The Rise of the Same-Sex Marriage Dissidents

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Lakumi! I hope you're having a fine day. Finally we are enjoying some warmer weather here in Michigan.

 

I understand that not everyone who doesn't believe in it are mindless bigots, that would be a narrow viewpoint.

Just like I don't believe all Christians have the same doctrines. People are different and their ideas and views stem from different places.

I certainly don't believe just because someone doesn't agree with gay marriage means they are a hateful person.

 

And as for benefit? Well that's a rather cold way to look at humanity and love. It's less about that and more about why should some dictate who others are allowed to marry and love?
I donno what benefit there would be for, say me living in a polygamy, or polyamory, or polyandry relationship, but I'd do it regardless, because I'd be happy.

Why should I be restricted by what society tells me?

Why should I follow religious systems I don't believe in?
Much like I write and it has no worth to society.

I guess if I had to come up with one could say gays not having natural children gives more orphaned ones a chance at a happy home life?

Yes straight people adopt too, but I imagine less then gays do-I don't have numbers for that so don't quote me there.

 

Your post is propagating a lie. When I say that your post is propagating a lie I feel no animosity, ill will, or anger towards you. I am not even judging you. I am simply trying to tell you the truth even though I have very little hope that you will accept the truth. The notion that homosexuals are a repressed minority is a lie. It is this ideology, this lie, that is being propagated and accepted by society to the detriment of all.

 

There are men and women who refuse to ignore the truth that gender matters. It is a truth that cannot be changed that only sex between a man and a woman produces a union that can result in creating life. There is only one biological system where each gender has only half of what is needed to produce the final product. Only sex between a man and a woman produces this essential union. The principle of heterosexual sex is the only way that humanity propagates and it is this truth that differentiates marriage from all other relationships. There is nothing wrong with people recognizing and wanting to uphold this eternal, unalterable truth. People who support true marriage are not bigots. Supporting true marriage and denouncing the lies of the same-sex ideology does not equate to bigotry or to a majority repressing a minority group. The same-sex movement is the not same, in any way, to the equal rights movement.

 

Gender matters. Governments and humanity have supported true marriage institutionally because of its unique and vital position in sustaining society. Because God has blessed us with an abundance of knowledge and technologies, wealth, and power our society has the luxury, but not moral right, to institutionally sustain non-heterosexual unions.

 

If a principle is true and right then it should be able to sustain itself no matter what. If our society did not have the wealth, technology, and power that we have now then society would quickly find out how foolish it is to institutionally support non-heterosexual marriages. If our species were on the brink of extinction would society still call those who support true marriage between a man and woman bigots and repressors of the minority? I doubt it very much. Societal support for non-heterosexual marriages would cease to exist because they would realize that society, humanity, cannot survive any other way.

 

I am not a bigot because I am against same-sex marriages. I am not hate filled. I am not narrow minded. In fact my whole motivation for speaking out against same-sex marriages is because I know where true happiness and joy is to be found. They are to be found in the principles of gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no other way for mankind to find true joy, true peace, and true fulfillment. I love God and I love my brothers and sisters in the world. I desire for them to know who they truly are and what their purpose here on life is. We are children of Heavenly Father. We, all of us, have come to this earth because we wanted to become like Heavenly Father. All of these things are distractions and they are pulling us away from our true purpose. These issues are blinding us to what we ought to be doing. I am an advocate for people coming unto Christ and becoming like Him in all things.

 

I don't care whether I am popular. I don't care what others think of me on this forum. I'm not here to be liked or to have my ego stroked. I simply want to stand for what is true and what is right. I am motivated by my love of God and of all men.

 

-Finrock

[Lakumi]

And I find it almost insulting for people to tell me that I am not truly happy unless I embrase something they believe. If the church gives you all the joy in the world then be happy in your life.
But you can't possibly know what makes me happy-for instance I really feel uncomfortable in church a lot of the time due to my rather avoidance of large amounts of peoples.

I understand what makes me happy and my persuit of it will take me in a vastly different direction. Your happiness doesn't make me happy. But it makes many others happy so it is a good thing, at the end of the day.

