direct attack on their morals and their convictions, trying to force them to change and such. It's not really what's going on. We tend to fight for ourselves. I don't want to lose my home or job cause I'm gay. I don't want to be denied the chance to spend my life with the one person i love and be protected while being together. I want the option of trying to be able for me and a partner to bring a child into a home and love that child and give that child a chance they might not otherwise have. These aren't meant as attacks, just wanting a better, healthier, more peaceful life. I understand they go against what many see as right, but in reality they don't directly affect people. You can still point and call us names and point out our evil and sin. Can still tell us what's wrong with us, but now we can find a lil peace while you do it. It's not meant to harm or belittle your faith, it's not personal against you, not meant to deprive you in any way, just meant to let me be just a lil bit happy.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[slamjet]

You do make sense, and you actually show some of the misconception that many on the religious side have, and not in a bad way. Many see homosexuals making a direct attack on their morals and their convictions, trying to force them to change and such. It's not really what's going on. We tend to fight for ourselves. I don't want to lose my home or job cause I'm gay. I don't want to be denied the chance to spend my life with the one person i love and be protected while being together. I want the option of trying to be able for me and a partner to bring a child into a home and love that child and give that child a chance they might not otherwise have. These aren't meant as attacks, just wanting a better, healthier, more peaceful life. I understand they go against what many see as right, but in reality they don't directly affect people. You can still point and call us names and point out our evil and sin. Can still tell us what's wrong with us, but now we can fins a lil peace while you do it. It's not meant to harm or belittle your faith, it's not personal against you, not meant to deprive you in any way, just meant to let me be just a lil bit happy.

I took your posts as "don't react, think about it" (believe me when I say it takes a lot more than what you posted to offend me). I've dealt with people who have been fighting their sexuality to try to stay in the "norm" and loosing their battles. I know that on more than one occasion I've told gay individuals they need to stop being what their parents want and live their own life. However, I've never given it any deep thought on the matter of homosexual couple and child rearing. You're posts gave me the chance to do just that. And I appreciate it.

[Traveler]

To be honest i don't see a value in traditional marriage right now. I'm not trying to be obnoxious or argumentative when i say it. At one point i did see the value. My parents have been married 35 years and only one of my relatives has ever been divorced. I've seen great marriages and they serve great purpose to the people into them, but I'm not seeing the value to society this day and age. I know more single parents and divorced families than i do people like my family. Important and valuable to me is where your bias is. The world has changed, and i know it's not in a way you like and you wish you could turn back the clock to when marriage was the building block of society. Sadly those days are gone, time has evolved and new realities have developed. Can traditional marriages produce great things yes, but those great things are no longer limited to a man and a woman. I have worked with so many amazing kids from single parent families where the second parent was never there or was better off not being there. I've watched divorces decimate children after years of parents doing all they can to be the perfect traditional family at the cost of their souls.

The only good and important thing i see in marriage right now is what it means to two people who commit to it. Two people trying to commit their lives to the other for what they hope to be the rest of their lives. In this way yes i see gay marriage just as important and valuable.

I know you won't like this view but it's my honest view on things. I'm not trying to tear down the importance of marriage, but the ideal of the traditional is long over, and I'm not sure if i'm happy about that, but i've accepted it.

Very interesting points. I can see your viewpoint - that is not to say that I agree but I do understand.

However, there are things that remain of concern to me. I realize that there are always exceptions but children of single family homes are more likely to become involved with crime, more likely to live in poverty and less likely to be literate and educated and skilled job wise. We know that drug use is much more common in dysfunctional families than it is families with good communications.

In the book "Frekonomics" a parallel is drawn between abortions and the drop in crime. The correlation comes because most abortions accrue outside of traditional family relationships which would have resulted in a child more likely to be involved in crime. Interesting.

In the Book "Generations" we look at history to see the evolution of generation and what the current trends are following.

You are suggestion the world has changed - my response to you is that is has not changed - it is the same pattern we have seen at other points in history. There is a saying about what happens when we do not learn the lessons of history. One of the tenants of LDS theology is that the family is the core foundation of stable society. My point is that we are entering into conditions where the stability of the family is more important and not less.

When we speak of that which is sustainable - if we are to survive the current cycle and trend - I submit that preparation of the next generation is more critical now than it ever has been in the history of the USA. And generation X is the most focused ME generation the USA has even seen - even education is preparing our next children with less skills to cope than any of the industrial nations on earth.

