Prop 8 Support Defense for those of us who are LDS or like-minded in moral values

[Namreg]

i dont understand how anyone in a "free" society can oppose gay marriage.how can you expect your government to protect your freedom in lifestyle choices and stop others from having the same opportunity.

 

[Sunstone]

i dont understand how anyone in a "free" society can oppose gay marriage.how can you expect your government to protect your freedom in lifestyle choices and stop others from having the same opportunity.

Good point! Frubals!

 

[gnomon]

This article is awesome and you need to read it.

The article is primarily muddled nonsense and everyone knows that.

Let me ask you a question madhatter.

If a human being is born with XY chromosomes yet they have AIS so therefore their entire life they develop as a female and marry another male.......

What is the Church's opinion on this?

 

[Luminous]

The article is primarily muddled nonsense and everyone knows that.

Let me ask you a question madhatter.

If a human being is born with XY chromosomes yet they have AIS so therefore their entire life they develop as a female and marry another male.......

What is the Church's opinion on this?

The church should have no opinion. it was their "opinion" that the moon was a perfect sphere and that therefor Galaleo Galalei was a howling heretic worthy of house arrest for proving it wasn't. etc.
It was their "opinion" that Jews were the cause of their problems and therefor they burned them
It was their "opinion" that animals were created spontaniously by God
It was(and is) their "opinion" that babies are born sinful and therefor killing them is bad for them.
muslims say that we are all born muslim(surrendering/peaceful) and must "revert" back to our religion when we stray. If a baby was killed by its parents they would be doing it a great good(as far as i can tell)

Religions... change their mind... like a girl... changes clothes.

 

[Draka]

The article is primarily muddled nonsense and everyone knows that.

Let me ask you a question madhatter.

If a human being is born with XY chromosomes yet they have AIS so therefore their entire life they develop as a female and marry another male.......

What is the Church's opinion on this?

That's a great question. I would like to know where they stand (by "they" I mean any against gay marriage) on someone whose DNA is male, yet their body is female...without surgery of course. If she is attracted to females is that wrong because she would be a lesbian? Or is that right because she is technically male? And vice versa as well. Just exactly who could she marry? And would it be legal?

 

[gnomon]

The church should have no opinion. it was their "opinion" that the moon was a perfect sphere and that therefor Galaleo Galalei was a howling heretic worthy of house arrest for proving it wasn't. etc.

Aye but it is madhatter's opinion, the Church's opinion and others who, along with all the others motivated to oppose marriage equality, must solely rely on religious reasons to do so.

I would love to see some of these people actually answer a pointed question for once that has a direct bearing on the issue.

 

[Namreg]

"The church should have no opinion. it was their "opinion" that the moon was a perfect sphere and that therefor Galaleo Galalei was a howling heretic worthy of house arrest for proving it wasn't." dont forget the argument over earth being the center of the universe.that was pretty egotistical,wasnt it?

 

[Green Gaia]

The church should have no opinion....

Whoa, hold up. They have every right to state their opinion on any issue. UUs and other religious groups were loud and vocal opponents of Prop 8 Should we have had no opinion as well?

My only thing is if you are take that step and jump into the political arena you have to understand that you are not going to be exempt from public criticism and protest just because you are a religion or have religious reasons for your stance.

 

[Luminous]

Whoa, hold up. They have every right to state their opinion on any issue. UUs and other religious groups were loud and vocal opponents of Prop 8 Should we have had no opinion as well?

My only thing is if you are take that step and jump into the political arena you have to understand that you are not going to be exempt from public criticism and protest just because you are a religion or have religious reasons for your stance.

i do not believe any organized faction, has a right to represent itself as a whole. if some people want to support something then THEY should stand up and not hide behind a corporation(i think corps. are considered to have personal rights, buying property, etc.) this should not by so. if people want to join for interest they should do so individually. The head of the Church has no right to say it represents the whole thing.

 

[Green Gaia]

i do not believe any organized faction, has a right to represent itself as a whole. if some people want to support something then THEY should stand up and not hide behind a corporation(i think corps. are considered to have personal rights, buying property, etc.) this should not by so. if people want to join for interest they should do so individually. The head of the Church has no right to say it represents the whole thing.

