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

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm somewhat astounded by the gall it takes for those opposed to legal gay marriages to pretend that they are the victims of intolerance. As if the only way to preserve their rights is to boss other people around and tell them who they can/cannot legally marry. I'm reminded of the way the Confederate soldiers viewed slavery as a matter of "states' rights" and "property rights", how Southerners opposed the "intolerance" of Northerners imposing their desegregation laws on them (although of course those were more brutal conflicts).

I would love to see how the anti-gay-marriage Mormons would respond if their evangelical peers decided the LDS Church was a "cult" rather than their definition of "religion" and therefore mobilized to take away the LDS Church's tax-exempt status. I'm genuinely curious to know if they would be so quick to say "Hey, so you want to take away my Church's legal status because you think it's corrupting society; that's cool friend, we can agree to disagree, I would never want to discriminate against you for your bigoted stance. Gee whiz, you sure made it difficult for us when you passed that amendment, though! But golly, I have so much respect for your opinion."

 

[Luminous]

I think most mormons are subconsciously angry that their privilage of polygamy was taken away from them. I mean if you support gay marrige then you should support adult polygamy. it just seams rights to give all peaple full freedom to do as they like and then be Judged only by God as God always intended.

 

[kiwimac]

As a former LDS Elder, I can only apologise for the LDS Church's homophobia and it's push to delegitimate same-sex marriage.

 

[fantome profane]

I would love to see how the anti-gay-marriage Mormons would respond if their evangelical peers decided the LDS Church was a "cult" rather than their definition of "religion" and therefore mobilized to take away the LDS Church's tax-exempt status.

And all it would take is 51%.

 

[Nanda]

Just note that nature has virtually no laws that we dont assign it to have and we are often wrong...

Too right, good point.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So, my moms homosexual dog should what? Self terminate? Since it is alive, I guess nature sanctions it. The dog was certianly not nurtured that way- there are female dogs around.
I guess the dog is falsely delcaring itself to be over nature and apart from it.

I just thought it was a regular dog

It is a regular dog. Male dogs mount other male dogs to establish dominance, not because they are homosexual. Other species do it too.

Nature doesn't "sanction" anything - nature does not approve or disapprove, nature has no conciousness or authority with which to give approval. Nature breaks its own laws all the time, and nature is not inherently rational. Nature just is, and the mere fact that homosexulity exists in several species outside of the human race indicates that there's nothing unnatural about it, regardless of whether you see a "use for it" or not. There are a lot of things that seemingly have "no use" in nature.

There's a lot of truth in what you said, but like I said above, a lot of "homosexual behavior" in other species is not sexual at all. It's called "projection." When it does occur, stressful and unnatural conditions can be the trigger. Remember the male penguins living in captivity together as mates? Homosexual activists were very fond of pointing to them as examples of natural behavior. Guess what happened when a new female was introduced?

Homosexual activism can be traced to the conflict between individual interests (self-indulgence) and collective interests (cooperation), between materiality (want of things) and spirituality (want of being), between those who want to change the world without changing themselves and those who want to change themselves to be at home in the universe.

Just note that nature has virtually no laws that we dont assign it to have and we are often wrong...

Right. There is no laws in the sense that nature knows no "right" and "wrong." However, Dawkins is right about one thing: nature demands only that human beings procreate. How man integrates that demand into society is arbitrary. But it turns out that marriage is the great civilizer, enabling men and women to do what nature demands in a peaceful way.

For society to extend the same rights to homosexuals is like saying tonsils are as essential as the heart. I don't know about you, but while I know a lot of people without tonsils, I don't know any without hearts (except in a figurative way).

Remember Sparta? Homosexual behavior was contributing factor (though certainly not the only factor) to its fall: the ruling elite weren't reproducing.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Now, can someone please give a reason why the benefits of marriage should be extended without resorting to "because it's the right thing to do"?

 

[Green Gaia]

Now, can someone please give a reason why the benefits of marriage should be extended without resorting to "because it's the right thing to do"?

