Pathros, dear, your presence is politely requested here.
And Visi, I’ll try to help out as I can. I didn’t get into this until today around 1, and by then I was too wiped to make sense of the spewings this character infested us with.
Wow. I take a weekend off, and the thread heats up like crazy. Neat.
You might wonder, what was MrVisible doing this weekend, that he didn’t have the time to get to the message boards? Well, I was with my lover. We engaged in a lot of rebellious, immoral activities. Such as? Well, we watched Casablanca; he’d never seen it, and it’s one of my favorites, and now I can squint at him, and say, “Here’s looking at you, kid” and make him laugh. He thinks I’m a goober.
We also did such revolting things as ordering Chinese takeout, looking over old pictures of our families, talking about our pasts, and yes, having sex. He’s a wonderful guy. I’m glad I’ve found him; I’m proud to be his lover.
Pathros would have us believe that instead of spending the weekend loving each other, making each other laugh, holding hands, making out, helping to heal old wounds, we should have been repressing our feelings, denying our attraction to each other, and leading the sexless lives of drones in hopes that when we get to heaven, all will be rewarded.
I chose instead to love another person, to make him happy, to take his hand, to start along a path that I hope will lead us to merge our lives together. I want a future with this man. I want to be able to be there when he needs me, and I want to be able to depend on him.
And that’s what the gay marriage controversy is about, Pathros. It’s about me having the legal right to be able to be there for my lover when he needs me most; in the hospital, in the courts, in the event of my death. All of these human events are substantially easier for married couples.
By lobbying against gay marriage, you’re making it harder for me to have a good life with the man I love. I hope you’re damned sure that God agrees with your doctrine of discrimination, because if you’re wrong, you’re going to have a lot of prejudice and harm to answer for. On the other hand, if I get called before the throne of God when I die, I’ll be able to say, “I loved someone, and did so well.” And if I can be condemned for that, then that god wasn’t worthy of my worship.
Anyway, on to the thread itself. This is getting fun.
Cartooniverse, I’ve noticed you’ve gotten a really good bead on Pathros’ weak spots: logic, reason, compassion, etc. I’m particularly fond of your phrase “hawkish loathesome sickening despicable hatemongering.” Poetry.
AbbySthrnAccent, I’m awfully glad you joined in. I was hoping to get an alternative LDS viewpoint, and I’m grateful for your eloquence and compassion. At no point during the thread have I assumed that Pathros was speaking for anyone but himself. I have a deep respect for religion, and I don’t want to denigrate anyone’s faith or practices. Please let me know if I’ve said anything that may have given offense.
Meanwhile, I have a question for you; is it true what Pathros says about there being no interpretation involved in LDS doctrine? Do all members of the church actually share the same perspective? Is there really no debate at all, and no chance for doctrine to change? It seems really unlikely.
And now, to Pathros. You sure have been a busy little bigot lately, haven’t you? Let’s do a quick review.
Well, bub, if you think you’ve been insulted, your skin is way too thin to go about starting pit threads. If you can’t stand the heat, stop tapdancing on the grill. And your words haven’t been misinterpreted as much as you’ve been backing and filling to make yourself look like the more rational brand of bigot. As to the OP, if you’re going to address a controversial subject, however tangentially, in a forum known for lively debate, you’d better be ready to go into detail about your belief. So, if you please, no more whining about these topics. You’re in the debate now, you’ve taken up the standard. Fight or run, but don’t whine about it.
Wow. Nobody, and I mean nobody, could possibly think that your views here could qualify you to be the representative of a religion. If you check back in my posts, you’ll find that I’ve always assumed you were an individual holding these opinions.
Remember, when I say prejudice, I imply action. As in, denying people rights, promoting a view that sees harmless acts as abominations, contributing to a culture of hatred and intolerance… need I go on? I have no problem with your ideas, Pathros… as long as those ideas don’t translate into legislation.
Every keystroke that I’ve devoted to this thread was vindicated by that last statement. Pathros, if you’ve really learned that “Denying anyone the opportunity to prove themselves based on something such as their sexual preference is prejudiced”, then I am honestly, genuinely, proud to have been a part of that lesson.
Originally posted by Pathros_1983
It’s called self-defense. Whenever I see someone stating anti-gay rhetoric, I feel the need to step in and question the foundations of those ideas. Usually it results in the discovery that the person’s stance is based on either A) It’s icky! or B)My church says it’s icky!
You fell into B, and have yet to back up your contention that your political stance is justified by your religion.
Well, that depends entirely on the values you’re defending, doesn’t it? And if those values are hurting people, IMHO, they’re not worth defending. And certainly not worth basing legislation on.
I’m not hurting anybody.
Well, you choose to be LDS, right? So, if I was to look down upon it, it’s okay, right? How about if I choose to lobby to get your church services outlawed? After all, you chose to go to church, you should have no legal protection if it was your choice, right?
Sorry, Pathros. There are choices people make in life that hurt no-one else. Going to church and loving people are among the ones that people should be able to choose, with no fear of legal reprisals. Would you give up going to church because most people think your brand of religion is wrong?