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

I took your posts as "don't react, think about it" (believe me when I say it takes a lot more than what you posted to offend me). I've dealt with people who have been fighting their sexuality to try to stay in the "norm" and loosing their battles. I know that on more than one occasion I've told gay individuals they need to stop being what their parents want and live their own life. However, I've never given it any deep thought on the matter of homosexual couple and child rearing. You're posts gave me the chance to do just that. And I appreciate it.

I tried to live in the norm trying to be what everyone wanted me to be for 30 years. It's cost me a lot. At 32 i finally left everything behind to try and just be me. I don't know how to find a date, i don't know the rules to the culture. I'm considered too old by many, with no experience I'm a joke. It's not easy, it's not a life i would have really picked, but it's what i have. I've lost the kids i helped raise, the one closest to me disowned me a few weeks ago because she couldn't take my lifestyle, and i told her i was proud that she held to her values so strongly. I wasn't dating anyone or sleeping around, i was just taking care of myself and being more aware of my appearance, but it was enough for her to think poorly of my choices and walked away. I'm not really worried about marriage or adoption being I'm to scared of public perception to even ask a guy out on a date, but it bothers me a lot to know how many people are devoting so much energy to make sure i never even have the choice once i make progress enough to want to think about those things. I like how you finished you last post because people have asked why i bother being here, people see me one way and it's never going to change. Most of my friends think i'm here just out of self loathing, but i kinda hope now and then i might just get a few people too look at the human side, the actual people rather than the broad strokes, the gray between the white and the black.

[Soulsearcher]

Very interesting points. I can see your viewpoint - that is not to say that I agree but I do understand.

However, there are things that remain of concern to me. I realize that there are always exceptions but children of single family homes are more likely to become involved with crime, more likely to live in poverty and less likely to be literate and educated and skilled job wise. We know that drug use is much more common in dysfunctional families than it is families with good communications.

In the book "Frekonomics" a parallel is drawn between abortions and the drop in crime. The correlation comes because most abortions accrue outside of traditional family relationships which would have resulted in a child more likely to be involved in crime. Interesting.

In the Book "Generations" we look at history to see the evolution of generation and what the current trends are following.

You are suggestion the world has changed - my response to you is that is has not changed - it is the same pattern we have seen at other points in history. There is a saying about what happens when we do not learn the lessons of history. One of the tenants of LDS theology is that the family is the core foundation of stable society. My point is that we are entering into conditions where the stability of the family is more important and not less.

When we speak of that which is sustainable - if we are to survive the current cycle and trend - I submit that preparation of the next generation is more critical now than it ever has been in the history of the USA. And generation X is the most focused ME generation the USA has even seen - even education is preparing our next children with less skills to cope than any of the industrial nations on earth.

The Traveler

All good points. The only issue i have is that while i respect LDS tenants, i do not desire to live by them. I don't wish to alter them or deny any LDS the right to live by them and teach what they will to their own children. That being said i would wish that the same respect could be given. One comment i always hear is that gays are anti family, and anti christian. The fact is the majority tend to be neither. We don't support the traditions yet it doesn't mean we wish to strike them down, just be given the same respect of choice that is given to those who have made a choice to follow a particular faith. I've asked many if they would be willing to live under a moral code other than their own, to be forced to live by a code they can not in good faith follow. The majority of homosexuals have absolutely no desire to stop you from living your faith or interfere with anyone's faith and teachings. Teach what a strong family is, teach how to raise children and teach how to keep passing these things on. The only request we tend to have is let us be. We know how you feel, we know you don't like it, but don't try to make us you. We tend to just ask the same respect. We ask for legal protections, we are still going to be less than 10% ( probably closer to 1-2% of all marriages/unions), and that's that. the churches can believe what they want, teach what they want, but if you aren't required to live as a catholic, or jew or muslim, if you are free enough to live your moral code, why would you ever force it on someone else when you value that freedom so much?

