LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[madhatter85]

Please show where that is my premise. In fact I strongly disagree with this sentiment. My premises are that homosexuality is moral, that gay marriage is a good thing, that the only opposition is both religious and irrational, and therefore inappropriate, and that love is to be encouraged, not feared.

you use everything else as interchangeable Auto. every time you try and compare homosexuality to behavioral choices. like being LDS for instance.

you are then by implication saying that being male or female is choice and that there is no difference between the two.

you're stating that religion is irrational, which may be your opinion. but the world sees it differently. just ebcause there is a large base of Athiest homosexuals on thsi forum does not mean theya re a majority in the real world. and in the real american world, religious morals rooted in Jeudo-schristianity have dictated the laws since the beginnign of the constitution. Killing is immoral only because the majority feels that way. Homosexuality is immoral because the majority feels that way. Laws are establed based on the moral code of the community in which they apply.

 

[Starfish]

No, it is not what I believe, and I don't know where you got this idea. Now would you like to respond to the many, many points that I actually made in this thread?

The gender of the parents actually does not matter. Good solid research has shown this to be true, and I would be happy to provide you with the references.

Other than that, I prefer not to go chasing after red herrings, but to discuss the issues actually at hand. If you want to start a thread on whether there are real differences between men and women and whether they matter, please do.

Legally, there are few instances in which gender-based discrimination is appropriate. You will note that it was not me who made the argument in this thread that this is an instance of gender-based discrimination. I think we have enough controversy on our plates here without going back and arguing the ERA.

Okay, then let's limit the matter to marriage, which also spills into parenting. As you said, you believe the gender of parents does not matter.
I disagree.

As far as starting a thread on the differences between men and women, that would apply right here. That IS the whole issue, as far as the LDS Church is concerned.

 

[madhatter85]

No, it is not what I believe, and I don't know where you got this idea. Now would you like to respond to the many, many points that I actually made in this thread?

The gender of the parents actually does not matter. Good solid research has shown this to be true, and I would be happy to provide you with the references.

you just sated it again that gender does not matter and therefore there is absolutely NO difference between men and women.

Legally, there are few instances in which gender-based discrimination is appropriate. You will note that it was not me who made the argument in this thread that this is an instance of gender-based discrimination. I think we have enough controversy on our plates here without going back and arguing the ERA.

there are plenty. int he job related field women cannot be discriminated against because of pregnancy. Women have different needs, and "women problems" is a reasonable excuse for not coming into work.

Women are not required to sign up for selective service, Men are. Women cannot bare thier chest and nipple in public, men can.

there are no urinals in a public women's restroom, there are in Men's rooms.

There are doctors specifically designed to treat women and the issues they have as compared to men.

Men and womena re different, they learn differently, they think differently and have different emotional structures. they are indeed different in all cases and should be treated differently. not unfairly, but differently. there is a difference between unfair and different.

 

[madhatter85]

Okay, then let's limit the matter to marriage, which also spills into parenting. As you said, you believe the gender of parents does not matter.
I disagree.

As far as starting a thread on the differences between men and women, that would apply right here. That IS the whole issue, as far as the LDS Church is concerned.

But to her Marriage is not about parenting at all....

 

[Autodidact]

you use everything else as interchangeable Auto. every time you try and compare homosexuality to behavioral choices. like being LDS for instance.

It's called a metaphor. I'm trying to increase understanding by offering something you can relate to.

you are then by implication saying that being male or female is choice and that there is no difference between the two.

No, I'm not. Why are you trying to bait me into saying something I don't believe. It's not like I didn't give you 2 or 3 pages of actual posts to respond to; you don't have to make up new ones.

you're stating that religion is irrational, which may be your opinion.

that's right, just like your opinion that homosexuality is immoral, and with at least as much basis.

but the world sees it differently.

