LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[emiliano]

Bingo. John Stuart Mill warned us over a century ago that a democracy put an additional burden on the government: to protect the minority when the will of a majority was wrong.

Or, as Ben Franklin said, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to eat for dinner.

And what does John Stuart proposed as a solution to this kind of problems?
I believe in the social comtract concept.

 

[emiliano]

No, I don't. I think it's just as natural for some people to be gay as for others to be straight, and just as unnatural (or, in your terminology, just as much a violation of God's will) for naturally gay people to try to be straight.

Well that is where we disagree, I think that gay people are been abandoned and exploited by society, if you are referring to some hormonal imbalance, I can’t understand why is it that they are not been help by science, after all when women start getting into menopause there is hormone replacement therapies available, if it's psychological there are psychotherapies, if it is behavioural (that is what I think) there is behavioural therapies. I think that is just that there is more money to be made by the other alternatives, encouragement of unnatural behaviours is too profitable to activists, politicians, sex toy manufactyres and lawyers for them to let go of it.

 

[emiliano]

how fruitful should one be? Is one going against 'god's' law when they choose not to have children, or they can't have children?

Then you don’t have children, you can be as fruitful as you want, it's your free choice, where is the reason for turning gay then? You can have sex without having babies for more than twenty days on each months, if one need more than that, we a talking about vices/addictions. What would be the reason for marrying a person of the same sex, that there will be no babies? I've been told here that science has made it possible for everybody to have babies if they so desire, so

 

[Father Heathen]

Then you don’t have children, you can be as fruitful as you want, it's your free choice, where is the reason for turning gay then? You can have sex without having babies for more than twenty days on each months, if one need more than that, we a talking about vices/addictions. What would be the reason for marrying a person of the same sex, that there will be no babies? I've been told here that science has made it possible for everybody to have babies if they so desire, so

There is a lot more to life than simply squeezing out countless babies. We're not an insect colony.

 

[emiliano]

There is a lot more to life than simply squeezing out countless babies. We're not an insect colony.

But you can abstain from that, it is actualy a virtue, that's what makes the diference between us and insects or irrational brutes.

 

[Father Heathen]

But you can abstain from that, it is actualy a virtue, that's what makes the diference between us and insects or irrational brutes.

I would say homosexuals do a fairly good job of abstaining from breeding, and they deserve high fives for that considering how our species is dangerously overpopulating the globe.

 

[emiliano]

I would say homosexuals do a fairly good job of abstaining from breeding, and they deserve high fives for that considering how our species is dangerously overpopulating the globe.

Wow, that what this is, a mean to population explosion control, interesting take on the issue.
http://www.sweetim.com/s.asp?im=gen&lpver=3&ref=12

 

[Autodidact]

If you are not presuming and speak only for yourself, then you should use the singular.

I did. I stated what I suspect. Others may conclude differently, but one cannot escape the assumption that they will conclude something.

As to what you expect, your expectation is incorrect. If you claim to want to understand a thing, it requires more than simple judgements: thumbs up or down. As I explained initially, my support for Brown would likely not be the same rationale as yours. A thumbs up alone wouldn't clarify a position.

Yes, I understand that you refuse to answer my question, and I have a pretty good idea why.

Alas. I gave you an answer: pick a case so we can go into detail if needed. The fact you don't like the answer, does not a refusal make.

No, refusing to answer, and giving a reason why not, even specifying a question you would rather answer, none of these are the same as answering. I asked you whether you would agree or disagree with the ruling in a set of cases, and you refuse to answer. I understand.

btw, did you notice that when someone asked me whether I agreed or disagreed with a ruling (Griswold, I boldly answered, and in a controversial way. This helps them determine some things about my position, such as how it plays out, and whether it is hypocritical. I wonder why you don't want to do the same?

Knowing the meaning of marriage isn't exclusive. It simply requires knowing the English language. If you want to actually delve into the meaning of the obvious, then go to the OED. It is the standard of the English Language. It is exhaustive in the history of a word. You will not find any histoical referent for marriage entailing homosexuality. To reference Lincoln: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

I see. So the 4 sources I cited have no bearing; only the OED counts? Odd, since it's a British dictionary. I wonder why Merriam-Webster isn't good enough for you?

No it does not. A person cannot marry a rose bush regardless the relationship he has with it.

Correct. Marriage requires human beings, as only human beings are capable of a marital relationship.

There is no right to marriage in the California Constitution.