[Traveler]

All good points. The only issue i have is that while i respect LDS tenants, i do not desire to live by them. I don't wish to alter them or deny any LDS the right to live by them and teach what they will to their own children. That being said i would wish that the same respect could be given. One comment i always hear is that gays are anti family, and anti christian. The fact is the majority tend to be neither. We don't support the traditions yet it doesn't mean we wish to strike them down, just be given the same respect of choice that is given to those who have made a choice to follow a particular faith. I've asked many if they would be willing to live under a moral code other than their own, to be forced to live by a code they can not in good faith follow. The majority of homosexuals have absolutely no desire to stop you from living your faith or interfere with anyone's faith and teachings. Teach what a strong family is, teach how to raise children and teach how to keep passing these things on. The only request we tend to have is let us be. We know how you feel, we know you don't like it, but don't try to make us you. We tend to just ask the same respect. We ask for legal protections, we are still going to be less than 10% ( probably closer to 1-2% of all marriages/unions), and that's that. the churches can believe what they want, teach what they want, but if you aren't required to live as a catholic, or jew or muslim, if you are free enough to live your moral code, why would you ever force it on someone else when you value that freedom so much?

Most often, my friend I do not like to get technical but in this case I must. For whatever reason technical details are not considered important by many individuals, especially in forming personal opinions. Thus I doubt what I say will have any impact. With that in mind I will proceed regardless. Scientist has developed theories and methods to predict the outcome from changes in a complex system. The basis of these theories and methods is Chaos Theory. In short it is called Chaos Theory because once a change has altered the complex system there is no way to fix it or put it back.

In general we have learned that if an actual and real benefit cannot be established prior to the change - we are well advised not instituting the change at all. The models of Chaos Theory use mathematical fractals to give us a model to predict possible outcomes. These models are used to help us better understand the risks that arise when a species becomes extinct. Data from Chaos Theory is what is used by the US government - and all other governments to take environmental action to justify saving an endangered species.

Because public acceptance and encouragement of homosexual behavior affects norms, attitudes and specific behaviors of human reproduction we are not talking about a “minor” element in a complex system but a major and known critical element of a complex structure that will affect much more than just human society - but the very survival of the human species.

Part of applying parameters of Chaos theory is to look at extreme examples; like what is the best we can expect and the worst that can happen. By encouraging homosexual behaviors the best we can hope for is no change. There is no possible benefit - This is the reason I have asked the benefit question. The worst case scenario is the end of the human species. In truth the result is likely somewhere in between.

What concerns me is that you talk about morals - what possible morals can justify something with no possible positive outcome or benefit and with disastrous apocalyptic consequences as a very real possibility. However, I have learned when it comes to many personal opinions - especially with religion and politics - that reason and logic sadly is just not part of the process.

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

Most often, my friend I do not like to get technical but in this case I must. For whatever reason technical details are not considered important by many individuals, especially in forming personal opinions. Thus I doubt what I say will have any impact. With that in mind I will proceed regardless. Scientist has developed theories and methods to predict the outcome from changes in a complex system. The basis of these theories and methods is Chaos Theory. In short it is called Chaos Theory because once a change has altered the complex system there is no way to fix it or put it back.

In general we have learned that if an actual and real benefit cannot be established prior to the change - we are well advised not instituting the change at all. The models of Chaos Theory use mathematical fractals to give us a model to predict possible outcomes. These models are used to help us better understand the risks that arise when a species becomes extinct. Data from Chaos Theory is what is used by the US government - and all other governments to take environmental action to justify saving an endangered species.

Because public acceptance and encouragement of homosexual behavior affects norms, attitudes and specific behaviors of human reproduction we are not talking about a “minor” element in a complex system but a major and known critical element of a complex structure that will affect much more than just human society - but the very survival of the human species.

Part of applying parameters of Chaos theory is to look at extreme examples; like what is the best we can expect and the worst that can happen. By encouraging homosexual behaviors the best we can hope for is no change. There is no possible benefit - This is the reason I have asked the benefit question. The worst case scenario is the end of the human species. In truth the result is likely somewhere in between.

What concerns me is that you talk about morals - what possible morals can justify something with no possible positive outcome or benefit and with disastrous apocalyptic consequences as a very real possibility. However, I have learned when it comes to many personal opinions - especially with religion and politics - that reason and logic sadly is just not part of the process.

The Traveler

See the problem is though the worst case scenario you propose is pretty much impossible. Considering at the highest estimate that only 10% of the human population is homosexual then for the human race to end you'd have to have the 90% that is heterosexual stop reproducing all in the same generation. There is no real possibility of this. The true worst case scenario is possibly something to explore, but it must be a real scenario, not something foolish. Again if you are using logic use logic. Gay marriage will not diminish birth rates as these people were never going to have kids any way. There will not be a massive explosion of gay people, though you will see more like myself willing to admit it. I think the key flaw in the idea is the mentality that " they all make this choice" I won't deny I've met some who do, but again for the most part most I've met like myself don't remember a day when we weren't different, so except for the very minimal minority of curious or confused individuals who do exist, the actual numbers on both sides really aren't going to shift in any way to affect the population.