Guess what; they world thinks your religion is wrong. Does that make them right?

just ebcause there is a large base of Athiest homosexuals on thsi forum

Paranoid much? How many atheist homosexuals do you think there are at RF? Five? How many Mormons?

does not mean theya re a majority in the real world.

what does majority or minority have to do with right and wrong?

and in the real american world, religious morals rooted in Jeudo-schristianity have dictated the laws since the beginnign of the constitution.

Wrong.

Killing is immoral only because the majority feels that way.

Interesting. So you don't believe in any absolute or objective morality? Is it your position that laws are or should be based on morality?

Homosexuality is immoral because the majority feels that way.

You don't really believe this, do you? Slavery was moral because the majority felt that way?

Laws are establed based on the moral code of the community in which they apply.

Not here in the U.S. Laws are based on our mutually agreed social contract. Morality is a private matter.

And I think that's how you want to keep it, isn't it? You don't want us to be able to prohibit you from eating meat, or driving on Saturday, do you? You don't want us to require you to get a vasectomy because we think it's the moral thing to do, do you?

If you like the idea of a theocratically-based mandated morality, I suggest that you try a vacation in Iran and see how you enjoy it.

 

[Autodidact]

But to her Marriage is not about parenting at all....

Are you talking about me, mother of 3?

 

[madhatter85]

Are you talking about me, mother of 3?

did you adopt or did you have them with a male partner?

 

[Autodidact]

Okay, then let's limit the matter to marriage, which also spills into parenting. As you said, you believe the gender of parents does not matter.
I disagree.

You are factually incorrect. There has been a good amount of solid research on the matter, and it shows that the children of of intact, two-parent same-sex parents do at least as well as the children of intact, two-parent different sex households. Those are the facts. If you believe differently, then you believe wrong.

As far as starting a thread on the differences between men and women, that would apply right here. That IS the whole issue, as far as the LDS Church is concerned.

And why should the views of the LDS Church have any bearing on our laws? Are we living in a Mormon theocracy? Those of us outside Utah, that is.

 

[Autodidact]

did you adopt or did you have them with a male partner?

I gave birth to one via insemination, she gave birth to one, and we adopted the youngest.

Anyway, I mis-read your post. Legally, marriage is not only about parenting. People who don't want to or can't have kids can still get married. There is a relationship between marriage and parenting, but it is not direct or exclusive.

 

[Orontes]

Satisfaction level in and of itself level is not relevant. What is relevant is the process by and through which rights come about. There are no "legal rights" absent the democratic process. Judicial imposition is undemocratic. It is autocratic, and thus must be opposed.[/FONT]

Why do you hate America?

Non sequitur

Marriage is not a right.

Maybe you should tell the Supreme Court.

[/quote]

The Supreme Court has never ruled marriage is a right. Neither are they properly placed to do so. Rights are the product of the legislative process, not judicial fiat.

The simple answer is because it does not fit with the meaning of what a right is. Do you understand what claiming a right entails?

Define "right" such that marriage isn't one.

[/quote]

A right in simplest terms is an legal entitlement that places demands upon the state or an immunity from the state.

Making an "unequal treatment under the law" claim and then privileging gender and location (California) appear to contradict.

What are you basing these assertions on?

The holding of the California Supreme Court.

[/quote]

I'm not sure you understood the post your are referring to. Your answer would suggest you believe the California Supreme Court has contradicted itself. The issue the post discusses is the meaning of general inequity claims.

If your claims recognize different laws only have applicabilty in certain locales, then I assume there will be no general assertions about law and rights being made hereafter.

There is no privilege of gender in what you reference. Further, your assertion is undercut because it does not take into account the base operative for any "unequal treatment" charge. That operative is known in law as "similarly situated". This is what "same terms to all citizens" means. This is why men can be barred from women's restrooms for example, or sixteen year olds are not allowed to vote.

Is there some reason you can't talk in plain English? The California case was based on the California Constitution. Its reasoning applies only to places with similar Constitutions, which the U.S. does not have.

How are men and women differently situation with regard to marriage?

