Does anyone else see the irony here?

[Guest]

And you're right, a large part of the argument surrounding this issue comes down to the individual right to the pursuit of happiness. I've always argued that people have the right to do what makes them happy, on the sole condition that another person's rights and/or happiness are not compromised as a result.

Children's rights are compromised, Godless. Of course, since single parenthood is legal and divorce is legal, homosexual parents is just another feather in the cap of the war against children. Fact remains that gender is not interchangeable. A child growing up without the influence of both genders are disadvantaged.

Read my post a few pages back. It illustrates the different disadvantages to children in other cases of illegal marriages - marrying your sibling, parent, or cousin, for example.

Edited May 7, 2013 by anatess

[Lakumi]

Children's rights are compromised, Godless. Of course, since single parenthood is legal and divorce is legal, homosexual parents is just another feather in the cap of the war against children. Fact remains that gender is not interchangeable. A child growing up without the influence of both genders are disadvantaged.

Read my post a few pages back. It illustrates the different disadvantages to children in other cases of illegal marriages - marrying your sibling, parent, or cousin, for example.

what if one of the parents dies, that's hardly anyone's fault, but you still are left with a single parent

[Guest]

what if one of the parents dies, that's hardly anyone's fault, but you still are left with a single parent

Lakumi, DEATH is normal.

[Guest Godless]

The operative words, of course, are "I believe".

You have stated no rational basis in support of that belief.

Again, it's the pursuit of happiness (and I'll address your concerns with that shortly). That's the root of the argument for same-sex marriage. Two men getting married does not hurt anyone. You may not morally agree with it, but it doesn't effect you personally. If it brings them happiness and does nothing to detriment your own, then where is the problem?

If memory serves, you have previously expressed support for prohibitions on incestuous and polygamous marriages. By definition, those qualifiers limit your claim of "whomever they choose".

Incestuous marriage is genetically detrimental. That's been proven by science. Reproduction in that instance would compromise the well-being of future generations in a very real and immediately noticeable sense. That is why I frown upon it.

I'm not necessarily opposed to polygamy in general, just the Warren Jeffs brand of polygamy. Funny thing is, polygamy doesn't seem to be favored by anyone outside of those cults. You never see women agreeing to enter into polygamous marriage when they aren't being compelled to do so out of fear of some sort of eternal repercussions. So if we're discussing polygamy in mainstream society, we're basically talking about a concept that doesn't exist.

So, we are left with a binary solution set: either you are being dishonest and hyprocritical in your claims, or you are the living embodiment of the "slippery slope" argument which same-sex advocates routinely dismiss as "unrealistic" and "ludicrous".

One issue (gay marriage) has overwhelming public support. The others (incest and polygamy) do not. So I fail to see where the slippery slope lies.

Ironically, you just destroyed your own argument.

It is a matter of historical record that the same-sex "marriage" cause celebre has had deleterious effects on the freedoms of others: notably, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and the right to be secure in person, houses, papers, and effects.

Please explain further, because I have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

The pro-sodomite lobby has aggressively interfered in the right to worship as people see fit, in their rights to speak their mind without fear of reprisal, or harassment, and has waged an aggressive campaign of low-level intimidation and terrorism.

I have always been an advocate of keeping the same-sex marriage issue limited to state-santioned unions. I have never supported the idea that churches should be on board with it.

As for the freedom to speak your mind, are you afraid that you'll get judged for making homophobic remarks? Because I imagine that racists have that same problem. Yes, you have freedom of speech. Gay marriage isn't going to compromise that any more than the civil rights movement of the '60s did.

People have been assaulted, their businesses disrupted, their careers and livelihoods destroyed, their homes and places of worship invaded and profaned, and their right to educate their children denied.

So we should punish an entire segment of our society because of the actions of their most radical members? Maybe we should outlaw Christianity as well, based on your reasoning.

[Dravin]

Again, it's the pursuit of happiness (and I'll address your concerns with that shortly). That's the root of the argument for same-sex marriage. Two men getting married does not hurt anyone. You may not morally agree with it, but it doesn't effect you personally. If it brings them happiness and does nothing to detriment your own, then where is the problem?

I'm fairly sure, and correct me if I'm wrong Selek, that Selek would disagree that the legalization of homosexual marriage does not, negatively, affect anyone else but the couple involved. As is common in discussions such as this people tend to engage in arguments over the logic being used when the fundamental issue is the premises people are operating from. If one operates from the premise that homosexual marriages do not harm anyone but the people partaking in them then the logic for legalization is, relatively, fairly straight forward. If one operates from the premise that homosexual marriages cause societal harm the logic for keeping them illegal is also, relatively, fairly straight forward. The big disagreement is in the premise not the logic.