Okay. I can’t help it. It’s… just… too… funny…
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH! Oh, man, yeah, I can see where you’d want a brilliant debater like TiredofCrap backing you up. He sure did make a rosy impression around here. I’m just hoping that he was too drunk to remember what his password to the boards was the next day. Glory in it… heheeee…
Which is, in fact, enforcing your morals upon me, by denying me the rights all other American citizens enjoy, just because my actions don’t fit in with your religious doctrine. Got it? You’re enforcing a moral code, which to me is entirely irrelevant, through secular law. This is hurting people. Hurting people is bad. Bad Pathros.
And lastly,
Originally posted by Cartooniverse
Cartooniverse is my new hero.
One last thought to round out this epic. Morality is constantly changing, adapting itself to new revelations in society, being modified by politics and religion and art and culture and communications. As we’ve been progressing as a nation, we’ve come to recognize flaws in our morality, and worked to correct them, and to bring into being a more comprehensive legal code that is just to all people, regardless of prejudice.
The world is changing; soon, I hope, gay people will be forgetting that they were ever publicly derided and scorned, their relationships considered inferior by law, their lives constantly at risk. Pathros, and people like him, can hold back the basic benevolence of humankind which prompts this change for a time, but in the end, I have faith in mankind. Charity, compassion, and love may not be as flashy as bigotry and prejudice, but they are persistent, and they always seem to win in the end. I hope to live to see the day they do.
I’m going to consult some people who have authority in the LDS church before I reply to your post Mr. Visible (among others). Therefore, it may be a couple of days before I respond, but bare with me. Obviously, my answers so far are still hateful and bigoted in your minds. I do not want this to be what is thought of about me or my religion. Therefore, I’m going to think this over, consult a few people, and then write hopefully a detailed reply.
I’m glad that this thread has prompted you to examine your stance on this issue, and has caused you to do research to find out more about your church’s doctrine. I very much look forward to your reply.
MrVisible, you seem to think that laws are only passed based on objective evidence that the motivation is sound.
That’s not how it works in the US. Sorry about that, but laws typically are passed because a group of people is large enough to demand it, and it’s not considered unconstitutional (and they often don’t even pass that last litmus test).
In the case of same-sex marriage, you seem to have gotten things backwards. Marriage has been recognized by the state for centuries because it was the norm in society. People formed families, had children, and governments recognized that legally. Big surprise–society tends to codify in law practices that are generally accepted as being in the norm.
Same-sex unions have never been a part of marriage laws. Given that you (and others) wish to change the law to recognize same-sex unions equally with traditional marriage, I think you need to apply the same standard you yourself stated in the other thread. Specifically:
So prove to the rest of us in society with facts, statistics, and proof, how this will be a benefit to society, and not a net detriment.
And while you’re at it, please read here an essay which echos my feelings about why most (if not all) arguments for same-sex unions are spurious.
Also I object to your claim that not changing law to recognize same-sex unions is marginalizing same-sex couples in America. It is not laws that marginalize people, it is society–the same people who write the laws. Frankly, same-sex couples are in fact at the margin of society. The relevant definition of marginal is: “excluded from or existing outside the mainstream of society, a group, or a school of thought.” Same-sex couples are far outside of the mainstream.
Finally, the idea that small-minded people need an excuse from the law to beat people up is ridiculous on its face. People who are nasty enough to beat someone senseless because he behaves differently don’t look at the lawbooks and see if that behavior is somehow “marginalized,” think “Hey Bubba, didja know that gays can’t marry each other according to law? Let’s go rough some of 'em up.” I was a scorned member of society myself when growing up. I was a nerd (still am, actually). I endured a fair number of fights because of that, and there was no need for laws which excluded nerds from some activities/benefits/etc.
Another point I forgot to address was that we all labor under laws based on philosophies we don’t agree with. Financial policy is probably the best example. I personally don’t believe in redistribution of wealth and social engineering through taxation, and yet others who disagree have passed laws which compel me to hand over my hard-earned money for those purposes. Why do these people insist on forcing their beliefs on me?
MrVisible, Quickly your answers are, not exactly, No, and Yes more than no. Confusing, huh? Please hang in there with me while I try to explain. I am not a skilled debater and so apologize in advance and request that if I say something in a confusing manner, you’ll question me for clarification on what I intended to say. I reiterate that while I am LDS, (in good standing, inspite of Pathros insistance that I need to see my Bishop), the comments and answers I give are my understanding of the gospel. I do not speak in any official capacity for The Church.
Yes, there is interpretation involved in LDS doctrine. Monty hit upon it in the other thread. Our ability to think and reason for ourselves is a gift or right that we refer to as “free agency” or “free will”. A great deal of time is spent encouraging members and those curious about the church and its’ teachings to “search, ponder, and pray”. We teach our children starting when they are very young to read the scriptures and try to apply what they learn from the teachings and history therein to their lives today. It’s often referred to within the church as “personal revelation” or “gaining a testimony”.