The funny thing is that many could argue that there is no real benefit to society that come from choosing a particular faith. Does it really add to society or is it for personal salvation? Can there be a negative outcome of the world moving towards a specific faith? Again if we look through out history at some things done in the name of religion and we must focus on the worst possible outcome then religion is not exactly something we'd want in our world just in case the worst possible outcome came about. Ask Christians about the benefit to society of Islam and you tend to hear nothing good. Ask Muslims about Christians and you get similar answers. Ask both about pagan faiths and you get the same. Benefit can very much be in the eye of the beholder. I see possible health, social, and economical benefits coming from gay marriage, small, but i see the chances. are you as willing to accept them as little as they might be or being they don't seem overly important are they going to be dismissed?

Edited February 15, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[Traveler]

See the problem is though the worst case scenario you propose is pretty much impossible. Considering at the highest estimate that only 10% of the human population is homosexual then for the human race to end you'd have to have the 90% that is heterosexual stop reproducing all in the same generation. There is no real possibility of this. The true worst case scenario is possibly something to explore, but it must be a real scenario, not something foolish. Again if you are using logic use logic. Gay marriage will not diminish birth rates as these people were never going to have kids any way. There will not be a massive explosion of gay people, though you will see more like myself willing to admit it. I think the key flaw in the idea is the mentality that " they all make this choice" I won't deny I've met some who do, but again for the most part most I've met like myself don't remember a day when we weren't different, so except for the very minimal minority of curious or confused individuals who do exist, the actual numbers on both sides really aren't going to shift in any way to affect the population.

The funny thing is that many could argue that there is no real benefit to society that come from choosing a particular faith. Does it really add to society or is it for personal salvation? Can there be a negative outcome of the world moving towards a specific faith? Again if we look through out history at some things done in the name of religion and we must focus on the worst possible outcome then religion is not exactly something we'd want in our world just in case the worst possible outcome came about. Ask Christians about the benefit to society of Islam and you tend to hear nothing good. Ask Muslims about Christians and you get similar answers. Ask both about pagan faiths and you get the same. Benefit can very much be in the eye of the beholder. I see possible health, social, and economical benefits coming from gay marriage, small, but i see the chances. are you as willing to accept them as little as they might be or being they don't seem overly important are they going to be dismissed?

I was concerned that you would not grasp the technical aspects of what I was discussing concerning Chaos Theory. If we are to consider carbon green house gases as being any kind of a global warming problem we must realize that carbon greenhouse gases make up less than 2% of all green house gases in the atmosphere. That is a ratio to all greenhouse gases not all gases in the atmosphere. I do not have the ratio of carbon greenhouse gases to all gases in the atmosphere but the point is that the danger of catastrophic results from encouraging homosexuality is of magnitudes greater than the danger we have with increased carbon greenhouse gases changing the climate in a serious manner.

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

I was concerned that you would not grasp the technical aspects of what I was discussing concerning Chaos Theory. If we are to consider carbon green house gases as being any kind of a global warming problem we must realize that carbon greenhouse gases make up less than 2% of all green house gases in the atmosphere. That is a ratio to all greenhouse gases not all gases in the atmosphere. I do not have the ratio of carbon greenhouse gases to all gases in the atmosphere but the point is that the danger of catastrophic results from encouraging homosexuality is of magnitudes greater than the danger we have with increased carbon greenhouse gases changing the climate in a serious manner.

The Traveler

What are the clear un debated catastrophic results from encouraging homosexuality? No what if's not maybe, what are the clear downsides? The people against homosexual marriage were given the chance to answer this question, to give very clear very logical and very scientific examples of the harm that is sure to be inflicted on society. They had their chance and not only did most of them walk away because they knew they didn't have facts, the two experts that did testify admitted it was guess work and had no real logical backing, just scare tactics. If people could show facts it would go a much farther way in my mind, but so far we hear of silly things like gay marriage = no more humans. No one with even a damaged brain could come up with that and think it would be believable.