Edit: I'm not trying to call you out as some great 'offender' in discussion. You're post just brought to mind the all too familiar pattern.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest Godless]

I'm fairly sure, and correct me if I'm wrong Selek, that Selek would disagree that the legalization of homosexual marriage does not, negatively, affect anyone else but the couple involved. As is common in discussions such as this people tend to engage in arguments over the logic being used when the fundamental issue is the premises people are operating from. If one operates from the premise that homosexual marriages do not harm anyone but the people partaking in them then the logic for legalization is, relatively, fairly straight forward. If one operates from the premise that homosexual marriages cause societal harm the logic for keeping them illegal is also, relatively, fairly straight forward. The big disagreement is in the premise not the logic.

Edit: I'm not trying to call you out as some great 'offender' in discussion. You're post just brought to mind the all too familiar pattern.

I agree completely. The problem I've found is that many people use the "Sodom and Gomorrah" argument when trying to illustrate the social damage of same-sex marriage. Religious allegory has no place in discussions of social issues that transcend religious differences. You can tell me that gay marriage is bad because your god will smite the US if it's legalized, but I'll have a hard time taking you seriously (for obvious reasons). Similarly, I wouldn't expect you to entertain an argument rooted in Sharia law because it deals with a set of ethics that are completely irrelevant to you.

In short, I'm still waiting to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't revolve around biblical dogma or radical segments of the gay rights movement (which I addressed briefly above).

[Guest]

I agree completely. The problem I've found is that many people use the "Sodom and Gomorrah" argument when trying to illustrate the social damage of same-sex marriage. Religious allegory has no place in discussions of social issues that transcend religious differences. You can tell me that gay marriage is bad because your god will smite the US if it's legalized, but I'll have a hard time taking you seriously (for obvious reasons). Similarly, I wouldn't expect you to entertain an argument rooted in Sharia law because it deals with a set of ethics that are completely irrelevant to you.

In short, I'm still waiting to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't revolve around biblical dogma or radical segments of the gay rights movement (which I addressed briefly above).

I just gave you the main reason for it. In two separate posts - one as an answer to ... suzie, I think... the other one an answer directly to your post.

Here's the permalink to the first post for suzie. The second one addressed to you is a regurge of it:

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/53545-does-anyone-else-see-irony-here-7.html#post749351

Edited May 7, 2013 by anatess

[Guest Godless]

I just gave you the main reason for it. In two separate posts - one as an answer to ... suzie, I think... the other one an answer directly to your post.

Here's the permalink to the first post for suzie. The second one addressed to you is a regurge of it:

http://www.lds.net/forums/current-events/53545-does-anyone-else-see-irony-here-7.html#post749351

I apologize, I missed that post. Thank you for the link. I saw your other post this morning, but didn't have time to respond.

There hasn't been much research done on the effects of gay parents on the upbringing of their children, which is why I typically don't have much to say on the subject. That being said, I personally have a difficult time seeing how two loving parents of the same gender could have a negative impact on a child's psychological health. It may not fit your idea of a "normal" family, but that doesn't mean that it won't work.

[estradling75]

To me this discussion always seems to go backward. For me the people trying to make the change are the ones with the burden of proof. Those who want to change the laws and alter how society works, need to offer very clear proof that what they are striving for is beneficial for society. The closest we get is how it benefits a small handful of individuals and 'Oh I can't imagine how that would be harmful.'

That just doesn't cut it when you are trying to re-write the social structure... And it goes absolutely no where to those that can imagine how it would be harmful.

Instead hearing a convincing message on why and how its a good idea... We get attacked... We get called haters... we are told that our religious beliefs are something we should be ashamed of and that we should bury them in the corner so they don't get in the way of what other people want and think is right.

And that just seems all kinds of backwards to me.

[selek]

Two men getting married does not hurt anyone.

Assertion, not argument.

You are ignoring the normative impact "normalizing" such behavior will have upon society.

You are also attempting (surreptiously) to shift the goalposts.

Their "pursuit of happiness", as you so coyly put it, neither requires nor entitles them to societal sanction.

They can form whatever sort of union and play house all they like without forcing the rest of us to go along with the charade, let alone subsidizing them with tax dollars or indoctrinating our children that their behavior is acceptable.