 

And no believing in traditional marriage doesn't make you a bigot, saying "hey I believe in this" doesn't, its when you go to someone and say "I hate you because you're gay"

along those lines.

Know what I mean?
I don't think you're a bigot because you came to share your beliefs to me-you came to me as a gentleman and we're having a dialog. No bigotry here.

[prisonchaplain]

doesn't mean every gay person wants to shut down any business or restaurant.

there's activists for every group and cause, doesn't mean every one is an activist

 

Well sure, not everyone is an extremist.  However, this view--that tradtional marriage activists are haters and bigots who should be astrocized--is gaining traction.  It's becoming less extreme. 

 

Nobody has said that most LBGT folk want to bankrupt us.  Yet, this statement puts us on the defense--as if we had made that accusation.  Even Bill Maher, who is much more sympathetic to the LBGT cause than to that of religious folk, states that there is a 'gay mafia.' 

[Lakumi]

Well sure, not everyone is an extremist.  However, this view--that tradtional marriage activists are haters and bigots who should be astrocized--is gaining traction.  It's becoming less extreme. 

 

Nobody has said that most LBGT folk want to bankrupt us.  Yet, this statement puts us on the defense--as if we had made that accusation.  Even Bill Maher, who is much more sympathetic to the LBGT cause than to that of religious folk, states that there is a 'gay mafia.' 

Yeah, like with any bunch of people, they paint broad strokes.

I don't see it that way, like everything in life it is not black and white.

[The Folk Prophet]

And I find it almost insulting for people to tell me that I am not truly happy unless I embrase something they believe. If the church gives you all the joy in the world then be happy in your life.

But you can't possibly know what makes me happy-for instance I really feel uncomfortable in church a lot of the time due to my rather avoidance of large amounts of peoples.

I understand what makes me happy and my persuit of it will take me in a vastly different direction. Your happiness doesn't make me happy. But it makes many others happy so it is a good thing, at the end of the day.

 

Only one who has experienced true joy can understand true joy. Those who have not experienced it may wallow there in the mire claiming they know what makes them happy. But they cannot possibly know this unless they have experienced something beyond the mud.  All mankind is in this state, to an extent, as we are all, relatively, wallowing. Only God truly understands joy.

 

Point being: No one knows what would or could truly make them happy.

 

And discomfort is not the antithesis to happiness. Most things that really bring happiness in life require some level of discomfort. If everyone took upon themselves the attitude that being uncomfortable was indicative of continued misery then not much would ever be accomplished in life...not the least of which is the creation of life itself, a decidedly uncomfortable thing, and yet one well known to bring, perhaps, one of the greatest joys known in life. 

[Lakumi]

Yes I am aware I cannot obtain true happiness, life is indeed suffering as the Buddha taught-and many other religions talk about. But when I speak of happiness, I mean only the happiness I can achieve in this mortal life.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes I am aware I cannot obtain true happiness, life is indeed suffering as the Buddha taught-and many other religions talk about. But when I speak of happiness, I mean only the happiness I can achieve in this mortal life.

 

Also something you cannot understand, even if you had a future predicting crystal ball. There are too many things you have not experienced to know. It is entirely likely that at some point you will be in a situation where you will be struck with the sudden epiphany: This is SO much better. I never could have imagined this. Wow.

[Lakumi]

Also something you cannot understand, even if you had a future predicting crystal ball. There are too many things you have not experienced to know. It is entirely likely that at some point you will be in a situation where you will be struck with the sudden epiphany: This is SO much better. I never could have imagined this. Wow.

 

Well I have an understanding of myself and what I have done and the like to have an idea. I don't have all the answers and one day may find something I love that I never imagined, but as for right this moment, I am happier then I have been in my past for the most part. Life is decent.

[The Folk Prophet]

Well I have an understanding of myself and what I have done and the like to have an idea. I don't have all the answers and one day may find something I love that I never imagined, but as for right this moment, I am happier then I have been in my past for the most part. Life is decent.

 

Right. But your experience, maturity, and perspective are not static things. They will change. So will you.

 

When I was younger I used to despise service projects. Now I love them. They bring me happiness. What changed? Maturity, experience, perspective.