Sure, I can give you 1,138 reasons. But first I want you to tell me why, "because it's the right thing to do," isn't reason enough?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is a regular dog. Male dogs mount other male dogs to establish dominance, not because they are homosexual. Other species do it too.

Depending on what you mean by mounting, that would prove the point.

(...) Homosexual activism can be traced to the conflict between individual interests (self-indulgence) and collective interests (cooperation), between materiality (want of things) and spirituality (want of being), between those who want to change the world without changing themselves and those who want to change themselves to be at home in the universe.

Even assuming this explanation to be accurate (I don't), that would still be far from a fair reason to oppose homosexuality.

Right. There is no laws in the sense that nature knows no "right" and "wrong." However, Dawkins is right about one thing: nature demands only that human beings procreate.

It also demands that they be killed. It all depends on circunstances.

How man integrates that demand into society is arbitrary. But it turns out that marriage is the great civilizer, enabling men and women to do what nature demands in a peaceful way.

There are at least two strong objections to this claim. First, it should be noted that marriage is what homosexuals want. They are not challenging the validity of marriage, but rather demanding the right to embrace it. Second, again, even granting your point as proven valid, it still does not follow that what worked so far must be kept indefinitely; slavery used to be a great economic resource, yet the time came for it to end.

However, the greatest mistake in your reasoning above is its underlying assumption, namely that marriage is being deemphasized and that so doing would hurt the structure of society.

I would guess that you truly believe that homosexual marriages are a threat to marriage as an institution. I am so sorry that you do.

For society to extend the same rights to homosexuals is like saying tonsils are as essential as the heart. I don't know about you, but while I know a lot of people without tonsils, I don't know any without hearts (except in a figurative way).

Perhaps it would, if we were under any danger, immediate or in the foreseable future, of not being able of having enough offspring to keep our society.

That, however, is simply not the case. There is no such thing as rampaging sterility. And while homosexuals probably are overall less fertile than heterosexuals, that is true for all the good reasons and is actually an asset to society, not a hindrance.

Remember Sparta? Homosexual behavior was contributing factor (though certainly not the only factor) to its fall: the ruling elite weren't reproducing.

Because of homosexuality? It doesn't often happen that way, you know. Besides, I have a hard time believing that a power vaccum formed due to lack of candidates. It seems to me that if Sparta fell due to lack of people, it is far more realistic to blame it to their martial culture than to their homosexuals. Wars, after all, kill people way faster than they can possibly be bred. That's much of the historical reason why they were waged, in fact: as an effective (if outrageous) way of lessening overpopulation pressures.

 

[Sunstone]

You do not say how it is unreasonable. Where's your evidence to the contrary? The point was made that proponents have only feel-good arguments and you have not shown otherwise.

• Human beings are in nature, not apart from nature or over nature.
• Nature is not egalitarian.
• Evolution is ruthlessly pragmatic.
• Nature does not sanction homosexual behavior because it has no use for it.
• If human society sanctions homosexual behavior, it is falsely declaring itself to be over nature and apart from it.

Even if you weren't wrong on some of your individual points, you would be wrong for grossly assuming that "nature", as you see it, is the final arbitrator of human morality and values.

 

[deseretgov]

Sure, I can give you 1,138 reasons. But first I want you to tell me why, "because it's the right thing to do," isn't reason enough?

Becasue the "right thing to do" is subjective depending on who you talk to.

 

[Magic Man]

Now, can someone please give a reason why the benefits of marriage should be extended without resorting to "because it's the right thing to do"?

Well, let's see:

Because there's no reason they shouldn't.

Oh, and because it's the right thing to do.

Now, can you give me any good reasons why they shouldn't be extended to homosexuals?

And, as GG said, why isn't "because it's the right thing to do" a good enough reason?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well I got half way down before I became bored with the reasoning and justification. No one is against your right to practice your religion or your free speech. IMO the vote has denied ("the pesuit of happiness") to the gay community. If government had their hands in church affairs....churches would be screaming ("Separation of church and state"). If you don't want big brother in your business deciding how you live your lives what business is it of yours to decide how others live theirs?????