But that's why we elect leadership within any organization, to speak for the organization as a whole and to lead. If you don't like what your leaders are saying, then replace them or leave the organization. I think it's unrealistic and counterproductive to mute the voice of organizations on political matters. The united voices of many speaking in unison will be heard louder than a bunch of unconnected voices overlapping and canceling each other out.

 

[Falvlun]

The head of the Church has no right to say it represents the whole thing.

Huh? The head of something is generally the greatest and most powerful representative of that something. So, according to you, the Pope has no right to say he represents Catholics? That's pretty preposterous.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Rolling Stone, you keep referencing the "ramifications" of gay marriage. What the heck are they anyway?

You try to get away from religious statements by stating biology. Biology doesn't have anything to do with a legal contract of union between two people. Just what do you think it does? Or is this just a vain attempt at passing your beliefs off as "validated by nature"?

Gay people and gay couples have been around forever. Gay couples have been living as married throughout time. Just what do you think is going to happen to society by legally recognizing what is ALREADY THERE? By allowing gay marriage it isn't going to suddenly make more gay people. All it does..ALL IT DOES...is afford the legal rights they would otherwise be entitled to if they were straight. Their relationships themselves aren't changed. Society isn't changed (as gays are ALREADY LIVING AS MARRIED). What IS changed is that the government will be recognizing the ALREADY EXISTENT couples as legal couples. That's all.

I also use the terms "unintended consequences," implying unknown, and "long term," implying generations. However, I don't expect someone living in an age of instant anything to understand.

So this: you claim that legalizing same-sex marriage may have some hypothetical, nebulous unintended negative consequences. The prospect of these undefined - and quite possibly imaginary - consequences are put forward by you as reason not to allow same-sex marriage, even though so far, you haven't even hinted at what these consequences might possibly be.

On the other hand, the effort to prohibit same-sex marriage has already had a number of real, not hypothetical and specific, not nebulous, unintended, severe negative consequences, yet for some reason, you're apparently happy to ignore this fact.

At best, this is special pleading on your part.


I appeal to a number of things. And I fail to see the paradox; would you care to expand?

Of course you can't see the paradox. Like Draka above, you are stuck in a "tangled hierarchy," like one hand drawing the other. The "severe consequences" are self-referring. You want to "redraw" society's values according to your values which are drawn by society. You're like an atheist criticizing the Christian values from which his values are ultimately derived. (Gawd, how many times have I seen that in RF?) It's an absurd position to be in.

Edit: And yes, I am unconcerned with the kind of negative consequences you talk about. There's nothing new there.

i dont understand how anyone in a "free" society can oppose gay marriage.how can you expect your government to protect your freedom in lifestyle choices and stop others from having the same opportunity.

• Freedom as license is the precursor to abject slavery.
• Egalitarianism is a pipe dream.
• Not all relationships are equal.
• Government is not obligated to protect lifestyle.
• Society has enough problems. Why should it be weighted down by the legal, political, and social ramifications of unnecessary change, change that is unnecessary and may even be detrimental to real social progress? (Occam's razor)
• Should an undisciplined, self-absorbed and vicious minority be allowed to dictate society's standards?

In a way, I hope activists get their way. It might take a few generations before the unforeseen consequences come to fruition, but I am confident that people will regret forgetting the adage "be careful what you wish for."

 

[kiwimac]

And what ramifications do you see, O wise one?

 

[Draka]

Ohhh, so let me get this straight. Because we don't see these "unknown" consequences you are so sure are going to happen in the coming generations, WE are the ones who are wrong on this whole matter. The very same "unknown" consequences you don't seem to have a clue about. They are as "unknown" to you as anyone else...but you are so sure they just MUST be there because your view is so RIGHT there just HAS to be something to prove you correct.

Hmmm. That all sounds completely ridiculous. Here we offer facts and you offer assumptions based on what you believe, but then you don't know what it is you really believe will happen at all. There definitely is something "tangled" up and I think it's your stance.