 

So unless you plan on never gaining an ounce more of these things for the rest of your life and/or existence, you can't rightly claim that you know what will and won't make you happy. :)

[Lakumi]

Right. But your experience, maturity, and perspective are not static things. They will change. So will you.

 

When I was younger I used to despise service projects. Now I love them. They bring me happiness. What changed? Maturity, experience, perspective.

 

So unless you plan on never gaining an ounce more of these things for the rest of your life and/or existence, you can't rightly claim that you know what will and won't make you happy. :)

Well in the here and now those things don't make me happy, obviously life can change things, but I speak for the present-I can't ever know the future.

I usually just assume because I have always been an anti social weirdo.

[Finrock]

And I find it almost insulting for people to tell me that I am not truly happy unless I embrase something they believe. If the church gives you all the joy in the world then be happy in your life.

But you can't possibly know what makes me happy-for instance I really feel uncomfortable in church a lot of the time due to my rather avoidance of large amounts of peoples.

I understand what makes me happy and my persuit of it will take me in a vastly different direction. Your happiness doesn't make me happy. But it makes many others happy so it is a good thing, at the end of the day.

 

And no believing in traditional marriage doesn't make you a bigot, saying "hey I believe in this" doesn't, its when you go to someone and say "I hate you because you're gay"

along those lines.

Know what I mean?

I don't think you're a bigot because you came to share your beliefs to me-you came to me as a gentleman and we're having a dialog. No bigotry here.

 

It isn't about my happiness making anyone happy. My happiness is just as contingent on the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ as anyone elses. Being happy is not a relative thing. Lakumi, I am not talking down to you, I am trying to teach you and anyone else who will listen, true principles. That is all that I can ever do. I don't suppose for a second that I am better than you. I can guarantee you that I am not. You and I are equal. You are just as valuable and loved by Heavenly Father as I am. Heavenly Father is just as involved in your life as He is in mine. His love is perfect and it doesn't stop, ever. But, there is a Plan of Happiness which has been created by our God. I'm telling you and anyone who will listen that such a thing exist. God has created a plan that if we follow it, we will find true joy in life. We are here so that we might have joy. Furthermore, I am not even say that I got it all figured out and I'm just this awesome dude. I don't have it all figured out. I'm not this super awesome dude. I'm a weak man but there are things that I am certain about because I have experienced them in my life and I possess some truth that I can profess. But in the end I am in constant need of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

 

Being uncomfortable with large groups of people is not a detriment to you. God accepts you. But, He invites you to follow Him and see if His plan will do as it has promised. He will sustain us and give us strength to overcome our weaknesses. He will make our weak things strong. I am no socialite. I don't have to be. I don't love being around a bunch of folks. I'd rather stay home and do my thing. I would be perfectly fine with just being at home and doing my thing. Our Father knows us and He knows all of these things and He is willing and able to work with us. If we put our trust in Him and strive to live our life according to His plan then miracles can and do happen and we can be changed for the better.

 

-Finrock

[Lakumi]

the LDS church don't seem like a place for anti social single people lol

But to me I never quite understood how religion makes people happy, it seems alien to me. It is why I come to places like this to, often times just see how people interact and what they say to one another.

I can understand everything about LDS doctrine and history, but in practise, like with many things, it remains alien in my head.

[applepansy]

To be clear, the Supreme Court didn't take up the photographer's case because New Mexico has a law prohibiting discrimination on sexual orientation.  By declining to take up the case, the Supreme Court was effectively saying that, according to New Mexico law, a business that is open to the public cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation and that the current ruling had interpreted the law correctly.  There were no further questions to be asked.  

 

In states where discrimination on sexual orientation is not prohibited, the photographer would have had a case.  Realistically, the Supreme Court's decision here was a victory for states' rights.

 

 

I'm not sure why you think this is unbelievable.  Boycotts are a form of speech.  Patronage is a form of speech.  Citizens are allowed to boycott or patronize a business for any reason.  If you disagree with the boycotters' position, the proper thing to do is to exercise your voice and patronize the business.  

 

Anyone recall the great Chik-Fil-A battle?  Liberals went on a boycott of Chik-Fil-A and conservatives responded by patronizing the restaurants.  As you recall, that turned out pretty well for Chik-Fil-A.  

