LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Orontes]

Bigots have no integrity to attack.

So everyone on supported Yes on Prop. 8 is thereby a bigot? Lovely.

 

[Storm]

There are no "queer" infants.

Prove it.

 

[Storm]

So everyone on supported Yes on Prop. 8 is thereby a bigot? Lovely.

No, some of them were deceived by bigots.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fiat? It is called "acting in the best interests of people", really.

I prefer to call it "interpreting democratically-ratified law" rather than "fiat" myself, but tomayto, tomahto, right?

 

[Storm]

Are you unfamiliar with political history? The 15th and 19th Amendment would be two simple examples.

Neither of those were passed into law by the electorate.

 

[Orontes]

Hello,

I agree. Gay marriage advocates should make their case in the public square. If enough of their countrymen come to agree, then legislation will be passed to that effect. This is the democratic process. Trying to usurp that process through judicial imperialism is an affront to the democratic ideal. Unfortunately, loyalty to legitimate process isn't something many seem to care about.

Excuse me, but I hope you're not trying to imply that it is "judicial imperialism" to demand for needed changes such as same-sex marriage. If you are, I ask you to show me just how that is not legitimate process.

Making a demand to change a thing is not judicial imperialism. Judicial imperialism is a usurpation of power by the courts: the creation of rights or legislating from the bench. Law creation and rights creation come by and through the legislature and the ratification process.

A Court creating a right to a thing is an example of judicial imperialsim. It is an undemocratic repugnancy and civially dangerous.

As noted in another post: Rights do not simply exist because a person would be hurt if they didn't. A person might assert they have a right to be a cat, but no such right exists. There are two basic modes by and through which rights exist: positive rights and natural law. Gay marriage doesn't fit under either.

I agree with Foucault (himself as gay as the day is long): gayness is a social construct.

[/size][/font]

You are SO wrong, Orontes. Assuming you to be an american, much of the very idea of founding your country comes directly from defending basic rights and freedoms.

Or so I have learned, anyway.

Your post above and my comment do not contradict. The theoretical basis for many of the basic rights claims made by the Founding Fathers derrived from the Natural Law Tradition. There is no natural law for gaydom.

Ex-cu-se me! I hope you're kidding. Because I sure can't take this claim seriously at all.

Then, you do not understand jurisprudence.

Sorry, but Foucault or no Foucault, that's just indefensable.

It is correct. Modern gay assertions are anachronistic.

Fiat? It is called "acting in the best interests of people", really.

This begs the question. It is also the refrain of all authoritarianism.

 

[Orontes]

Thanks for the insult (you're doing well with them today), but I'm quite clear on this, no confusion at all. False information is a lie, whether it's intentional or not.

If one asks: "What is the capital of the U.S.?" and a person responds "New York!" The incorrect answer, simply in being incorrect is not a lie. A lie is a deception. This means one knows the true and then seeks to hide or cover that truth.

There were many lies in the campaign for "Yes on 8". I'm assuming your objection there is that they weren't outright lies, but perhaps mistakes, because I sure hope you can at least see the false information presented by that campaign. Either way, you're incorrect.
[/size][/font]

I don't know of any false information put out by the Campaign.

OK, so teach respect for all kinds of marriage. I'm still not seeing the problem here. As long as it's not teaching that you should be gay and get married, there is no problem there.

Those who disagree with gay marriage do not want such taught to their children.

Thank you for bringing up that tired old argument again. It's so fun to have to dispell the same crap all the time.

One can marry whoever one wants provided both parties are of legal age and consenting. You obviously know this already, so please stop with the incest, bestiality stuff. The reason one cannot marry the same sex is not connected with those other things. You cannot marry your pet because your pet cannot consent. You can't marry your relative because of other complications, etc. This is beneath you, Orontes.

None of the above constitutes any argument there is a right to gay marriage.

As to your assertion "the right to marry whoever you want" is a categorical. It is incorrect. Introducing legal age means one cannot marry whoever one wants. Introducing consent means one cannot marry anyone one wants. Now, if those are your two criteria then both incest and polygamy would be allowable: neither are. Your stance is simply incorrect.

 

[Orontes]

Prove it.

Infants are pre-pubescent. They are not sexual creatures.

No, some of them were deceived by bigots.

I see. Luckily there was no deception on the part of the actual Campaign.

Neither of those were passed into law by the electorate.

Actually both went through the ratification process. This is a rather strict process requiring super-majority support: both Congressional and nationally per the states. Do you wish to argue these are not examples of disenfranchised being empowered per your original claim?

 

[Storm]

Infants are pre-pubescent. They are not sexual creatures.

Clearly, you've never had one.

I see. Luckily there was no deception on the part of the actual Campaign.

Oh, people weren't told that churches would be sanctioned for refusing to marry queers?

Actually both went through the ratification process. This is a rather strict process requiring super-majority support: both Congressional and nationally per the states. Do you wish to argue these are not examples of disenfranchised being empowered per your original claim?

Going through the ratification process does not constitute a popular vote.

 

[Magic Man]

If one asks: "What is the capital of the U.S.?" and a person responds "New York!" The incorrect answer, simply in being incorrect is not a lie. A lie is a deception. This means one knows the true and then seeks to hide or cover that truth.

That's not exactly a comparable example, though, now is it? Besides, going by your definition, the lies in the ad campaign were specifically to hide or cover the truth. That's pretty obvious.

I don't know of any false information put out by the Campaign.

I'll dig up some specifics and get back to you, but there were some in the post Pengiun was originally responding to that started this. No biggie, though, it won't be hard at all to find several lies in the campaign.

Those who disagree with gay marriage do not want such taught to their children.