If it brings them happiness and does nothing to detriment your own, then where is the problem?

Despite your liberal application of hand-wavium, your attempt to dismiss the very real detriments and problems already outlined has failed.

Intellectual honesty would demand that you at least address them, rather than pretend they don't exist.

Incestuous marriage is genetically detrimental. That's been proven by science. Reproduction in that instance would compromise the well-being of future generations in a very real and immediately noticeable sense. That is why I frown upon it.

Ah- an admission against interest.

You DO support restrictions on "whomever they may choose"- you simply don't like where the line is currently drawn.

Funny thing is, polygamy doesn't seem to be favored by anyone outside of those cults. You never see women agreeing to enter into polygamous marriage when they aren't being compelled to do so out of fear of some sort of eternal repercussions. So if we're discussing polygamy in mainstream society, we're basically talking about a concept that doesn't exist.

An argument ad populum at it's core, and fatally flawed for that very reason.

Homosexuality is itself a tiny fraction of the population (despite the rampant propaganda campaign to reimagine it as normal, healthy, or acceptable).

If we are going to reject polygamy simply because it is a minority position, we can reject homosexual unions on exactly the same grounds.

As with your stance on "whomever they choose" it's simply a question of where we draw the line.

Thus far, you are 0 for 2 on rational basis for your positions.

One issue (gay marriage) has overwhelming public support. The others (incest and polygamy) do not.

Again, this is an argument ad populum, and a logical error for that reason.

Public support is a very fickle thing, and the propaganda campaign being what it is, your claims are not "grassroots", but rather "astroturf".

So I fail to see where the slippery slope lies.

As has been revealed twice now by your own statements, your argument and position are not rooted in principle, but only in "where the line is currently drawn".

There are two things to consider:

First, those who are arguing from principal can use exactly the same "logic" as you are espousing to further alter "where the line is drawn". If we are accomodating your preferences simply because you want it that way, we have no logical or rational basis upon which to deny their demands.

Second, as the boundaries of "acceptable" behavior are broadened, what was once unconscionable (such as f-bombs and sodomy jokes on television) soon lies within easy reach.

THAT is where the slippery slope lies.

You and the others are demanding that we redefine the most fundamental nature of our society not because it will perform a great public good (which is barely arguable, at best), but because you assure us it won't do any harm.

Frankly, you can't know that, the extant evidence contradicts it, and you've given us no reason to believe you.

Please explain further, because I have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

If you're not going to be serious, then why bother discussing this with you?

For a brief synopses, you might want to check out the fake anthrax letters sent to Mormon temples, the people who were assaulted, fired, and harassed for their support of Prop 8, and the acts of arson and property destruction which followed that rancorous campaign.

You might want to read about the propaganda and demonization campaign- the false advertising, scare tactics, intimidation-by-lawyer and blatant lies used to smear the Church and others who supported traditional marriage in California, Oregon, and Washington State.

You might want to educate yourself about adoption agencies forced to close, churches forced to close their doors to wedding services, doctors and psychologists forced to close their practices, and photographers and caterers forced to shutter their businesses because of homosexual agitators using the courts to punish them for acts of conscience.

These are very real events.

You don't get to dismiss them simply because they are inconvenient truths.

As for the freedom to speak your mind, are you afraid that you'll get judged for making homophobic remarks? Because I imagine that racists have that same problem.

Ah. Now you resort to name-calling and inflammatory comparisons.

How ironic.

Usually it's your side of the aisle that gets their knickers in a knot when homosexuals are compared to other sexual deviants.

In point of fact, comparisons like the one you make above are a deliberate attempt to shut down conversation by demonizing the other side or poisoning the well.

I have been arguing with reason and logic, exploring the rational basis, and logical flaws in your arguments.

You have responded with name calling.

Maybe we should outlaw Christianity as well, based on your reasoning.

Name calling and hyperbole.

Truly, the mark of a dizzyingly cogent argument and position.

So we should punish an entire segment of our society because of the actions of their most radical members?

As noted in other threads, that is precisely the tactic your political fellow travellers are using in the gun control debate.

If it's good for the gander, it should be good for the goose.

Based on this (and other things you've said), one cannot help but wonder if your objection does not lie more in the nature of whose ox is being gored.

But no, that's not my position.

My argument is two-fold:

First (and as has been pointed out on several occasions), the "pursuit of happiness" neither requires nor entitles homosexual couples to sanction or subsidy by the State.