I'm in a country that's allowed homosexual marriage for a few years. Haven't seen any real change in the country. All my religious friends are still protected and able to say what they will. No Faiths have been shut down over their stance. No churches have been forced to carry out SSM. So far the impact of less than 1% of the population seems unnoticeable. In reality you are saying a small amount of people, a vast minority has the power to destroy the world with nothing more than them committing to one single loving partner for the rest of their lives. Are the rest of the people so weak and so useless that 1% of the population marrying the same sex will change their lives that much? If so then it's really not the 1% you have to wonder about, it's the 99% who will let it change them.

[Traveler]

What are the clear un debated catastrophic results from encouraging homosexuality? No what if's not maybe, what are the clear downsides? The people against homosexual marriage were given the chance to answer this question, to give very clear very logical and very scientific examples of the harm that is sure to be inflicted on society. They had their chance and not only did most of them walk away because they knew they didn't have facts, the two experts that did testify admitted it was guess work and had no real logical backing, just scare tactics. If people could show facts it would go a much farther way in my mind, but so far we hear of silly things like gay marriage = no more humans. No one with even a damaged brain could come up with that and think it would be believable.

I'm in a country that's allowed homosexual marriage for a few years. Haven't seen any real change in the country. All my religious friends are still protected and able to say what they will. No Faiths have been shut down over their stance. No churches have been forced to carry out SSM. So far the impact of less than 1% of the population seems unnoticeable. In reality you are saying a small amount of people, a vast minority has the power to destroy the world with nothing more than them committing to one single loving partner for the rest of their lives. Are the rest of the people so weak and so useless that 1% of the population marrying the same sex will change their lives that much? If so then it's really not the 1% you have to wonder about, it's the 99% who will let it change them.

It is time for you go google chaos theory. Obviously what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Just a word of note - It actually took the dinosaurs 2 million years to become extent. Many think that dinosaurs became extent because of a comet hitting the earth. But one would think if dinosaurs are still alive after 200,000 years; the comet would not be what ended their domination of earth. But if the populations became stressed with just a very slight change in reproductive behavior - they became doomed form at time of significant population density when the change took place and did not become apparent for hundreds of thousands of years later. There would be no discernable indication concerning the change - until it was too late.

We are talking about a social change in reproductive behaviors - the change being encouragement of reproductive behavior without the hassle or sacrifice for children and thinking and forcing with law that such behavior is just as valued.

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

It is time for you go google chaos theory. Obviously what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Just a word of note - It actually took the dinosaurs 2 million years to become extent. Many think that dinosaurs became extent because of a comet hitting the earth. But one would think if dinosaurs are still alive after 200,000 years; the comet would not be what ended their domination of earth. But if the populations became stressed with just a very slight change in reproductive behavior - they became doomed form at time of significant population density when the change took place and did not become apparent for hundreds of thousands of years later. There would be no discernable indication concerning the change - until it was too late.

We are talking about a social change in reproductive behaviors - the change being encouragement of reproductive behavior without the hassle or sacrifice for children and thinking and forcing with law that such behavior is just as valued.

The Traveler

Except there is no social change really. We aren't introducing a new thing really. homosexuals have been around for a very very long time. Letting them marry has not been shown to have any effect. Again, you have a worst case fear scenario, but nothing to support it. i do understand chaos, but also see it as grabbing for straws being the base of the behavior has been around since biblical times. The only change gay marriage will bring about is legal protections of people. You can fret that it might do more, but as seen it hasn't changed in the eyes of the vast majority of religious people in over 2000 years, to think that allowing 2 people to be granted legal protections will all of a sudden force religious society to change their views has already been proven wrong in the over 20 countries that gay marriage is legal in. We've seen the damage religion can do to the world and yet we don't apply chaos to it because it's something people value and will make allowances for. If you remove you bias from the situation can you really come up with a clear reason to imply that gay marriage will lead to social destruction or are you still leaning on your bias because you see it as evil and against your moral view? There is no change in reproductive behaviors being these people are doing the exact same behaviors they were doing before marriage. With or without marriage the same behaviors will exist just as they always have. Again gay marriage does not lead to more gay people, that is a flaw in the logic. If 100 gay people aren't reproducing, and they all marry, you still have 100 gay people not reproducing, the end result is unchanged in any way. Again only people who are gay are seeking gay marriage so we aren't talking straight people who might have had kids jumping ship. Birth control, abortion ect are what you are afraid of cause that's what the straight people do to have sex with out having kids, that's where you see the population decrease. Pointing at people who were never going to have kids and saying they'll lead to the end of procreation just doesn't make sense while the people who can have kids are refusing just to have kids but insist on having sex. It seems by the argument you are using your energy is much better spent eliminating birth control and abortion being it's factually affecting what you are worried about already.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[slamjet]

However, in this country (I say that because I'm ignorant about Canadian governance) there is a concern about liberalizing the marriage laws will open up a whole host of unintended (or intended) consequences. The legal requirements are not going to be man and woman, nor will it be man and man, or woman and woman. It will have to include man and dog, woman and furniture, man and dead person, polygamy, old and young, etc. I've spoken to some lawyers who are more learned on this and they all point out the same thing. The Equal Protection clause will have to include everything, rendering it impotent.