Our arguments have been quite sound and valid, ...but then...I don't expect someone living with blinders on to understand them.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Our arguments have been quite sound and valid.

Viewed from within the tangled hierarchy they have been quite sound and valid.

However, to be stuck in a tangled hierarchy is to be stuck in a closed, self-referring system. Although society giving a homosexual union the same recognition it affords a man/woman union appears to be progressive, all it really does is further isolate society from nature by denying or ignoring the normal or archetypal function of biology. With “fairness” and “social equality” being the primary social concern regardless of a person's lifestyle, the laws and regulations whose function is to preserve the social order becomes more and more complicated: society has to run faster and faster to stay in the same place. Eventually it collapses and entropy takes over. (Entropy is chaotic by definition, so you should be able to see why it is silly to ask how it will unfold.)

All you are doing is cranking up the speed of the ole’ treadmill. I don't give a damn about it. Some people have no notion of a reality greater than their own puny, mortal life and its tangled hierarchy--their self-referential system--and aim to change the world without changing themselves. Others aim to see themselves as the whole seeing itself through the parts....but that's another subject.

 

[LuisDantas]

I also use the terms "unintended consequences," implying unknown, and "long term," implying generations. However, I don't expect someone living in an age of instant anything to understand.

So, you're like a prophet preaching a new gospel for those who fail to see the light? :faint:

Of course you can't see the paradox. Like Draka above, you are stuck in a "tangled hierarchy," like one hand drawing the other. The "severe consequences" are self-referring. You want to "redraw" society's values according to your values which are drawn by society. You're like an atheist criticizing the Christian values from which his values are ultimately derived.

Oh really?

Would that mean perchance that you believe that moral would not exist at all without Christianity? It has been a while since I last met someone who thinks so.

You have no idea, RS.

(Gawd, how many times have I seen that in RF?) It's an absurd position to be in.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I also use the terms "unintended consequences," implying unknown, and "long term," implying generations. However, I don't expect someone living in an age of instant anything to understand.

Ah. I thought you meant only unknown to us, as if you had some sort of higher wisdom that allowed you to see effects when the rest of us could not. As it turns out, your fears really are based on nothing at all. I stand corrected.

Of course you can't see the paradox. Like Draka above, you are stuck in a "tangled hierarchy," like one hand drawing the other. The "severe consequences" are self-referring. You want to "redraw" society's values according to your values which are drawn by society.

"Society's" values are made up of the values of the people in it. The past has provided me with a starting point and history helps to give me the insight that guides my decision-making, but the past is past - it does not constrain me now.

If you want to argue for a prohibition on same-sex marriage on its own merits, go ahead, but arguing for it simply because it's what we've always done is not a very sound approach.

You're like an atheist criticizing the Christian values from which his values are ultimately derived. (Gawd, how many times have I seen that in RF?) It's an absurd position to be in.

How so?

I see merit in some aspects of Christianity; I disagree with other aspects (and I'd say that the majority of Christians also take this approach, even if we disagree on what the "merits" are, and even if they don't acknowledge it). For those aspects of Christianity that I adopt, I do so because they can stand on their own, not because they're "Christian" or not.

Edit: And yes, I am unconcerned with the kind of negative consequences you talk about. There's nothing new there.

Yes, unfortunately, domestic abuse is nothing new, and it's also not new for the abusers to escape punishment... however, it is a concern for me.

• Freedom as license is the precursor to abject slavery.

You read 1984 too?

• Egalitarianism is a pipe dream.

And ethics based on special pleading are unethical.

• Not all relationships are equal.

Ah! Finally a claim about the actual merits of the issue.

How are same-sex relationships not equal to opposite-sex ones, and what bearing does this have on how our laws should treat both?

• Government is not obligated to protect lifestyle.

No, but in many cases, it is obligated to protect gender equality under the law.

Government is also obligated to pursue benefit for its citizens. Does same-sex marriage constitute a net benefit to a society's citizens? I'd say it does.

• Society has enough problems. Why should it be weighted down by the legal, political, and social ramifications of unnecessary change, change that is unnecessary and may even be detrimental to real social progress? (Occam's razor)

This argument applies equally to new laws prohibiting same-sex marriage as it does to those allowing it.