Well, too bad. If you can't at least be respectful of others than you should go to a country that doesn't value diversity and freedom. My kids will have to learn to respect Mormonism, among other things, whether I like it or not. (I don't mind, as I want them to respect other views and beliefs as long as they're not bigotry) That's part of living in a free, diverse society that values a vast amount of beliefs and cultures.

None of the above constitutes any argument there is a right to gay marriage.

Of course not, but that's not what your argument was about. You were using those things to discount the right to same-sex marriage. I was showing that they have no relevance.

As to your assertion "the right to marry whoever you want" is a categorical. It is incorrect. Introducing legal age means one cannot marry whoever one wants. Introducing consent means one cannot marry anyone one wants. Now, if those are your two criteria then both incest and polygamy would be allowable: neither are. Your stance is simply incorrect.

Right, but there is no such limitation that disallows same-sex marriage legally. My stance is simply correct. Again, I'm saddened that you're a lawyer (assuming that's true). This is why the legal system is in the state it's in.

It's not hard to understand. You can marry whoever you want. The legal limitations on that statement don't disallow same-sex marriage. The point is that there is always differentiation. You can kill someone and not go to jail under certain circumstances. Nothing is categorical. The problem is that in the case of incestual, underage and bestial marriages there is perfectly good reasoning for disallowing it. There is no such reasoning against same-sex marriage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Alas. attacking the integrity of people simply because you disagree with them is its own refutation.

I used the term "lies" because I consider it to be very unlikely that the people who created those claims could have been unaware that the claims they were putting forward were false. I used the terms fear-mongering and propaganda-peddling based on my assessment of the likely intent behind making these false claims. I think all the characterizations I made were accurate.

No, I have not.

Thank you for clearing that up. I guess we can chalk up me not noticing the resounding acceptance of your position to my confusion, which you noted below. :sarcastic

You are confused. Gay marriage did not come to the fore nor was it part of the curriculum in Massachusetts until the Massachusetts Supreme Court created a gay marriage right by fiat.

However, it also required the specific laws in place in Massachussetts that are not in place in California.

From District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf's statement in his decision on Parker v. Hurley (emphasis mine):

Massachusetts law prohibits discrimination in public schools based on sex or sexual orientation. It also requires that public school curricula encourage respect for all individuals regardless of, among other things, sexual orientation.

Pursuant to these directives, the Massachusetts Department of Education has issued standards which encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth grade students concerning different types of people and families.

None of the above constitutes any argument there is a right to gay marriage.

As to your assertion "the right to marry whoever you want" is a categorical. It is incorrect. Introducing legal age means one cannot marry whoever one wants. Introducing consent means one cannot marry anyone one wants. Now, if those are your two criteria then both incest and polygamy would be allowable: neither are. Your stance is simply incorrect.

OTOH, the fact that gender equality is enshrined in the California State Constitution does constitute an argument for same-sex marriage as long as opposite-sex marriage exists.

You're right in one respect: there are limitations that are put on the right to marry like age, relationship, species, etc. However, the California Constitution prohibits unequal treatment where the only determining factor is gender. If a person meets all the normal requirements to marry the person that he or she would need to (e.g. age, relationship, consent of the other person, etc.) but is barred from marriage solely because the person has the "wrong" gender, then that discrimination is gender-based and therefore illegal and unconstitutional in California.

Actually, from what I understand, gender equality is going to be the basis of one of the challenges to the Proposition 8 amendment.

 

[Father Heathen]

So everyone on supported Yes on Prop. 8 is thereby a bigot? Lovely.

Given there is no rational justification, yes.

 

[darkendless]

So everyone on supported Yes on Prop. 8 is thereby a bigot? Lovely.

Yes because there is no reason to deny homosexuals the equal rights that EVERY other human gets. I don't get why people are allowed to vote against something that doesn't affect 99% of them. Good old politics and God mixing, thats one nasty powder keg.

 

[madhatter85]

Yes because there is no reason to deny homosexuals the equal rights that EVERY other human gets. I don't get why people are allowed to vote against something that doesn't affect 99% of them. Good old politics and God mixing, thats one nasty powder keg.

they have the same rights all of us have. you can love whom you chose, and you can feel free to raise a family and get married to a member of the opposite sex. just like everyone else can.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's too little, and too unfair to people who did no wrong yet are being chastised out of other people's difficulties at accepting them as they are, though.

 

[darkendless]

they have the same rights all of us have. you can love whom you chose, and you can feel free to raise a family and get married to a member of the opposite sex. just like everyone else can.

Yeh, as long as its a hetrosexual couple thats the whole point. Who in thweir right minds chooses for someone else who they can and cannot marry? I bet 75% of those people that voted no have never met a gay person. All they care about is what God would think. The same sentiments made slavery and inter-racial marriage famous. How long will it take for the faithful to get over themselves?

From what i hear and see America is fast changing from a Christian nation to a Bigot nation.

 

[Watchmen]

Bigotry requires hatred. Not the case here. Some - yes. Some - no. Generalizations wrong.

 

[Father Heathen]

Bigotry requires hatred.

Not necessarily. Prejudice is defined as an unfavorable, preconceived opinion or feeling formed without knowledge thought or reason. Some slave owners had favored slaves that they adored and treated well, yet that didn't make them any less bigoted, as they still considered themselves superior even without hate.

 

[Watchmen]

Not necessarily. Prejudice is defined as an unfavorable, preconceived opinion or feeling formed without knowledge thought or reason. Some slave owners had favored slaves that they adored and treated well, yet that didn't make them any less bigoted.

Not talking about "prejudice." Talking about "bigotry." Requires hatred. Look up Websters.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not talking about "prejudice." Talking about "bigotry." Requires hatred. Look up Websters.

big⋅ot⋅ry

  /ˈbɪg

ə

tri/ [big-uh-tree] –noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.