 

 

 

That being said, I think the pressure to have Eich removed was a little bit extreme.  I understand that employees may have been uneasy with the idea of someone that opposed same sex marriage being in a position to decide which benefits same sex couples get to enjoy, but by all objective measures, Eich appeared to have no issue with providing rights, benefits, and safe workplaces to homosexual employees and their partners.  I would like to think that his track record in the work place would speak more loudly than his political affiliations.  But, Mozilla's customer base seemed to feel differently, and so Mozilla made a tough choice.  I don't see anything wrong with that either.  If you disagree, I suggest you stop using Mozilla products and let them know the reason why.

Boycott is different from taking someone to court.

 

Our country was founded on the principle of freedom OF religion.  Setting out to destroy businesses because their owners don't agree with your lifestyle is just as wrong as real discrimination based on rase.

[applepansy]

Good Afternoon Lakumi! I hope you're having a fine day. Finally we are enjoying some warmer weather here in Michigan.

 

 

Your post is propagating a lie. When I say that your post is propagating a lie I feel no animosity, ill will, or anger towards you. I am not even judging you. I am simply trying to tell you the truth even though I have very little hope that you will accept the truth. The notion that homosexuals are a repressed minority is a lie. It is this ideology, this lie, that is being propagated and accepted by society to the detriment of all.

 

There are men and women who refuse to ignore the truth that gender matters. It is a truth that cannot be changed that only sex between a man and a woman produces a union that can result in creating life. There is only one biological system where each gender has only half of what is needed to produce the final product. Only sex between a man and a woman produces this essential union. The principle of heterosexual sex is the only way that humanity propagates and it is this truth that differentiates marriage from all other relationships. There is nothing wrong with people recognizing and wanting to uphold this eternal, unalterable truth. People who support true marriage are not bigots. Supporting true marriage and denouncing the lies of the same-sex ideology does not equate to bigotry or to a majority repressing a minority group. The same-sex movement is the not same, in any way, to the equal rights movement.

 

Gender matters. Governments and humanity have supported true marriage institutionally because of its unique and vital position in sustaining society. Because God has blessed us with an abundance of knowledge and technologies, wealth, and power our society has the luxury, but not moral right, to institutionally sustain non-heterosexual unions.

 

If a principle is true and right then it should be able to sustain itself no matter what. If our society did not have the wealth, technology, and power that we have now then society would quickly find out how foolish it is to institutionally support non-heterosexual marriages. If our species were on the brink of extinction would society still call those who support true marriage between a man and woman bigots and repressors of the minority? I doubt it very much. Societal support for non-heterosexual marriages would cease to exist because they would realize that society, humanity, cannot survive any other way.

 

I am not a bigot because I am against same-sex marriages. I am not hate filled. I am not narrow minded. In fact my whole motivation for speaking out against same-sex marriages is because I know where true happiness and joy is to be found. They are to be found in the principles of gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no other way for mankind to find true joy, true peace, and true fulfillment. I love God and I love my brothers and sisters in the world. I desire for them to know who they truly are and what their purpose here on life is. We are children of Heavenly Father. We, all of us, have come to this earth because we wanted to become like Heavenly Father. All of these things are distractions and they are pulling us away from our true purpose. These issues are blinding us to what we ought to be doing. I am an advocate for people coming unto Christ and becoming like Him in all things.

 

I don't care whether I am popular. I don't care what others think of me on this forum. I'm not here to be liked or to have my ego stroked. I simply want to stand for what is true and what is right. I am motivated by my love of God and of all men.

 

-Finrock

well said...thank you

[prisonchaplain]

Lakumi, on 10 Apr 2014 - 1:42 PM, said:

Yeah, like with any bunch of people, they paint broad strokes.

I don't see it that way, like everything in life it is not black and white.

 

I get that we should not judge individuals by the way they categorize themselves.  On the other hand, while you may see the world in shades of grey, there are those who are not so laizze faire (sp?).  If you brook their orthodoxy, be it gay rights, global warming, or abortion rights on the left, traditional marriage, protection of the unborn, or giving industry the benefit of the doubt in environmental controversies, you will find the zealots who want to drive out anyone who does not toe the line 100%.  Of late, they will not only drive you out of their political party, they will indeed try to destroy you.  Anyone remember the media outlet that threatened to publish online a map of everyone in their community with a registered gun?