• Should an undisciplined, self-absorbed and vicious minority be allowed to dictate society's standards?

Probably not. But they keep trying to ban same-sex marriage anyhow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Viewed from within the tangled hierarchy they have been quite sound and valid.

However, to be stuck in a tangled hierarchy is to be stuck in a closed, self-referring system.

We call this a feedback system, and it's actually a valid (though potentially over-simplistic) description of human society.

BTW: you're literally surrounded by "closed, self-referring systems". If you want to avoid them, I suggest you start by ripping the thermostat out of your wall. Also, never, never drive a car when it's at normal operating temperature.

Although society giving a homosexual union the same recognition it affords a man/woman union appears to be progressive, all it really does is further isolate society from nature by denying or ignoring the normal or archetypal function of biology.

In what way? You've made this claim a few times, but you've never really spelled out why you think this.

Also, isn't pre-empting natural selection by getting rid of the things that you think it wouldn't "like" also an example of "denying or ignoring the normal or archetypal function of biology"?

With “fairness” and “social equality” being the primary social concern regardless of a person's lifestyle, the laws and regulations whose function is to preserve the social order becomes more and more complicated: society has to run faster and faster to stay in the same place. Eventually it collapses and entropy takes over. (Entropy is chaotic by definition, so you should be able to see why it is silly to ask how it will unfold.)

This part sounds like Jurassic Park. Did you read it too?

Will same-sex marriage somehow result in rampaging dinosaurs?

 

[texan1]

So Rolling Stone - you have admitted that you don't know what the "ramifications" to society will be. You have yet to provide even one example of how allowing gays to marry will negatively affect anyone. It just doesn't feel right to you.

Even with that said, do you still think it was a good use of people's time, money and resources to have this proposition added to the ballot so that we could make sure a miniscule percentage of the population does not declare their love fore each other? You truly believe that is the work of God?

Don't you think it might have been more productive for individuals and church groups to spend that time and money addressing REAL documented problems that are affecting our families and our culture, like poverty, substance abuse, and high divorce rates among heterosexuals?

 

[Magic Man]

I also use the terms "unintended consequences," implying unknown, and "long term," implying generations. However, I don't expect someone living in an age of instant anything to understand.

Do you worry about the unintended consequences whenever you make a decision? When you decide to eat pizza for dinner, do you stop yourself because somewhere down the road it might turn out to be a bad decision? Clearly, you have certain consequences in mind that you think we are not taking into account. You should stop calling them unintended and unknown and just say them.

You're like an atheist criticizing the Christian values from which his values are ultimately derived. (Gawd, how many times have I seen that in RF?) It's an absurd position to be in.

I find it funny that you believe that all values are based on Christianity. I'm sure I've heard you say more ridiculous stuff than that, but right now, I can't think of anything.

• Freedom as license is the precursor to abject slavery.
• Egalitarianism is a pipe dream.
• Not all relationships are equal.
• Government is not obligated to protect lifestyle.
• Society has enough problems. Why should it be weighted down by the legal, political, and social ramifications of unnecessary change, change that is unnecessary and may even be detrimental to real social progress? (Occam's razor)
• Should an undisciplined, self-absorbed and vicious minority be allowed to dictate society's standards?

In a way, I hope activists get their way. It might take a few generations before the unforeseen consequences come to fruition, but I am confident that people will regret forgetting the adage "be careful what you wish for."

1) What? Was that supposed to make sense or was it just another one of your "This uses big words and sounds cool, so people will think I'm clever and intelligent" statements?
2) Not quite.
3) And?
4)No, government is obligated to protect human rights.
5)This change is necessary.
6) It is quite telling that you would use the terms "undisciplined, self-absorbed and vicious" to describe homosexuals. Most of them are more disciplined than you and me. They are hardly self-absorbed, and they can be vicious when someone is oppressing them, just as any other people can be. Please just stop with this ignorance. Maybe you should open your eyes before insulting a group of people.

How do you think people will regret allowing same-sex marriage? What exactly do you think will happen that will be so bad?