This Country laws are based on legal precedence. This will throw out ages of legal precedence resulting in the legal system being thrown into chaos. I believe that this battle needs to be thought out more clearly.

[Soulsearcher]

However, in this country (I say that because I'm ignorant about Canadian governance) there is a concern about liberalizing the marriage laws will open up a whole host of unintended (or intended) consequences. The legal requirements are not going to be man and woman, nor will it be man and man, or woman and woman. It will have to include man and dog, woman and furniture, man and dead person, polygamy, old and young, etc. I've spoken to some lawyers who are more learned on this and they all point out the same thing. The Equal Protection clause will have to include everything, rendering it impotent.

This Country laws are based on legal precedence. This will throw out ages of legal precedence resulting in the legal system being thrown into chaos. I believe that this battle needs to be thought out more clearly.

I've heard the argument on these grounds before. Again my first thought is being LDS fought the basic idea of this tooth and nail over 100 years ago i do chuckle that now they fully support it. They didn't like people messing with their freedom and didn't care that the moral majority hated them, it was what they believed in and by god it was not going to change without a fight.

Second it would depend on how legislation is written. The first being you need to include consent. That removes animals, inanimate objects, the dead, minors ect. I always laugh when people include these being that the second party can not give legal consent. It's like they imply all marriages are forced by on party upon the other with out both agreeing on it. I do truly hope most marriages in America are consented to by both parties.

I don't have an answer on polygamy, I'm honest with that. If they fight for it I'm not sure how it would be blocked if gay marriage was allowed as my understanding of american law isn't that great. I'm also not sure what my exact stance is on it. I'm not a fan, but that being said it has religious and historical backing, if it were legal it could be easier to monitor some of the religious groups doing it already and possibly cut down on child abuse. Nothing for sure but some possible thoughts.

As for more thought, believe it or not there's been a lot of thought put into it, the issue is that it's easier for some to just be against it on principal that to really dig deep and think it out. The procreation argument is a great example, they won't have kids so they can't get married, to apply equal protection any couple traditionally biologically unable to reproduce can't have marriage, but then how do you assure this? Now you have to get more personal info. So we can't make procreation a requirement for marriage, and yet it keeps popping up as a great standard requirement for marriage? An example of thought was the legislation in Cali protecting religious institutions from having to perform SSM( in canada it's called the "not withstanding clause" organizations can opt out without facing legal fall out) an issue was foreseen and a way to protect it was attempted. The thought has been put in, it's just easier to not bother than to try and do it right.

[slamjet]

The Church had no choice but take a stand. It was a moral issue that needed to be addressed. Marriage, as an institution was going to be wiped out because the Gay community would not put their ideas to the people. They did what they could to side-step the voting process by using the judicial system instead. And the judicial system was more than happy to change the laws without the consent of the people of California. They took it upon themselves to make their own laws.

The homosexual community became increasingly militant. So much so that left a bad taste in peoples mouth because it was being shoved down our throats. Cross-dressing people were walking into churches in a mocking manner, the term "homophobia" was being thrown around with little disregard of who it was targeted to, The homosexual community wanted huge changes and forced an idea that you are either for us, or you are against us. It was brutal. The political environment was toxic, the State was thrown into a mass of innuendo and all we saw was a bunch of militants forcing us to accept the changes or else, regardless of the consequences. All we saw was a mass of hatred for anyone who was not homosexual. It was purposfully polarizing and unnecessarily one sided. No one wanted to compromise. Everyone want's it there way or no way. The Gay community was militant about it because they felt they were entitled. The Marriage community was militant about it because they were afraid of the radical change being forced upon them without their consent in the voting booth. The middle was not allowed to exist. I know, I live here in Los Angeles which was an epicenter for all that was going on. It was a nasty time. And when the proposition passed, the Gay community lashed out in a hateful, destructive, violent way that will not be forgotten soon.