And yet many Californians enjoy it.

Marriage under the law is provided equally: a man may marry a woman and a woman may marry a man. The fact a man cannot marry his German sheppard does not constitute a breech. The fact a man cannot marry his sister (even though cross gender) does not constitute a breech).

A breech? What is that? Did you mean breach? Of what? What are you talking about? Now you're trying to assert that this law does not discriminate? Is that your argument? May I suggest that if the shoe were on the other foot, you might see that a little differently? A law that a man cannot marry his sister does discriminate, and that discriminatin is upheld, because it has been found to serve a legitimate government purpose. Discriminating against gay marriage does not.

Your transparent attempt to reframe the issue as one of "changing a definition" fails. Take a different page from the Conservative playbook.

There was no gay marriage under Roman law. Homosexuality itself was suspect. We know from Polybius, homosexuality was punishable by death in the Legion. The enemies of Julius Caesar charged "Caesar is a man to every woman and a women for every man" based on the idea that early in his political career he allowed himself to be buggered by a fellow whose help he needed. Caesar always denied the charge. Of course there were certainly cases of homosexuality. The Emperor Tiberius was condemned for it. We also have the example of a Roman Senator who announced a wedding celebration for himself and his male lover. This is found in the works of the satirist Junvenal who lampooned for its absurdity.

Perhaps you should correct the wiki page, if you're so confident.

The fact that marriage occurred between two men among the Romans is proved by a law in the Theodosian Code from the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans which was passed on December 16, 342.[5] Martial attests to same-sex marriages between men during the early Roman Empire.[6]

I've spoken about equal protection quite a lot in this very thread. Gay relations and marriage are not equal. They are not similarly situated. I gave you a clear existential illustration.

In what way, that actually relates to marriage. We have already established that child-bearing is not relevant, as fertility is not, and has never been, a requirement for marriage.

 

[Autodidact]

Well that is where we disagree, I think that gay people are been abandoned and exploited by society, if you are referring to some hormonal imbalance, I can’t understand why is it that they are not been help by science, after all when women start getting into menopause there is hormone replacement therapies available, if it's psychological there are psychotherapies, if it is behavioural (that is what I think) there is behavioural therapies. I think that is just that there is more money to be made by the other alternatives, encouragement of unnatural behaviours is too profitable to activists, politicians, sex toy manufactyres and lawyers for them to let go of it.

No, it's not a hormonal imbalance. It's not any kind of imbalance. Some people are left-handed, some people are brilliant, some people are red-haired, and some people are homosexual. I don't need any help, thanks; I'm perfectly gay all on my own. I know it's hard for you to grasp, but it's called reality.

 

[Autodidact]

Then you don’t have children, you can be as fruitful as you want, it's your free choice, where is the reason for turning gay then? You can have sex without having babies for more than twenty days on each months, if one need more than that, we a talking about vices/addictions. What would be the reason for marrying a person of the same sex, that there will be no babies? I've been told here that science has made it possible for everybody to have babies if they so desire, so

Hold on to your chair, emiliano, because you don't seem to be familiar with this concept, and it's a huge, revolutionary idea that can change your world. It's called love.

 

[emiliano]

No, it's not a hormonal imbalance. It's not any kind of imbalance. Some people are left-handed, some people are brilliant, some people are red-haired, and some people are homosexual. I don't need any help, thanks; I'm perfectly gay all on my own. I know it's hard for you to grasp, but it's called reality.

What does brilliance got to do with anything that I posted? I notice that you have brought up this several times, there are brilliant people that are left handed but their left-handedness is not the cause of their brilliance, there mentally ill people that are brilliant, there are people of colour , there are even retarded people that are brilliant, and there are homosexual that are brilliant, none of this is caused by the above traits. I know that it’s impossible for you to grasp this, but your behaviours are not consider natural by the majority and certainly not on par with the marriage of a man to a woman, that is called reality, there is no third sex in the human species, proposition 8 just restored the definition of marriage, bans the issue of marriage certificates to people of the same sex, it does not ban homosexuality.

 

[emiliano]

Hold on to your chair, emiliano, because you don't seem to be familiar with this concept, and it's a huge, revolutionary idea that can change your world. It's called love.