At the same time, No. While we are all encouraged to look to the scriptures for guidance and personal understanding and applications in our lives, As a people we recognize that official interpretation of doctrine for the Church always remains in the hands of those in authority whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators of the Church. As I understand, no person has authority to declare interpretations of doctrine, except the past and present presidents of the church which we believe to be prophets of God. If they (past or present president of the church) have not made an announcement regarding something, then there is no “official doctrine”, whatever is happening or being taught is practice not doctrine.
Another point, not everything a church president says is “official doctrine” either. For example, in a recent conference, the president of the church commented among other things that women are encouraged to wear only one pair of earrings and men none at all. A woman would not be released(let go) from her calling (assignment) as a primary(sunday school) teacher or a relief society (womens organization)leader because she choose to wear several pairs of earrings. A more personal example would be my brother, he served faithfully as a sunday school teacher, youth leader, and in the elders quorum of his ward(congregation) for years after his mission with hair more than halfway down his back and an earring. I understood the prophets request to be a lesson in moderation and to avoid extreme styles and had I had more than one set of earrings, I would have removed one set. I never thought to ask my brother if he removed his. I will next time I visit with him. However, the prophets words on that topic at that time were not “official doctrine”, it is a suggestion.
I’m pretty sure it was already explained in an earlier post that we do not believe cannon to be closed. To quote directly from the Articles of Faith “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” So we believe in modern revelation. We believe both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. We believe the teachings of the prophets (presidents of the church) to be the word of God. Many of those teachings are found in The Doctrine and Covenants.
Does doctrine change because the people within the church want it to? I don’t think so, although I can certainly provide a couple of example’s from church history where it seems practice’s/doctrine have changed.
First example from Doctrine and Covenants 49:15-17 recorded in March 1831 first discusses plural marriage (polygamy). From Mormon Doctrine, “According to the Lord’s law of marriage, it is lawful that a man have only one wife at a time, unless by revelation the Lord commands plurality of wives in the new and everlasting covenant.” As I understand it plural marriage was not essential to salvation or exaltation and was only valid and recognized by the church if authorized by the president of the church. I have not studied the practice extensively. The few biographical sketches and two biographies I read both seemed to indicate that in practice it was to help care for a preponderance of widows and orphans due to the large number of men who were killed by mobs, died crossing the plains, or serving in the Mormon battalion. Then later in 1890, again by revelation, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto directing that the practice cease in order to comply with the laws of this country and another basic article of our faith, “ We believe in being asubject• to bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw•.” As you can see the practice, which was not unlawful when it began, had to be discontinued once it became unlawful, because one of our basic beliefs is to comply with the laws of the land. I would argue based on D&C 49:15-17 and the Manifesto, that the practice changed, but the doctrine has not. But since the practice was often perceive as doctrine. I can see that others would disagree.
The second example that springs to mind is with regards to who may hold the priesthood. The church was organized and established starting in 1830 during the period leading up to the civil war. One of many reason’s the members were so heavily persecuted in Missouri during the early years included the fact that the Missourian’s perceived Mormon’s to be abolitionists. Mormon’s tended to accept into their community anyone who accepted the tenets of the faith, including people of any color. One particular incident I recall began in part because a young black servant was paid similar wages to her white counterpart and was being taught to read by her Mormon employer. I have read that there were, in fact, black men (at least two?) who held the priesthood in the early church. Which would be extraordinarily unusual (in any church or organization) for the times. In practice however, for most the history of the church only white men held the priesthood, then in June of 1978 official declaration 2 announced that the priesthood and temple participation were open to all worthy male members of the church. This might be seen as change in doctrine, but then again it seems to me to be more of a change in practice as there was (to my knowledge) no doctrine that said, “Men of color cannot hold the priesthood.” In fact, historically in our own scriptures men of color not only held the priesthood, but held high positions in the church of their day.
Even though I personally see these two events as changes in practice within the church, I can see that most people outside the church would see this as a change in doctrine. What do you think?
When I first came across the thread, I was so shocked by **Pathros** presenting his view of homosexuality as "sub-human" and supporting it with LDS teachings and doctrine that I felt I had to speak up. Not to argue or present an alternative viewpoint so much as to say that I believed him to be terribly wrong in what he said and how he said it and in his use of LDS teachings to support it.
The Gospel of Jesue Christ is a gospel of love, compassion, kindness and service. We teach our young people that **all** people are of a divine nature and have inherent individual worth. The gospel I live and the church I am a member of ** does not ** teach that any segment of society is "sub-human". It was a highly inflammatory and prejudiced remark. Which I think he has now taken back and apologized for, although I am still not sure he understands just how off base from the teachings of the gospel it was.
Like you, we believe [families can be one of our greatest sources of happiness.](http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1149-1,00.html)
We also believe [God knows and loves each of us.](http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1453-1,00.html)
[Marriage is part of God’s plan,](http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1452-1,00.html)
[Children are a gift from God,](http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1454-1,00.html) and
[Families can be together forever](http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1456-1,00.html) if they want to be.