As you point out there are sensible way's to overcome all these obstacles. It won't be perfect, but we're dealings with the laws of mankind. People are compassionate. If given a chance, both sides could come to a compromise that would answer the issues on all sides. However, the Gay community here want's what it wants or nothing. The marriage community would rather not have any radical changes take place. There is a comprehensive, inclusive, middle of the road solution. But both sides need to be tempered and the correct process needs to be followed. Otherwise, this fight will continue.

It may be different in Canada, but here in the United States, the homosexual community does not want to be left alone. They have shown themselves as wanting everything at the expense of everyone else and are working to get it by underhanded means. If I disagree, I'm homophobic. That's the image they portray, that's the reality.

[Soulsearcher]

The Church had no choice but take a stand. It was a moral issue that needed to be addressed. Marriage, as an institution was going to be wiped out because the Gay community would not put their ideas to the people. They did what they could to side-step the voting process by using the judicial system instead. And the judicial system was more than happy to change the laws without the consent of the people of California. They took it upon themselves to make their own laws.

The homosexual community became increasingly militant. So much so that left a bad taste in peoples mouth because it was being shoved down our throats. Cross-dressing people were walking into churches in a mocking manner, the term "homophobia" was being thrown around with little disregard of who it was targeted to, The homosexual community wanted huge changes and forced an idea that you are either for us, or you are against us. It was brutal. The political environment was toxic, the State was thrown into a mass of innuendo and all we saw was a bunch of militants forcing us to accept the changes or else, regardless of the consequences. All we saw was a mass of hatred for anyone who was not homosexual. It was purposfully polarizing and unnecessarily one sided. No one wanted to compromise. Everyone want's it there way or no way. The Gay community was militant about it because they felt they were entitled. The Marriage community was militant about it because they were afraid of the radical change being forced upon them without their consent in the voting booth. The middle was not allowed to exist. I know, I live here in Los Angeles which was an epicenter for all that was going on. It was a nasty time. And when the proposition passed, the Gay community lashed out in a hateful, destructive, violent way that will not be forgotten soon.

As you point out there are sensible way's to overcome all these obstacles. It won't be perfect, but we're dealings with the laws of mankind. People are compassionate. If given a chance, both sides could come to a compromise that would answer the issues on all sides. However, the Gay community here want's what it wants or nothing. The marriage community would rather not have any radical changes take place. There is a comprehensive, inclusive, middle of the road solution. But both sides need to be tempered and the correct process needs to be followed. Otherwise, this fight will continue.

It may be different in Canada, but here in the United States, the homosexual community does not want to be left alone. They have shown themselves as wanting everything at the expense of everyone else and are working to get it by underhanded means. If I disagree, I'm homophobic. That's the image they portray, that's the reality.

The funny thing is from the other side we see it a bit different. For many many years we had laws passed to make our behavior illegal, we had to put up with it being legal to treat us like garbage. no one took us serious. It was ok to beat and sometimes even kill us with little hope of justice. What one sees now as militant is what some would say a result of a very very long time of being mistreated.

Over a hundred years ago the United states tried to pass a bill saying marriage was one man and one woman. The LDS did a great deal, some as militant or more so in some ways as the gays are now reacting. They fought for something that mattered not caring about the moral majority.

The gay marriage community has become more militant i agree, I will ask if you see any correlation to the harsher words spoken against them and some of the tactics used? It escalates in response on both sides. Gays exist, religion condemns, gays want to be treated better, religion becomes louder and political, Gays fight harder and try to find a legal protection, religion takes direct political action and starts to use fear, Gay extremists take an all or nothing stance. Very simply put and missing a lot of facts and events, but a way of seeing it, most on the other side will point fingers and really the answer comes in the middle with both sides just wanting to be left alone. A great deal of the militants gays you see are our response to the religious right extremists. Not the main stream but the most vocal. Also remember that prop 8 was started by the lds and catholic churches, not the people. The two churches formed a group and started the petition drive. If it had been just random people it would have been one thing, but it came from high up leaders in the churches. That is seen as an organized attack and sadly it requires an organized response. that's where the toxic response came from on both sides, truth and fact got lost by both sides early on and both sides didn't mind getting dirty in the end. I'm ashamed of a lot of the things done by my side, but i find many praise the dirty tactics used by the other side. Does make me wonder where the spirit of compromise started to die?