 

I get that not everyone is like this.  Do we need to qualify these kinds of stories and discussions every time?  IMHO, it goes without saying that when I report that certain liberals/conservatives are doing such & such an outrage, that not everyone of that ideology is doing likewise.  I shouldn't have to say it to prove my objectivity.  Further, to be frank, when the response to posting such a story is, "So, you're saying we're all like that..." it puts an unfair spin on the OP.  No one said everyone is like that...but now it appears that way.  The OP then has to go on the defense and say, "I didn't mean everyone is like that..."  If politicans did that we'd accuse them of a tactic.  Here, it's probably a post-modernist bent that needs to constantly hear the qualifiers. 

[Lakumi]

I use language like that in text form since it is not as easy to talk as it is in person. A lot is lost.

How others see the world is their own business, and mine is mine.

Sometimes it helps to know where someone is coming from, mindset wise. Especially someone like me who isn't LDS and comes from a different background, country (then most of you) and belief system.

[Str8Shooter]

There is a lot to wade through here so I am just going to say something quick.

 

Same gender attraction is a choice that individuals make.  It is not something they are born with.  While there can be genetic tendencies towards same gender attraction, psychological and environmental factors play a much more significant role than the genetic factors.  This is backed by recent and accepted research on same gender attraction, but since it is not popular with society the research is not widely widely published.  

 

Explaining this is important because the widely accepted but incorrect belief that self proclaimed gay and lesbian individuals are born that way is deceiving many people.  

 

Things that people have no choice over, such as race, creed, and gender warrant civil rights.  If there is a choice, there cannot be civil rights protection without the potential for causing extreme and damaging discrimination to the group with the opposing beliefs.  Unfortunately, we can see this happening now and until people commit themselves to sincerely study and educate themselves by devoting several days to going through the research studies that exist, the deeply concerning trend of the erosion of religious freedom will continue unhindered.

 

People are being led away with flaxen cords.

[Lakumi]

Where is this published?

[Str8Shooter]

Where is this published?

Niklas Långström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström, Paul Lichtenstein, “Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behaviour: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden.” Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 7 June 2008, doi 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1

 

This study shows the role of genetics and environmental factors and that homosexuality is a combination of both.  It is a published study between the Karolinska Institute and the Queen Mary University of London.

[Lakumi]

Niklas Långström, Qazi Rahman, Eva Carlström, Paul Lichtenstein, “Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behaviour: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden.” Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 7 June 2008, doi 10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1

 

This study shows the role of genetics and environmental factors and that homosexuality is a combination of both.  It is a published study.

 

I will track that down.

[Just_A_Guy]

To be clear, the Supreme Court didn't take up the photographer's case because New Mexico has a law prohibiting discrimination on sexual orientation.  By declining to take up the case, the Supreme Court was effectively saying that, according to New Mexico law, a business that is open to the public cannot refuse service based on sexual orientation and that the current ruling had interpreted the law correctly.  There were no further questions to be asked.  

 

In states where discrimination on sexual orientation is not prohibited, the photographer would have had a case.  Realistically, the Supreme Court's decision here was a victory for states' rights.

 

But as you well know, states don't have the right to deny a freedom guaranteed by the bill of rights--in this case, Huguenin's right to practice her religion by abstaining from an activity she found abhorrent.  SCOTUS' refusal to grant certiorari here is troubling.  I can only hope that they denied cert because, had they granted it, this case would have made it to them before the Utah same-sex marriage case that's currently before the 10th Circuit; and that they're hoping to pin down the constitutional role of same-sex marriage before they determine the relationship between whatever "rights" get established in that case versus the freedom of religion.  Thankfully, mere denial of cert doesn't set national precedent; so New Mexico's harebrained activities only subjugates New Mexico at the present time.