The church has two official sites
"http://www.LDS.org" and
"http://www.Mormon.org"
Here you can find [The Family: A Proclamation to the World,](http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html) which would be considered doctrine I believe since among its signatures is the president of the churches.
Here is a link to our [scriptures](http://scriptures.lds.org/) which includes the old and new testament of the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
Finally I want to say that while I am happy to answer your questions, I do not know all things regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I can only share with you my understanding and feelings as an actively participating member. I do however know that God lives, that in spite of my weaknesses He loves me just as He loves all of His children, that because we are His children and He is divine, we have a divine nature and inherent individual worth, no matter what we do, and for that, I am very grateful.I just realized that the last paragraph above is witnessing in the pit. I apologize. I am not an idiot. I have indeed read the forum descriptions and make every effort to adhere to them. I realize witnessing belongs in Great Debates.
If a mod wants to edit and remove the last paragraph, I most certainly understand.
Excellent stuff, Abby.
I haven’t read this entire thread, but I’m chiming in on the disagreement with ‘sub-human.’ I hope Pathros has apologized profusely for that remark, however it was meant.
Read closely what I said. I never said “I think gays are subhuman.” I said “thinking gays are subhuman is not wrong.” That goes back to the OP and promoting free thought, and defending someones right to feel that way. Perhaps a better word instead of “not wrong,” would be “legal.” Throughout this post I tried to emphasize “love the sinner, not the sin.” Therefore, I do not think gays are subhuman, even though I view gay marriage cannot be accepted.
Mr. Visible, I will respond to you still. I am waiting for some feedback from a Bishop in the church. When I get his response, I will make a post concerning what you said. In the meantime, I believe emarkp had several good comments to make concerning the subject.
Sorry I’ve been away for a bit; I’ve been too busy to put the necessary effort into the questions that have been posed here. I’ve finally got a bit of a break, though, so here goes.
Emarkp, I am not under the impression that laws are only passed because they have a sound basis in rationality. I just believe that they should be. If a law is passed that hurts a section of the population, I’d very much like to see some sort of logic or reason behind it; otherwise, I’ll oppose that law. I understand that in a democracy, the majority (theoretically, with extensive qualifiers) rules; however, the majority has often been wrong, and even morally reprehensible in retrospect. You’re aware, of course, of the fact that interracial marriage laws were ruled uncostitutional as recently as 1968. Should those laws not have been contested, and deemed unconstitutional, simply because that’s the way the law traditionally regarded marriage?
(I apologize at this point for bringing race into the argument; however, in terms of legislation regarding marriage, it’s the most relevant case study. Please see here for a thorough comparison of the two causes. I’m particularly interested in the Gallup poll which indicates that, in 1958, 94% of whites disapproved of interracial marriage. The majority, as it turns out, is not always moral.)
Agreed; however, the norm is constantly changing as society develops and refines its moral code. The current movement toward the recognition of gay people as a legitimate part of society is an indication that the morals of our society are, once again, widening to allow the acceptance of yet another minority. Arguing that the status quo is how things have always been is pretty redundant.
In reference to that article you linked to, any law is ridiculous if taken to extremes, and imposed without limitation. The article doesn’t even address what I’m arguing for; specific legislation allowing gay couples the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as straight couples. I don’t want to marry a dead poet, thanks.
And of course, according to your understanding, the laws codify the will of the people. Except that, historically, the laws also codify the understanding of the government that minorities need special legislation in order to make sure they enjoy the same benefits of citizenship as others. I assume you’re familiar with some of the civil rights laws already in place. I understand that societally, seeing as gay people are a minority, we will never be the mainstream. But I protest the fact that our status is legally marginalized; that due to sexual orientation, we are denied rights that heterosexual couples take for granted.
According to the American Psychiatric Association,
Try being a gay nerd. I was.
The idea that having the government decry homosexuality as being less deserving of legal benefits would have no effect on society is ludicrous. Do you think that the thugs assaulting gay people aren’t in some part reflecting society’s attitudes toward gay people?
Also from the American Psychological Association
And finally, you’ve asked me to provide facts and statistics that prove that the legalization of gay marriage will prove to be of net benefit to society. I intend to do so; however, first of all I want to point out how petty that position is. If what it takes to make you question a political position which is harming people, making their lives miserable, causing discrimination and hatred in a country that prides itself on equality, is a cost-benefit analysis, then I really feel sorry for you. “Should I help these people? Heck, I dunno, what’s in it for me?” Doesn’t sound very much like Christian charity to me.
The first benefit to society I’d like to point out is the encouragement of stable, monogamous family units. That is, after all, a main societal function of marriage currently; keeping families together, giving them a legal structure by which to manage the creation, functioning, and dissolution of their unions. Extending this benefit to same-sex couples would generate even more of the social stability that our country already gains from this venerable institution.
For instance, single parent families are much more likely to receive aid from state and federal agencies.