I think being more precise in one's language is better that the opposite, particularly when discussing ideas. If you don't understand something I post, ask and I'll explain. Your comment on "the California case based on the California Constitution" doesn't relate to the point you decided to post on. The post was concerned with the more basic notion of unequal treatment.

I have made no claim that men and women are different with regard to marriage.

 

[Autodidact]

you just sated it again that gender does not matter and therefore there is absolutely NO difference between men and women.

No, I didn't. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? There are many differences between men and women. What I stated is the fact, same-sex parents do as good a job of raising kids as different-sex parents. The differences between men and women do not contribute to improved parenting, much as you would like to imagine they do.

there are plenty. int he job related field women cannot be discriminated against because of pregnancy. Women have different needs, and "women problems" is a reasonable excuse for not coming into work.

Women are not required to sign up for selective service, Men are. Women cannot bare thier chest and nipple in public, men can.

there are no urinals in a public women's restroom, there are in Men's rooms.

There are doctors specifically designed to treat women and the issues they have as compared to men.

Men and womena re different, they learn differently, they think differently and have different emotional structures. they are indeed different in all cases and should be treated differently. not unfairly, but differently. there is a difference between unfair and different.

Whatever; start a thread.

 

[madhatter85]

Matter in fact, where do you think YOU came from Auto? from a homosexual union? that's laughable.

YOU came from a heterosexual union. YOU have alot to be greatful for heterosexuality. if YOUR mother or Father chose to go a homosexual path YOU would not even be in existence. so what do YOU have against heterosexuality? Why do YOU want to stop your bloodline from progressing? why do YOU want your progeny to stop with you. No matter who you are adoption does not create progeny. you are just caring for another person's child because either they coulnd't or didn't want to (both of which are equally sad cases). that does not make your child a part of your bloodline. it's still from thier parents bloodline.

 

[Starfish]

You are factually incorrect. There has been a good amount of solid research on the matter, and it shows that the children of of intact, two-parent same-sex parents do at least as well as the children of intact, two-parent different sex households. Those are the facts. If you believe differently, then you believe wrong.

And why should the views of the LDS Church have any bearing on our laws? Are we living in a Mormon theocracy? Those of us outside Utah, that is.

Statistically, children of same-sex parents may "turn out fine", but they have had something less than children who grew up with a mother and father.
This is not "Mormon theocracy" but the joint effort of many religions in California. There is no discussion about limiting the activities of homosexuals. They are free to do whatever. To live with whomever, love whomever, set up legal benefits with whomever.
It's about upholding the definition of marriage as voted by the majority of the people. It also involves keeping marriage for the blend of male and female, as it always has been, for the benefit of children--their conception, and raising.

 

[madhatter85]

I gave birth to one via insemination, she gave birth to one, and we adopted the youngest.

Exactly, all 3 of those children are here because sperm (which came from a male) attached themselves to eggs in a uterus (in a female). the only way to have children is to have them heterosexually. It is impossible for you and your lover to reproduce by yourselves.

A penis is just the same as a turkey baster, just hopefully it feels better for the woman.

 

[Orontes]

Hello,

I'm surprised by your comment. Simply looking at this thread I have addressed jurisprudential issues as they relate to, and in support of, Proposition 8. These included: judicial overreach, the invention of rights claims, errors in equity claims and the ability of religious groups to participate in the political process. None of these explanatories have been refuted.

Now the thread has moved in an odd direction. It seems to be tacking toward sex acts. This indicates people either do not know the contents of proposition 8, do not understand proposition 8 or are simple sloppy thinkers. Now, if you feel there are "fallacies" in any of the arguments I've put forward or that there was some repeated refutation: indicate the fallacy and/or where these refutations are. Otherwise, your comment is in error.

By judicial overreach, I assume you mean that the Supreme Court should not have overturned a law voted into effect by the majority of voters. If you mean something else, you'll have to clarify.