It does not require the rest of us to pass benediction or blessing upon their unions, nor does it entitle them to "educate" our children that such behavior is acceptable.

The State (as directed by the law and the voice of the people) has a rationale basis for picking and choosing which unions and relationships it will endorse and which it will shun.

You have given us no valid, rational reason to change those standards.

By your own admission, you yourself would discriminate against incestuous and polygamous marriages (based on some sound reasons and others upon mere stereotype).

You simply don't like where the line is drawn.

That you don't like it is not sufficient reason to alter the current standard.

Second, you are asking us to fundamentally alter the basic unit of our society, as understood by all of recorded human history to be the most fundamentally stable and productive.

As pointed out above, you cannot assert that this change will fundamentally improve the nature of our society, but can only offer your bare assertion that it will not do irreparable harm to that same society.

You are asking us to fundamentally alter the very fabric of our society on a throw of the dice- despite the roughly a century of evidence that such alterations are ultimately counter-productive; and then calling us names for being skeptical of your methods, your assurances, and your theories.

Where there are great rewards to be had, great risks can sometime be justified.

Where there is an inalienable good to be had, fundamental changes can likewise be justified.

Unfortunately, neither you nor your fellow travellers have demonstrated that such good is to be found in your crusade, let alone that it is worth the risks you would entail.

THAT is why I am skeptical.

THAT is why I resist your efforts.

Homosexuals can still form their own emotional and relationship bonds as they see fit.

They are NOT entitled to state sanction or blessing for their behavior, let alone the right to indoctrinate my children to their new standard.

Edited May 7, 2013 by selek

[carlimac]

Incestuous marriage is genetically detrimental. That's been proven by science. Reproduction in that instance would compromise the well-being of future generations in a very real and immediately noticeable sense. That is why I frown upon it.

But what if the parties invovled are beyond child bearing years or known to be sterile? Would you condone it? After all, they love each other.

Here's another question since we've strayed so far from my original post topic. Hypothetical- an elderly aunt and niece live together. They want all the financial benefits that married couples have minus the physical relationship. Would they have to "get married" to receive them? If so, they couldn't then get married because they are too closely related.

Aren't roommates who don't want to be "married" but are committed otherwise being discriminated against since they don't get benefits?

After thought: It seems to me that if the LGBT folks are against other alternative types of marriage such as a threesome with bisexuals or polygamy with many spouses, or open marriages with more than two of each gender, or these other odd "marriages" of close relatives, or even a man to his horse, then this debate isn't at all about marrying who you love or equal rights. It's about forcing the rest of humanity to accept their homosexual behavior as "normal".

Edited May 7, 2013 by carlimac

[Guest]

I apologize, I missed that post. Thank you for the link. I saw your other post this morning, but didn't have time to respond.

There hasn't been much research done on the effects of gay parents on the upbringing of their children, which is why I typically don't have much to say on the subject. That being said, I personally have a difficult time seeing how two loving parents of the same gender could have a negative impact on a child's psychological health. It may not fit your idea of a "normal" family, but that doesn't mean that it won't work.

You personally don't. But, it is proven time and time again that the psychological development of a child requires the influence of both a female and a male component. Just because some children can rise above a position of disadvantage does not mean that the disadvantage is to be part of the norm and not merely a product of uncontrollable circumstance.

If male and female were interchangeable, then there is absolutely zero purpose for male/female distinctions in society beyond physical capability.

Edited May 7, 2013 by anatess

[kapikui]

Submitted without comment.

[carlimac]

Here is something from a blog I read in the last couple of days:

"The homosexuality advocates don’t want the news to get out that homosexual parenting does not produce equivalent results to heterosexual parenting. Many previous studies suffer from design and methodology problems that make their results equivocal. However, recent research results from two large, scientific, peer-reviewed studies, summarized by Barber (8), show that 1) adults who were raised in gay households are 12 times more likely to self-identify as gay than adults raised in heterosexual households, 2) 58% of the children of lesbians and 33% of the children of gay men self-identified as homosexual as adults (compared to only 2%-3% self-identified adult homosexuals in the general population), and 3) children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression, suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy, choose cohabitation, be unfaithful to partners, contract sexually transmitted diseases, be sexually molested, have lower income levels, drink excessively and smoke marijuana. And now we can add to this list that children being raised by same-sex couples are 35% less likely to make normal progress through school than are children being raised by heterosexual married couples."