The ability of the state to turn thousands of single-parent households into two-parent households would be of benefit to society, then, no?
Another benefit would be in making sure that custody was secured for the children of same-sex parents. Making certain that the child was the legal responsibility of both married parents would ensure fewer custody battles, and fewer children becoming wards of the state.
Society would also benefit from providing legal encouragements for monogamous relationships; fewer sexually transmitted diseases would result, thus lowering the amount spent nationally on health care.
In terms of simple dollars and cents, this article states:
Extend that to the rest of the 49 states, and it’s a substantial chunk of change.
This survey of the financial impact of gay unions being legalized in Vermont concludes:
I can give you more support for gay marriage being of benefit to society, but the post is getting well past epic length already, so I’ll refrain unless you request more. But frankly, I’ve got the easy job here; I’m having to prove that marriage has societal benefits.
Now it’s your turn. Prove how allowing gays to marry is going to hurt society.
Finally, I am well aware of the fact that “we all labor under laws based on philosophies we don’t agree with.” In this country, we have the ability, even an obligation, given to us by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to change the laws that we find to be discriminatory or unfair.
I like to think that as a race, human beings are gradually getting better and better at recognizing and eliminating injustice and prejudice; that we are making progress as a species from our barbaric roots to an ultimate goal of enlightened benevolence towards all. This journey is accomplished by recognizing our outdated prejudices and hatreds, looking at them in the light of reason, and learning to overcome them. And in my own way, that is what I’m working towards.
Just in case anyone else likes to read Kirby.
BTW, it’s emarkp, not Emarkp–even at the beginning of a sentence. The online world has done amazing things to language, eh? 
You missed part of the point I was trying to make. I apologize if it was unclear, and I’ll attempt to restate part of it. It is quite possible for two different opinions to be reached, based on objective evidence which are contradictory, especially when in regard to human behavior–which is chaotic and difficult to model. Hence, not only is it possible for laws to be enacted in the absence of evidence, but also when there is contradictory evidence.
As far as the reference to interracial marriage goes, I find the comparison less than compelling. Marriage has traditionally been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Laws against interracial marriage imposed additional restraints. Removing those additional restraints is not the same thing as changing the definition of marriage.
Other restraints (such as the age of people being married) have remained in place, because they are deemed as having merit. There are groups (most notably NAMBLA) which would like to change that, and to remove laws restricting sexual activity between adults and minors (statutory rape, age of consent, etc.). How do you stand on such issues? What about polygyny?
Um, the essay most certainly does address that. It is framed as a conversation between and advocate of same-sex unions (text in black) and an advocate of an even more liberal definition of marriage (text in red). Nice of you to address only the extreme tail end of the essay. I’ll note that you utterly ignored the more realistic part of the argument towards the beginning. You missed the part about visitation rights, health benefits from employers, wills, etc. These are the arguments that you have used to show why same-sex couples need the benefits of traditional marriage. You must address the counter-argument, else please desist in using those claims as a basis for your arguments.
Do you find the idea of friends getting married so that one can have the medical benefits offered by the other’s employer ridiculous or extreme? Have you analyzed the repercussions on society of companies having to submit to such a law?
However, that legislation is selective. For instance, convicted felons are a minority in the US, and yet they have had rights explicitly removed.
I made no claim that existing or future legislation would have no effect on society. Also, you’re getting things backward here. The government is not decrying anything. The laws in the US have always defined marriage as between a man and a woman, because society has long defined marriage as such. It is you and others who are attempting to change legislation. I do not believe that is not the case that when the legal recognition of marriage was made into law that it was intentionally disbarring same-sex unions, merely that it was providing recognition of an existing social and religious covenant. You appear to believe that the laws were written with the express intention of excluding same-sex couples. Why is that?
I think to some degree that’s the case, and I haven’t made any claim to the contrary. In fact, my point was simply that society does not accept same-sex couples as equivalent to traditional marriages. I don’t know of anyone who advocates physical harm–anyone who does should be in prison. Those committing assaults are violating other laws which society has enacted. They are in fact not reflecting society’s attitudes with respect to assault.
[snip the statistics about violence in high school]
This is a non sequitur. I made no claim that nerds are more persecuted than people who identify themselves as gay. I have no desire to enter a “my life sucked more than yours” argument. My point was that it there is no need for any laws against “nerds” for them to be vicimized. Your claim that violence towards people with same-sex attractioni is caused by the lack of laws which change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is without basis. You have established no causal link.
Why is this petty? This is precisely the same requirement you attempted to foist onto Pathros. Why is it unreasonable to make you abide by the same standard you make for others? Frankly, I find this statement bizarre.
Again, you have established no causal link between existing legislation and such rhetoric. Your claims to the damages caused by the law are getting larger and larger on each go 'round. And yet, just repeating the claim doesn’t make it true.
Ah, I see. When you are unable to argue the facts, you turn to prejudice and hate. Very nice.