Also while i don't condone some of the harsher reactions after prop 8 passed i do ask if it comes close to some of the things the community dealt with in the past or still puts up with in their daily lives? It's not so much if you disagree you are homophobic, it's if you disagree and ignore the fact that things have been done wrong in the past and don't say " i disagree, but by god the crap that's been done to you is wrong and you shouldn't have to be scared to have someone find out you are gay in this day and age" and also there's a way to respectfully disagree and then their is the typical " you are evil, you are going to burn and the world is better off without you" sadly i tend to hear the latter, and that's why we tend to get a lil defensive, not right, but just like LDS with anti's, most of the time you seem even an inkling of an anti on this site they are labeled trolls and cast out real quick, respectful or even proven a troll people jump to conclusions and no one tends to blame them.

[slamjet]

In this instance, your argument does not hold up. Here in California, while they may not be able to marry, they are able to have most all the benefits of married couples as a common law couple. This includes both being on, and sharing health insurance, power of attorney, anti-discrimination laws, adoptions, etc. There are even communities where Gay's control the local government (West Hollywood, San Francisco to name a couple). This leaves us scratching our heads. If they have all the rights of a married couple short of marriage, then why are they so adamant to the point of militancy to get marriage? If they went about it in a rational, reasonable manner, putting it in front of the voters in this State, it will pass. But their tactics are what's defeating them.

[Soulsearcher]

In this instance, your argument does not hold up. Here in California, while they may not be able to marry, they are able to have most all the benefits of married couples as a common law couple. This includes both being on, and sharing health insurance, power of attorney, anti-discrimination laws, adoptions, etc. There are even communities where Gay's control the local government (West Hollywood, San Francisco to name a couple). This leaves us scratching our heads. If they have all the rights of a married couple short of marriage, then why are they so adamant to the point of militancy to get marriage? If they went about it in a rational, reasonable manner, putting it in front of the voters in this State, it will pass. But their tactics are what's defeating them.

But were they responding to tactics against them?

[slamjet]

But were they responding to tactics against them?

As I said, they have every right of marriage, short of marriage but as common law couples. Prop 8 was a reaction to them taking their cause for marriage through the courts, and not to the vote of the people. If they had done that, and presented something reasonable, they would have it. California is a progressive state. It would have happened. But they went through the back door finding activist jurist who created laws without the consent of the people.

They were being left alone. They stirred the hornets nest by being sneaky and deceitful.

[Soulsearcher]

As I said, they have every right of marriage, short of marriage but as common law couples. Prop 8 was a reaction to them taking their cause for marriage through the courts, and not to the vote of the people. If they had done that, and presented something reasonable, they would have it. California is a progressive state. It would have happened. But they went through the back door finding activist jurist who created laws without the consent of the people.

They were being left alone. They stirred the hornets nest by being sneaky and deceitful.

Actually prop 8 was taking the marriage right away. They had marriage and then Churches tried to take it away after the matter had been settled. Also with out the massive intrusion by the churches the polls showed that prop 8 was failing. In the last few weeks the groups funded by the churches, including calls from the first presidency using tithing records to get more money for more dirty ad's are what turned the tide. Again I'm not saying you are fully wrong, but to deny that the religious side didn't do any stirring up and played no part in the way things went is kinda silly.

Also a reminder leaving rights up to the people isn't always a wise thing. How long would it have taken for minority rights or inter racial marriage if it had been left up to society? It might have changed over time, but if it's wrong 50 years ago why should it take 50 years to make it right, now and then it needs to go through the courts.

It got dirty in California i won't deny it, but both sides are at fault, both sides did wrong and putting it on the shoulders only of the side you don't agree with just shows why they feel the need to fight harder.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[slamjet]

Actually prop 8 was taking the marriage right away.

The full text of Prop 8:

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The fallacy that you just said, that Prop 8 took away marriage, is propaganda. Marriage was already not available to same sex couples. It was made available in a virtual way through the courts via activist judges who took it upon themselves to attempt to change the laws. It was never put before a vote of the people. This is why Prop 8 was brought about.

[Soulsearcher]

The full text of Prop 8:

The fallacy that you just said, that Prop 8 took away marriage, is propaganda. Marriage was already not available to same sex couples. It was made available in a virtual way through the courts via activist judges who took it upon themselves to attempt to change the laws. It was never put before a vote of the people. This is why Prop 8 was brought about.

So you agree all rights need to be voted on? How many of the civil rights and inter racial marriage rights, and woman's rights were done through the courts?