Here's the link to the blog:The Gay Agenda: What in the World Is Going On? | rethinkingtheology

And here is his reference on the statistics: Douglas, W.A., C. Pakaluk and J. Price. 2012. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld. Demography, published online 18 November 2012. DOI 10.1007/s13524-012-0169-x

I don't know how to get to that reference because there isn't a link and google just brings his blog back up.

Anyway, I don't doubt this at all, even though the professional societies(associations) of psychiatrists and pediatricians say otherwise. I know that the psychiatrists, at least, have been bullied into endorsing homosexuality as "normal". Don't know where the pediatricians got their info.

[carlimac]

Submitted without comment.

I quit listening at "no brainer". She doesn't have anything useful to say if that's her opinion.

[Guest]

Here is something from a blog I read in the last couple of days:

"The homosexuality advocates don’t want the news to get out that homosexual parenting does not produce equivalent results to heterosexual parenting. Many previous studies suffer from design and methodology problems that make their results equivocal. However, recent research results from two large, scientific, peer-reviewed studies, summarized by Barber (8), show that 1) adults who were raised in gay households are 12 times more likely to self-identify as gay than adults raised in heterosexual households, 2) 58% of the children of lesbians and 33% of the children of gay men self-identified as homosexual as adults (compared to only 2%-3% self-identified adult homosexuals in the general population), and 3) children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression, suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy, choose cohabitation, be unfaithful to partners, contract sexually transmitted diseases, be sexually molested, have lower income levels, drink excessively and smoke marijuana. And now we can add to this list that children being raised by same-sex couples are 35% less likely to make normal progress through school than are children being raised by heterosexual married couples."

Here's the link to the blog:The Gay Agenda: What in the World Is Going On? | rethinkingtheology

And here is his reference on the statistics: Douglas, W.A., C. Pakaluk and J. Price. 2012. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld. Demography, published online 18 November 2012. DOI 10.1007/s13524-012-0169-x

I don't know how to get to that reference because there isn't a link and google just brings his blog back up.

Anyway, I don't doubt this at all, even though the professional societies(associations) of psychiatrists and pediatricians say otherwise. I know that the psychiatrists, at least, have been bullied into endorsing homosexuality as "normal". Don't know where the pediatricians got their info.

You know my strong opposition to gay marriage.

But this study is misleading. Most of the depression, suicidal tendencies, poor performance in school is caused by the conflict of being treated as deviant in a social environment. Hence, psychiatrists posit that normalization of gay families will eliminate these problems.

But, it does not eliminate the crippling of a child's full balanced emotional and social development due to the missing/lacking gender contributions.

[Guest Godless]

Assertion, not argument. You are ignoring the normative impact "normalizing" such behavior will have upon society. You are also attempting (surreptiously) to shift the goalposts.

Their "pursuit of happiness", as you so coyly put it, neither requires nor entitles them to societal sanction.

They can form whatever sort of union and play house all they like without forcing the rest of us to go along with the charade, let alone subsidizing them with tax dollars or indoctrinating our children that their behavior is acceptable.

We're not talking about social sanction, we're talking about legal sanction. The majority of our society has already accepted them as "normal". Two states have legalized gay marriage through popular vote, and others have done so through legislation without turning into the politcal battlefields that we've seen in California. Society as a whole is ready for this change even if social conservatives are not.

Homosexuality is itself a tiny fraction of the population (despite the rampant propaganda campaign to reimagine it as normal, healthy, or acceptable).

If we are going to reject polygamy simply because it is a minority position, we can reject homosexual unions on exactly the same grounds.

Not as "tiny" as you may think. They have a small segment representing them in the media, but there is a much larger and more invisible majority to the homosexual ranks that you never see on TV because they just want to go about their everyday lives. You never see them largely because you don't recognize them. Gay is a sexual orientation, not a lifestyle, despite what the media would have you believe. Most homosexuals are exactly like you and me in every way except one.

Public support is a very fickle thing, and the propaganda campaign being what it is, your claims are not "grassroots", but rather "astroturf".

As has been revealed twice now by your own statements, your argument and position are not rooted in principle, but only in "where the line is currently drawn".

There are two things to consider:

First, those who are arguing from principal can use exactly the same "logic" as you are espousing to further alter "where the line is drawn". If we are accomodating your preferences simply because you want it that way, we have no logical or rational basis upon which to deny their demands.

Second, as the boundaries of "acceptable" behavior are broadened, what was once unconscionable (such as f-bombs and sodomy jokes on television) soon lies within easy reach.

THAT is where the slippery slope lies.