As to your “evidence” as to the benefit of recognition of same-sex unions, I’ll note that the whole of it is pulled out of the air:
Claim: Single-parent families have lots of economic problems. Allowing same-sex unions would reduce the number of single parent families (paraphrase).
This just doesn’t make sense. The overwhelming source of single-parent families are a result of infidelity and abandonment, or unexpected death. Surely same-sex couples are no more resistant to infidelity than the rest of society? Surely they aren’t somehow more capable of avoiding unexpected death? Indeed, since same-sex couples cannot have children together naturally, there is a steeper hurdle for them to overcome in order to have children at all. This suggests that the group of same-sex couples which have children are potentially more committed to the relationship in the first place. How would legal sanction of the union change this?
Claim: Society would also benefit from providing legal encouragements for monogamous relationships; fewer sexually transmitted diseases would result, thus lowering the amount spent nationally on health care.
Yet heterosexual couples have had the legal benefits of marriage, and STD’s have risen, not fallen. A counter-argument to the claim could also include, say, that additional societal acceptance of homosexual relations would encourage some people to be sexually active whereas they were not before–potentially overwhelming any possible benefit. Granted, this is pure speculation, but so is the claim.
Claim: Same-sex unions would increase the tax revenue.
Aside from the fact that the numbers (10,000 same-sex couples in CA) are drawn from the air, it is ridiculous to assume the US has the same (or even remotely similar) demographic breakdown as California. We all know that CA has given many more concessions (both in law and in society) to same-sex relationships. Furthermore, I have stated above that I don’t approve of social engineering through taxes. I’m all for removing any tax penalties for marriage (and so is President Bush, thankfully).
Well, since I’ve seen no support whatsoever, the word “more” is inappropriate IMO. Whenever you’re serious about it, I’d be happy to hear what you have to say.
Incorrect. Your role is to support your argument. Since I’ve found flaws in every point of your argument, I don’t believe you have done that. My role is not to prove my point, it is to disprove yours. After all, you are the one proposing change, and have to express the merits thereof.
Furthermore, you have failed to address any possible detriments to society that a change of law would result in. Surely, if you believe that laws should be enacted from a rational analysis, you would be in favor of doing a thorough and balanced investigation.
In particular, the issues of medical benefits, wills, and hospital visitation rights are all mentioned in the essay I linked to. Since these are your most vocal issues, I’d like to see the essay addressed.
I havent recieved a reply from my contacts, **Mr.Visible[.b], but emarkp has addressed you very effectively and in fact has probably said what my contacts would say.
If they do return my emails/calls, then I will post their comments here.
From the article genie linked, it sure says what I was trying to say.
We all do things that are considered "sin" . I'm sure not sitting in Church thinking, "wonder what her sin is", or "wonder whose sin is worse", or "Ohhh he did a big sin, he shouldn't be here", and if anyone is, then they are like the self-righteous, fat-headed bigot mentioned above.I agree with what you said, but perhaps I can’t see your tone on the SDMB. I get the idea that yet again someone is calling ME a self-righteous, fat-headed bigot. I never claimed to be perfect, and sure as heck didnt label any other person as a worse sinner than myself.
[slight hijack] One thing I am sometimes guilty of is being very harsh towards people I know who do something extremely sinful and take the sacrament the following Sunday. Or even worse, blessing the sacrament. Worst of all, do something of that manner right before entering the temple. I am not their bishop, though, so cannot say anything on whether or not they should or should not take/bless the sacrament, but I do find it an offense when they do something heinous and have no problems performing a sacred ordinance. Then again this may put me into the category of “who labels the worse sinner,” but I usually only take offense in this manner when its something extremely serious, and something I witnesssed first hand. Like I said earlier, though, I am not their bishop and in any case cannot pass judgement, but I also cannot silently condone their actions. I believe Kirby’s article was about not ostrasizing someone because of their sin, or being a member and labeling homosexuals as worse sinners than yourself. The church on the other hand, is another story. [/slight hijack]
One other thing you quoted from the article that I agree whole heartedly is that Ostracizing someone because of sin makes no sense. Love the sinner, not the sin. It still does not justify sinful action, and still does not justify a moral (in the sense of sin v. not a sin)legalization of gay marriage.
AbbySthrnAccent, I’d like to thank you for the thorough and thoughtful post above. It told me a lot about how LDS views the word of God, and the teachings of your religion. I have very little experience in living within a religious structure; it’s always been my choice as to what to believe, and what not to. No matter what the source may be, I try and evaluate the words said, and determine whether to incorporate them into my life accordingly. It’s sometimes difficult for me to understand the extra weight given to doctrine and canon within a religious context, and you’ve helped clear that up for me, in reference to LDS beliefs.
And genie, that was a great article. Thanks for sharing that.
emarkp, (and thanks for the reminder on the capitalization; from now on, whenever I type your name, I’ll remember how shiftless you are) I’d appreciate it if you’d stick to the issue at hand. I’m not arguing for polygamous marriage, for friends marrying friends, for pedophilic unions, or for marrying dead poets. Distraction is a time-honored, but somewhat overused, debating tactic, but I think it would behoove you to stick to the issues at hand.