Judicial overreach refers to any act by the court that moves beyond its basic charge: legislating from the bench would be one example. Inventing rights would be another. The rationale used by the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 22 was an example of rights invention.

I assume you mean that marriage is not a right, by your "invention of rights" claim. Again, if that's not what you mean, you'll have to clarify. If it is, then that's fine. It's not a right, it's a priviledge. So, let's take that priviledge away from LDS.

Marriage is not a right. That is correct. The government cannot prejudice based on religious affiliation. Such would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

By "errors in equity claims", I assume you mean the gender thing. Again, correct me if that's wrong. It has been shown that "equal" does not mean "exactly the same", it means "of equal value, even though different". There are times when you have to make a distinction based on gender, just as there are times when you have to make distinctions based on other attributes.

The "equity claims error" was in assuming equal means "exactly the same". You are arguing my point.

The ability of religious people to participate in the political process has never been denied (and this has been dealt with countless times now).

Actually the counter claim was that it was illegitimate for the LDS Church to express political opinions. It was a flawed claim.

I only care that you try to impose your beliefs on others.

As to imposing beliefs on others: law is the imposing of beliefs on others.

 

[madhatter85]

Whatever; start a thread.

Nice cop-out

 

[Orontes]

Love is irrelevant to Proposition 8.

I agree.
It is merely a rerun of Proposition 22.
It is all about the attempt to force religious beliefs into the law.
It is nothing more than an Argumentum ad Numerum fallacy.

Hello,

Ad populum fallacies are concerned with claiming something is correct/right because of numbers or popularity, as in "everybody believes Japanese are short therefore Japanese are short". If you take that notion to argue against majoritarianism: law as the product of the popular will, then you must reject the democratic process.

As to religious beliefs informing law: such is quite common. There are all sorts of beliefs that inform law: environmental beliefs, security beliefs, economic beliefs etc. To argue a belief, because it has a religious hew, is illegitimate would be problematic.

 

[Autodidact]

[/size][/font]

Non sequitur

You seem to be opposed to our system of government; specifically, separation of powers.

The Supreme Court has never ruled marriage is a right. Neither are they properly placed to do so. Rights are the product of the legislative process, not judicial fiat.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Loving v. Virginia

Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance,...the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry...By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry,...
Zablocki v. Redhail

I'm not sure you understood the post your are referring to. Your answer would suggest you believe the California Supreme Court has contradicted itself. The issue the post discusses is the meaning of general inequity claims.

Right back at you. You said it could be federal. It isn't. It's state law.

I think being more precise in one's language is better that the opposite, particularly when discussing ideas. If you don't understand something I post, ask and I'll explain.

Me too, and I suggest that you try to do so. Your posts verge on the imcomprehensible.

Your comment on "the California case based on the California Constitution" doesn't relate to the point you decided to post on. The post was concerned with the more basic notion of unequal treatment.

It was in response to your assertion that the matter could be one of federal law. It can't and wasn't.

 

[madhatter85]

Judicial overreach refers to any act by the court that moves beyond its basic charge: legislating from the bench would be one example. Inventing rights would be another. The rationale used by the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 22 was an example of rights invention.




Marriage is not a right. That is correct. The government cannot prejudice based on religious affiliation. Such would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.




The "equity claims error" was in assuming equal means "exactly the same". You are arguing my point.



Actually the counter claim was that it was illegitimate for the LDS Church to express political opinions. It was a flawed claim.




As to imposing beliefs on others: law is the imposing of beliefs on others.

Frubals my good friend, Frubals.

law is the imposing of beliefs on others

Quoted for truth.


The only way to make both sides happy (the way i see it) is to not give any benefits to married couples without children and make marriage a religion only thing. the state does not recognize marriages as a legal sanction. but instead leaves it up to the individual religions.

 

[Orontes]

Love is irrelevant to Proposition 8.

You can say that again. It is about oppression, discrimination, inequality, and bigotry.

This is a non sequitur.