Yes, there is a potential that other "love" or "marriage" issues may come up for discussion at some point in the future. But they are doomed to fail for the following reasons.

Incest: This is a genetic disaster waiting to happen. This fact has been proven by science to a certainty that science has not been able to acheive for those who oppose gay marriage.

Polygamy: You and I both know that this issue could never survive in a public arena without the support of the feminist/women's rights movement. And I think we both know that will NEVER happen. Polygamy works in the FLDS cults because they are male-dominated. It would never work in a society that embraces gender equality, and you know that. The progressive direction in which our society is headed makes popularization of polygamy less likely as time goes on, not more.

If you're not going to be serious, then why bother discussing this with you?

I was being serious. I wanted specifics to back up your claims that gay rights restrict the freedoms of others. You gave me generalities at first, then specifics. Thank you for humoring me. I'll adress those now.

For a brief synopses, you might want to check out the fake anthrax letters sent to Mormon temples, the people who were assaulted, fired, and harassed for their support of Prop 8, and the acts of arson and property destruction which followed that rancorous campaign.

Once again, you seem to be judging an entire segment of our society based on the actions of their most visible activists. Those actions are deplorable, but social terrorism enacted by a deranged minority of a much larger movement does not nullify the entire movement.

You might want to read about the propaganda and demonization campaign- the false advertising, scare tactics, intimidation-by-lawyer and blatant lies used to smear the Church and others who supported traditional marriage in California, Oregon, and Washington State.

You could dig deep into the archives of this forum and find something similar. LDS members who didn't support Prop 8 had their testimonies and standing in the church questioned. There were calls for excommunication. It was ugly. Behavior like that is repulsive and has no place in this debate. The fact that there has been slander and demonization occuring on both sides is deplorable, but (again) does not mean that the debate shouldn't take place.

You might want to educate yourself about adoption agencies forced to close, churches forced to close their doors to wedding services, doctors and psychologists forced to close their practices, and photographers and caterers forced to shutter their businesses because of homosexual agitators using the courts to punish them for acts of conscience.

These are very real events.

You don't get to dismiss them simply because they are inconvenient truths.

For the record, I have never condoned the use of courts to bully businesses and churches into doing business with homosexuals. If they want to stand on their principles, it is their right to do so even if I don't agree with them. I sincerely hope that reason (and the Constitution) will ultimately prevail in these cases.

Ah. Now you resort to name-calling and inflammatory comparisons.

How ironic.

Usually it's your side of the aisle that gets their knickers in a knot when homosexuals are compared to other sexual deviants.

In point of fact, comparisons like the one you make above are a deliberate attempt to shut down conversation by demonizing the other side or poisoning the well.

I have been arguing with reason and logic, exploring the rational basis, and logical flaws in your arguments.

You have responded with name calling.

You're right, I should have worded that better. I apologize. There are many people on your side of the debate who are very civil, compassionate, and respectful when addressing this issue. Unfortunately, there are many on my side who views that as "enabling" homophobic behavior. I myself have sometimes been guilty of it (obviously), though I try not to be. Clearly there are strong emotions fueling both sides of the debate, and it gets ugly sometimes.

Freedom of expression is a peculiar thing. You have every right to passionately express your beliefs, and others have the right to passionately disagree with you.

Name calling and hyperbole.

Truly, the mark of a dizzyingly cogent argument and position.

My response was crass, but I stand by my argument. The social terrorists within the gay community may represent the political movement to some degree (which is very unfortunate), but they don't even remotely represent the gay community at large any more than the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christianity. I'll freely admit that we have some nutjobs representing our side of the debate in the public eye, but that won't keep me from fighting for the rights of my homosexual friends.

As noted in other threads, that is precisely the tactic your political fellow travellers are using in the gun control debate.

That's a poor argument to make to someone who is an aspiring gun owner (still trying to convince my wife).

I don't believe that an entire segment of society - whether they be homosexuals, gun owners, or both- should be punished for the actions of their most extreme members. In the case of guns, I believe that there is more that can be done to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands WITHOUT compromising the rights of law-abiding citizens. Similarly, I feel that the gay marriage debate would be far less volatile if some of the more level-headed members of the gay community (and there are plenty of them out there, trust me), would speak up and start a civil conversation that doesn't revolve around bullying and propoghanda.

Based on this (and other things you've said), one cannot help but wonder if your objection does not lie more in the nature of whose ox is being gored.

I would prefer to see no oxes being gored. There is plenty of room for increased civility and understanding on both sides of this issue.