I see the article that you keep referring to as arguing an entirely different position to the one that I am making. If you want to point out its relevance, please feel free to. But simply referring to it time and again isn’t going to make it make any more sense in relation to your argument.
And, um… what’s your point? Laws have been passed on really bad evidence, and have had horrible consequences for undeserving people throughout history. Laws can be passed on no evidence whatsoever. I am of the opinion that when an unfair law exists, it is the duty of concerned citizens to oppose it, and if possible, get it changed or stricken.
First of all, I never claimed that the incidences are a direct parallel; “most relevant case study” was my phrasing. But there are similarities, and I think we can learn from our past mistakes as a society. From the same article:
Still see no paralells?
Also quoth emarkp:
Okey-dokey. The article’s sterling arguments against visitation rights:
Pretty much gone. Most hospitals. Let me ask you, emarkp, do you plan on having a major accident soon? Know where it’s going to happen? Know what hospital you’ll be taken to, so that if you’re unconscious or near death, you’ll have your list of visitors already there before you arrive? You shouldn’t have to worry as to whether your spouse can see you in case of a tragedy; neither should I. I’d also like to see some cites to back up your contention that such measures are already in place.
Your article’s stinging summation of the health insurance issue:
Yeah. And this proves… what? That everybody has health insurance, so we don’t really need it? Make your argument, emarkp, or clarify what you think the article says.
And as to wills, your article’s stirring rendition of Beavis and Butthead debate gay marriage has this to say:
Well, that is a good question. There are legal protections in place for spouses who have no wills, or whose wills are lost or destroyed. Also, what happens if the will is contested? Don’t you think a legal spouse has an easier time defending a contested will than someone with the legal status of a roommate? Can you see why this is a strong argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage?
Your treasured essay is simply an exercise in reductio ad absurdum. It is asking the question, “If gay people get married, what’s stopping friends from getting married?” And the answer to that question is, if they want to get married, they can feel free to campaign for that right, just as gay people are currently campaigning. I’m not arguing that friends should be able to get married.
Besides which, the tactic used in that article is disingenuous, to say the least. It’s easy to win any argument if you’re the one arguing both sides. For example:
It’s a childish way to argue a point. Though it is kinda fun, knowing that if you’re fighting with yourself, you always win.
To sum up my position on that article: Tell me what point you think it’s making, and how it supports that point. And what evidence you think it brings to bear.
Okay, next topic.
[quote]
And why? Because they’re criminals! They’ve harmed people! They’ve broken the social contract, and have damaged society in a substantial, quantitative fashion!
Now, think carefully, emarkp; do you really want to go about comparing gay people and convicted felons like that? What does it say about your attitude toward homosexuals?
Originally posted by emarkp
Actually, I believe that society is finally evolving to the point where the inclusion of the homosexual minority is able to be included in some traditionally intolerant institutions. I believe that morality is progressing to the point where people realize that loving someone doesn’t make a person less worthy of recognition by society. I believe that the laws should be expanded to reflect that growing acceptance.
Well, emarkp, you might want to read the bits you omitted from my quote: “If what it takes to make you question a political position which is harming people, making their lives miserable, causing discrimination and hatred in a country that prides itself on equality, is a cost-benefit analysis, then I really feel sorry for you.” And I really do feel sorry for you. Denying people rights based on Christian charity may give you cognitive-dissonance-inspired migraines. And we all know how bitter hypocrisy makes people.
And you might notice that I don’t find it unreasonable to provide facts and figures and quotes and studies. What have you brought so far? The Ornery American does gay marriage.
Oh, wait, what was that?
Then I take it you didn’t read the quote from the American Psychiatric Association that I posted, which stated:
So, yes, our society does need to dispel the idea that homosexuals are threatening outsiders. A good step in that direction would be eliminating legislation that assumes that we are threatening outsiders. Not a difficult connection to make, is it?
But this statement, emarkp, caused me to lose all respect for you whatsoever.
It seems you don’t know very much about hatred or prejudice. Find anywhere in the statement I posted where I even vaguely implied hatred, of anything. I was questioning your Christian charity. Yours, emarkp. Based on your reduction of the argument to a simple monetary equation. And I display no prejudice there either; I judged you based on your statements. I did not judge you because of your race, religion, country of origin, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic; I judged you by your words. And I found you hypocritical and lacking in character. Your reaction to this comment only confirms my opinion.
Your refutation of my monetary arguments is facile.
Are you really trying to tell me that you think the institution of marriage doesn’t encourage fidelity and promote a stable home environment? Really?
Once again; you don’t believe marriage promotes fidelity?
Okay, let’s see. The population of the US is currently what, 285,000,000 people or so. If a conservative 5% of them are gay, that’s 14,250,000 gay people. If a conservative 5% of them want to marry, that’s 356,250 gay marriages. And seeing as married couples contribute an average $1244 in federal taxes annually, that’s $443,175,000 that gay people would be grateful to be able to pay, every year. Whether you approve of the “marriage tax” or not, it is in place. And homosexual marriage could be a major source of income for the country.