Brilliant! Let see there is love for your fellowman, does this mean that I should married all of those that a feel love for? There is filial love, paternal love, maternal love, fraternal love, should we marry them all, we love animals, furnisher, toy , motor car, our jobs, etc. Should we have a right to show our commitment and marry them all?:areyoucra

 

[darkendless]

Brilliant! Let see there is love for your fellowman, does this mean that I should married all of those that a feel love for? There is filial love, paternal love, maternal love, fraternal love, should we marry them all, we love animals, furnisher, toy , motor car, our jobs, etc. Should we have a right to show our commitment and marry them all?:areyoucra

The love we feel for other human beings we connect with i think Autodidact meant there, but you know what she is talking about, why the theatrics? You're being too technical for your own good trying to defend a point.

 

[emiliano]

The love we feel for other human beings we connect with i think Autodidact meant there, but you know what she is talking about, why the theatrics? You're being too technical for your own good trying to defend a point.

Thanks darken, I am sorry for the theatrics, it is just she has brought this subject several times before, that homosexuality makes you brilliant. I am glad that you get it and hope the she does as well, you are not married so I don’t think that you could help, but the truth is that we get married driven initially by an instinct to multiply, physical attraction or erotic love, culture and tradition modifies this to higher and higher standards, that’s how we make it last beyond the time where our physical appearance changes and our drive decreases, hope the this isn’t too technical.

 

[Storm]

Thanks darken, I am sorry for the theatrics, it is just she has brought this subject several times before, that homosexuality makes you brilliant.

That's not what she's saying at all.

 

[painted wolf]

If the only reason you married was for erotic/procreative reasons, then you need to re-examine your life.

I married out of a deep respect and adoration for my mate. (And we could share our work benefits) Reproduction didn't play into it. Sexual attraction may make me look at someone but it sure doesn't make me want to get to know them or stick around.

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

That's not what she's saying at all.

Didn’t she say that I should be thankful to the brilliant mathematician that won WW II? “you owe a debt to Alan Turing, a homosexual, who played a huge part in defeating the Nazis” and got we into the same argument.
“you have benefited by the work of homosexuals, I promise you” I really didn’t know anything about this fellow and I argued that it was not his homosexuality that made him a brilliant mathematician. So sorry but you a wrong!

 

[emiliano]

If the only reason you married was for erotic/procreative reasons, then you need to re-examine your life.

I married out of a deep respect and adoration for my mate. (And we could share our work benefits) Reproduction didn't play into it. Sexual attraction may make me look at someone but it sure doesn't make me want to get to know them or stick around.

wa:do

Somehow I confused you, I said that at first our attraction in seeking a partner is instinctive, obviously you are a better man than I was in my youth, I was a real ***, with a one way mind, I lied, promised, persisted till I got my way, that went on till I married, I changed in a way that even I could not understand, I renounced to all, I repented of the things I did, my thought were changed, we have our first child and 14 month later another, both girls, now I have 3 grandchildren, I don’t drink in excess, I don’t smoke, I became a new man, but I not going to be an hypocrite and say that I didn’t try to get my way with the one is now my wife, she was so beautiful, I just had to have her, even if it meant that I had to marry her. And that was what I had to do, but she changed my life for the better. God has been so good to me, so merciful, he changed me and He did it in such a wonderful way, He did it trough the institution that He Himself established “marriage“.

 

[Sententia]

Somehow I confused you, I said that at first our attraction in seeking a partner is instinctive, obviously you are a better man than I was in my youth, I was a real ***, with a one way mind, I lied, promised, persisted till I got my way, that went on till I married, I changed in a way that even I could not understand, I renounced to all, I repented of the things I did, my thought were changed, we have our first child and 14 month later another, both girls, now I have 3 grandchildren, I don’t drink in excess, I don’t smoke, I became a new man, but I not going to be an hypocrite and say that I didn’t try to get my way with the one is now my wife, she was so beautiful, I just had to have her, even if it meant that I had to marry her. And that was what I had to do, but she changed my life for the better. God has been so good to me, so merciful, he changed me and He did it in such a wonderful way, He did it trough the institution that He Himself established “marriage“.

Woo hoo! And if you found out your wife was a male would that matter?

Take a page from the god you believe in and try not to enforce your religious beliefs on others. Gay and lesbian people have just as much right to be happy.

 

[Sunstone]

...but the truth is that we get married driven initially by an instinct to multiply, physical attraction or erotic love, culture and tradition modifies this to higher and higher standards, that’s how we make it last beyond the time where our physical appearance changes and our drive decreases, hope the this isn’t too technical.

So, how does oxytocin figure into what you're saying? I hope the question isn't too technical.