[selek]

We're not talking about social sanction, we're talking about legal sanction.

Horse pockey.

When any criticism or resistance to the crusade is automagically and reflexively characterized as hate speech- and anyone who dares voice those criticisms is derided as a hater or worse- then the goal is not "legal sanction", but punishing "unacceptable" thoughts.

As you yourself pointed out, the legal rights have larely already been won, yet the storm rages on unabated.

The quest is not to secure legal rights (largely already accomplished), but to secure the moral and social approval of the people- mainly by destroying silencing, and censoring the dissenters.

The majority of our society has already accepted them as "normal".

Call For References, please. Pull quotes and propaganda from advocacy groups don't count.

Two states have legalized gay marriage through popular vote, and others have done so through legislation without turning into the politcal battlefields that we've seen in California.

And twenty-nine have gone in exactly the opposite direction, reaffirming that marriage is between a man and a women only.

Society as a whole is ready for this change even if social conservatives are not.

Call For References, please. Precisely what credentials authorize you to speak on behalf of "society", let alone to exclude conservatives from it?

You've made a lot of arrogant pronouncements- but you haven't provided a single stick of evidence to back up your boasting.

Not as "tiny" as you may think. They have a small segment representing them in the media, but there is a much larger and more invisible majority to the homosexual ranks that you never see on TV because they just want to go about their everyday lives.

The best estimates provided place homosexuals as between 3 and 5% of our society. That's right; the highest estimate places them at 1/20th of the population (a tiny minority by any sane definition).

Once again, though- you are conceding the principle in favor of arguing about where the line is drawn.

You argued that polygamist beliefs about marriage could be excluded because they are a minority.

You have given us no sane, rational, logical reason why gay marriage should not be rejected for the same reason.

Yes, there is a potential that other "love" or "marriage" issues may come up for discussion at some point in the future. But they are doomed to fail for the following reasons.

Incest: This is a genetic disaster waiting to happen. This fact has been proven by science to a certainty that science has not been able to acheive for those who oppose gay marriage.

The only credible scientific argument for excluding incestuous marriages is predicated on the harm to the children. The problem you fail to address (and persistently ignore) is that credible scientific studies have demonstrated that children raised by homosexual couples also suffer in comparison to normative heterosexual household.

If we are going to exclude incestuous relationships for the "good of the children", why should we not apply the same standard to homosexual relationships?

Polygamy: You and I both know that this issue could never survive in a public arena without the support of the feminist/women's rights movement. And I think we both know that will NEVER happen. Polygamy works in the FLDS cults because they are male-dominated. It would never work in a society that embraces gender equality, and you know that. The progressive direction in which our society is headed makes popularization of polygamy less likely as time goes on, not more.

Your argument is an appeal to bigotry and stereotypes.

Not all polygamists are Warren Jeffs wackos any more than all homosexuals are Barney Frank grade perverts.

So why are you so comfortable applying such hateful stereotypes to polygamists when you scream so shrilly when they are applied to homosexuals?

Stripped even of it's conceiling prejudice, your argument is still an argument ad populum.

There was a time- not even a decade ago- when homosexual unions were just as unpopular and unthinkable as you believe polygamist unions to be today.

Are we simply supposed to take your unfettered word that that will not change also?

Moreover (as you put it above), this is about legal rights. If we accept your dubious "whomever they choose" standard, can you articulate a single consistent, objective legal standard by which "gay" marriage can be accepted but polygamy cannot?

Once again, you seem to be judging an entire segment of our society based on the actions of their most visible activists.

Yes, I am- because YOU invited me to do so.

You invited us to judge the homosexual lobby and agenda by the standard of whether or not their conduct infringed upon the rights of others.

Clearly, they have and will (barring drastic changes in their methodology) will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Those actions are deplorable, but social terrorism enacted by a deranged minority of a much larger movement does not nullify the entire movement.

There are two problems with this statement: first, you have not established that they are, in fact, a minority within the movement. Nor does classifying them as a deranged minority obviate the damage they have done in the name of your cause.

The very fact that they have not been widely and clearly denounced indicated implicit, if not tacit approval of their actions and methods by the group as a whole.

The fact that there has been slander and demonization occuring on both sides is deplorable, but (again) does not mean that the debate shouldn't take place.

The "both sides are equally guilty" canard is a red herring, and a sop intended to excuse the worst excesses of your fellow travellers by claiming "everybody does it".

It simply isn't true.

For the record, I have never condoned the use of courts to bully businesses and churches into doing business with homosexuals.