Next…
Actually, the role of both sides in a debate is to provide facts, cites, and support for their positions. Your puerile attempts at disproving my arguments aren’t very effective; you’d better start coughing up some facts, fast.
That would be your job; I’ve never seen any facts that support the idea that gay marriage would be detrimental to this society. If you do go looking for such facts, you might want to start with historical evidence that interracial marriage has harmed the US. Good luck with that, okay?
So, do some research, come up with some reasoning for your position, or piss off, huh? You bug me.
Now I’d like to address Pathros:
Actually, you were doing a better job than emarkp. You showed some ability to support your position, without resorting to cheap juvenile rhetorical tricks to try and undermine arguments. I would hope that your contacts would have much better arguments than emarkp has presented. You were at least trying to support your position. I look forward to your return to the thread.
I’d like to address one of your quotes:
How far does that go? Would you love a gay brother? A gay son? Would you be happy for them if they found someone to love? Would you go to their union ceremony (since marriage for them is still illegal)?
Even when I was furious with you for making what I felt were prejudiced, and extremely bigoted remarks and then trying to use selected parts of LDS doctrine to support your comments, I didn’t resort to calling you a name.
Please,Pathros take a deep breath and relax. There are other people in this thread. I wasn’t talking to you or about you. Get a grip. I was acknowledging genie’s post and letting her know that I appreciated the article. Additionally, I quoted a part of it that expressed something I had struggled to include in one of my previous posts to MrVisible and had not said so well as the article in the link. So if that post was directed to a specific audience it was genie and MrVisible neither of which (I suspect) will feel as though I was calling them names.
I didnt say YOU were calling me names, I just said it felt like I was being labeled a bigot again. Note that I commented how I couldnt see your tone, so therefore would probably be mistaken. I made those comments to avoid name calling that WOULD be directed towards me because its been done in the past, and I could use without it. Obviously you jumped right onto me for being incorrect about assuming you were referring to me, but then again I never said you were the one doing the name calling. Sorry if that was unclear or seemed contrary.
As for using selected parts of LDS doctrine to support my comments? I think I’ve clarified what I meant, and I generally avoided quoting LDS doctrine for the first part of this thread, and when I did bring up being LDS, I brought up simply being a part of that religion, nothing more. Not until later into the thread was that used against me and the comment made “LDS believe this, because you said so, and you’re wrong, and you’re a bigot who isnt quoting LDS properly.” At one point, emarkp jumped in and pointed out mistakes in what I said, and immediately after I agreed with him. Reason being is that I did not make LDS viewpoints the focus, and therefore didnt revise thouroughly. (I think I’ve said this before, did I not?) I didnt use selective LDS doctrine to support my comments, but like with every other thing that is misinterpreted on this thread, I apologize if it seems that way. What has happened is people see what I typed in post (a) a generalization at the begining of the thread, and assume that post (b) reference to the LDS doctrine that appears later in the post could be applied to post (a) and therefore I would be using selected doctrine, and misinterpreting LDS beliefs.
Not to assume too much, but I’m not sure exactly what Mr.Visible thinks LDS doctrine is. I believe what you said earlier, AbbySthrnAccent is correct, but I also believe that article that emarkp posted to be more correct. (the article written in the Ensign.)I would suggest that from now on, if someone makes a comment about LDS doctrine then they post a URL directing other dopers directly to the site where it says that. Reason being is that there are plenty of online references which are used for official purposes by the church, and it makes the business of misinterpreting what posters say a little less of a hassle. (Note: AbbySthrnAccent, you’ve posted URLs, and so has emarkp. That comment is more for me, and to clarify that I do not intend for my remarks to be taken as LDS doctrine.)
Sorry, I forgot to respond to your comment, which was:
You asked:
Sorry if this seems ambiguous, but I will try to clarify what I meant. If I had a brother or a son who were gay, or even a daughter who was pregnant outside of marriage, or ANY manner of sin, I would not “kick them out of the family,” nor would I shun them or anyone else at church. I would approach them with open arms, and I would help them to repentance. I agree with comments made by another doper, and that is that the LDS church is one of love. I grew up in a single parent home, and in fact became Mormon because my family was treated with love. If my son who were gay decided to remain gay, I would still consider him my son, but would not go to his marriage. Why? Because that would show that I condone his actions. If my daughter got pregnant, would I let her raise her son, and would I consider her child my grandchild? Yes. Would that mean that if she still lived in my house, that I would let her go to a party or event knowing she had the intent of having sex? No, because I could not condone her actions. This is getting into parenting techniques, which I’m going to try to stay away from, but the point is that I would approach someone with open arms, acceptance, and try to help them repent. (If they don’t believe its a sin, then of course the last part of that statement wouldnt really apply.) I’ve tried very hard to emphasize love the sinner, not the sin, and that is a continutation of Ostracizing someone because of sin makes no sense. Does that make sense?