 

I've seen a couple of interesting hypotheticals recently in online discussions regarding whether the New Mexico precedent requires a black photographer, if asked, to do a promotional shoot for a KKK rally; or a gay photographer to produce a series of sympathetic shots for a Westboro Baptist Church activity.  Because the KKK could easily claim racial discrimination; and WBC could claim religious discrimination, against photographers who refused to cover these kinds of events.

 

 

I'm not sure why you think this is unbelievable.  Boycotts are a form of speech.  Patronage is a form of speech.  Citizens are allowed to boycott or patronize a business for any reason.  If you disagree with the boycotters' position, the proper thing to do is to exercise your voice and patronize the business.  

 

I agree with you; but since we're going all free-market here we should probably ask why it's OK for a consumer to boycott a producer for offensive activities, but not OK for an employer to "boycott" an employee for those exact same activities.  Why should the loss of one's livelihood due to socially unacceptable speech be a natural result of repugnant behavior in the one case; but unlawful discrimination that should be remedied at law in the other case? 

 

And since a consumer can boycott a producer on "moral" grounds, why can't a producer (like Huguenin) be equally free to boycott a consumer on "moral" grounds?

[Just_A_Guy]

And as for benefit? Well that's a rather cold way to look at humanity and love. It's less about that and more about why should some dictate who others are allowed to marry and love?

. . .

I guess if I had to come up with one could say gays not having natural children gives more orphaned ones a chance at a happy home life?

Yes straight people adopt too, but I imagine less then gays do-I don't have numbers for that so don't quote me there.

 

Lakumi, millions of dollars are spent annually to maintain state marriage license bureaus and vital records divisions; not to mention paying state court judges and other officers whose jobs consist, in part, of solemnizing marriages for those who request them.  And that's not even counting the many, many benefits--financial and otherwise--that states give to married couples.

 

And we spend all this money . . . why?  Do you really think that government should make all this investment merely so that there's an official record, that will be kept permanently in state archives, of who's sleeping with whom; and so that we can give money to people who are in such relationships?  Or do we do it because we figure that state-incentivized sexual monogamy limits the spread of STD's?  (Heckuvajob with that one.  A third of Americans have been diagnosed with an STD, per the CDC's most recent numbers).

 

No; we've historically expended state resources in recording and subsidizing marriages because those marriages tended to produce children.  Society needed to both set up a set of legal relationships that accounted for those children, and also recognized that children historically have a disproportionate financial impact on one party to the marriage (the mother).*  Those rationales have been steadily eroded for the past thirty years with the revamping of gender roles, the decline of stay-at-home mothers, and the general acceptance of marriage as a years-or-decades-long rather than lifelong commitment.  Gay marriage isn't uniquely destructive to marriage, perhaps; except that it's the straw that breaks the camel's back.  It's the development that makes civil marriage look absolutely ridiculous and leads thinking taxpayers to wonder why the heck we're paying for this stuff at all.

 

*But what about couples who had no hope of children, you ask?  Why were they permitted to marry?  The state had no means of verifying fertility until recently; and by the time those means became scientifically available notions of privacy had become enshrined in constitutional law.  But the state had always maintained the right to tell two people that they could not enter into such a relationship, required that such a ceremony be licensed, and denied licenses on grounds of (inter alia) consanguinity, which it was understood would have repercussions on the children.  Annulment was (and still is, in many states) permitted (but not required) when, after marriage, it turned out that one party to the marriage was sterile; or had been sterile prior to the marriage and neglected to inform the other party.  Moreover, children were pretty much universally seen as desirable up until twenty or thirty years ago--the existence of a small percentage of couples who did not want children (or stayed together after knowing for sure that they were infertile) wasn't statistically significant enough to undermine the socially-perceived nexus between marriage and childrearing. 

[Lakumi]

Yeah I can't speak on US matters of government since I live in Canada and we do things quite differently here (I mean provinces don't have as much freedom to do things like states do)

Provinces originally did legalize same sex marriage one at a time, but eventually the entire thing was just made legal across the board, (if memory serves me correctly only 4 were left that hadn't made it legal)

 

Yeah I can add myself to the list of those who don't want children. If you're whole heart isn't in something, especially something so important, you shouldn't do it.

It will bring many bad feelings, undeserved feelings towards the children.

That and I am not sound enough for family life.