While I take you at your word that this is true, it does nothing to alleviate the harm caused by your allies.

It does not comfort the grieving, pay a single penny of the mountainous and ruinous legal bills, or employ a single one of the workers displaced by your fellow travellers and their tactics.

Truthfully, it doesn't matter how sorrowful, remorseful, or tongue-cluckingly disapproving you are- the damage has been done with your allies' implicit (if not tacit) support.

You're right, I should have worded that better. I apologize.

Accepted.

There are many people on your side of the debate who are very civil, compassionate, and respectful when addressing this issue. Unfortunately, there are many on my side who views that as "enabling" homophobic behavior. I myself have sometimes been guilty of it (obviously), though I try not to be. Clearly there are strong emotions fueling both sides of the debate, and it gets ugly sometimes.

Agreed. Which is why I have been struggling to argue about positions and logic, rather than about people.

As an admission against interest, however, I will admit that I've had to revise and edit my own posts to tone them down as my temper has risen at one thing or another.

Freedom of expression is a peculiar thing. You have every right to passionately express your beliefs, and others have the right to passionately disagree with you.

I agree.

But absent cogent arguments and rebuttals, "freedom of expression" is just two monkeys sitting in opposite trees flinging poo at each other.

My response was crass, but I stand by my argument. The social terrorists within the gay community may represent the political movement to some degree (which is very unfortunate), but they don't even remotely represent the gay community at large any more than the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christianity.

The difference, of course, is that the Westboro Baptists and their tactics have been denounced, renounced, criticized, denied, decried, upbraided, and condemned by every Christian with both a room temperature IQ and more than three teeth.

The disavowal of WBC by Christianity as a whole has been thunderous and near-universal.

By contrast, the voices condemning the excesses of your fellow travellers (and I count you among them) are a tiny whispering minority.

I'll freely admit that we have some nutjobs representing our side of the debate in the public eye, but that won't keep me from fighting for the rights of my homosexual friends.

Nor would I ask you to. I respect your sincerity and enthusiasm in your belief.

My only general criticism of you thus far (you've already dealt with specific excesses) has been that you have failed to provide cogent, logical arguments in support of your position.

That's a poor argument to make to someone who is an aspiring gun owner (still trying to convince my wife).

Good luck on that front. A good weapons training course (they have a lot of coed classes) will probably answer most of her question and allay most of her fears. They're fairly inexpensive and it might be worth looking into.

I don't believe that an entire segment of society - whether they be homosexuals, gun owners, or both- should be punished for the actions of their most extreme members. In the case of guns, I believe that there is more that can be done to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands WITHOUT compromising the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I agree on all fronts.

Similarly, I feel that the gay marriage debate would be far less volatile if some of the more level-headed members of the gay community (and there are plenty of them out there, trust me), would speak up and start a civil conversation that doesn't revolve around bullying and propoghanda.

Again, I agree whole-heartedly.

I would prefer to see no oxes being gored. There is plenty of room for increased civility and understanding on both sides of this issue.

I agree. I just don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

That is not to say, however, that resistance to gay marriage can be characterized as "punishing an entire group of people for the excesses of a few".

As you yourself admitted, most of the legal equivalencies have already been obtained.

What the homosexual "marriage" movement is asking of us us to enact a definitive, fundamental change in our society for a dubious good and without clear, thoughtful consideration of the potential side effects of that change.

And then demonizing and attempting to discredit and silence anyone who questions their plan.

While fake anthrax letters might be the tactic of a tiny minority in your camp, effort to smear, defame, and delegitimize all those who disagree with (or even question) them is endemic to your cause.

[Guest]

Godless, if you're interested, someone in another forum who tended to stand in the pro-gay-marriage camp cited this book as the best non-religion-based case for traditional marriage that he'd read, to the point of tipping his feelings about it.

What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense: Sherif Girgis, Ryan T Anderson, Robert P George: 9781594036224: Amazon.com: Books

[Dravin]

And here is his reference on the statistics: Douglas, W.A., C. Pakaluk and J. Price. 2012. Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld. Demography, published online 18 November 2012. DOI 10.1007/s13524-012-0169-x

I don't know how to get to that reference because there isn't a link and google just brings his blog back up.

You can use this website, Digital Object Identifier System, to resolve the DOI at the end of that citation (I've bolded what I'm talking about). When you do so it'll provide this link: Nontraditional Families and Childhood Progress Through School: A Comment on Rosenfeld - Online First - Springer