Are the LDS and other religious groups prepared to take on the gambling industry like state run lotteries, Las Vega, the alchohol industry, the porn industry...or are they fine with hypocricy (http://www.utahgamblingforum.com)? Maybe the religious in this country are just working their way up to passing laws to aboloish all of this stuff. Next they'll be telling you that you can't live in Utah and surf porn on the World Wide Web or gamble online..

While Utah has controlled, somewhat, the gambling in it's state many of its residence (I wonder how many are mormons) go across state lines to gamble. It would be interesting to see if they could influence pohibition laws again or shut down Las Vegas. (HIGHLY doubtful) they could shut down Las Vegas...I've also been reading that there is wide spread gambling in Utah..in hotels and they in fact do have casinos and slots.

Look, so far I have heard no good reason for the ban on gay marriage......So far the only thing I've heard is that "It's against what I believe in"..."It goes against Jesus"......"The bible says......" etc...

Basically....all of the opposition on gay mariage is coming from a bunch of hypocrites. It doesn't matter which religiious group disagrees and spearheads the campaign to abolish any attempt on gay marriage....it's all coming from a bunch of hypocrites who don't have their own house in order but want to past their religious belief and judgment on others. There are plenty of countries that recognize gay rights/marriage. Canada is one of them, coincidently, this is the same country that provides universal healthcare to its people. IMO..America needs to stop being so homophobic, and intolerant because that is (EXACTLY).....what is going one here.

 

[deseretgov]

And, as GG said, why isn't "because it's the right thing to do" a good enough reason?

Because that's our reason too.


What about my right to living in a productive, progressive, society? What about my right to raise my children the way I want?

Are your rights more important than mine?

 

[Katya]

If I absolutely 100% disagree with prop 8, does that make me immoral?

... or is it amoral? Never could tell the difference.

 

[Magic Man]

Because that's our reason too.

But I mean when it's correct. Your course of action is not the right thing to do, even by Christian standards. We're trying to show you that.

What about my right to living in a productive, progressive, society?

Are you implying that same-sex marriage would affect that right in any way? Besides, your society is not exactly progressive, considering "progressive" would involve "progress" meaning allowing same-sex marriage.

What about my right to raise my children the way I want?

What about it? You have it regardless of whether or not homosexuals get married. Does the general consumption of caffeine and alcohol affect your ability to raise your children with the idea that those two things are not good?

Are your rights more important than mine?

No, they are equal. The problem is that you see it as one or the other. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't affect your rights at all. You don't have to teach your kids that it's good. You don't have to get one yourself. Your church does not have marry people it doesn't want. All of your rights remain intact. All that changes is homosexuals gaining the rights they deserve.

 

[deseretgov]

If I absolutely 100% disagree with prop 8, does that make me immoral?

... or is it amoral? Never could tell the difference.

Nope.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Because that's our reason too.


What about my right to living in a productive, progressive, society? What about my right to raise my children the way I want?

Are your rights more important than mine?

Nobody's rights are more important than anyone else's. This is the crux of the argument against Prop 8 since it sought to deny rights to the GLBTQ community.

I fail to see how gay civil marriage would go against your rights, liberties, and government protections.

 

[fantome profane]

What about my right to raise my children the way I want?

Is this really the argument? Are you really trying to tell us that the only way that you can raise your children the way you want to is to deny other people their civil rights? Is that really the way you want to raise your children?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You do not say how it is unreasonable. Where's your evidence to the contrary? The point was made that proponents have only feel-good arguments and you have not shown otherwise.

• Human beings are in nature, not apart from nature or over nature.
• Nature is not egalitarian.
• Evolution is ruthlessly pragmatic.
• Nature does not sanction homosexual behavior because it has no use for it.
• If human society sanctions homosexual behavior, it is falsely declaring itself to be over nature and apart from it.

You're anthropomorphizing nature. It doesn't "sanction" a thing. That aside, though, your points contradict each other. If human beings are in nature, then human sanction of homosexual behaviour is nature's "sanction" of homosexual behaviour.

Just who's falsely declaring himself to be apart from nature?

Now, can someone please give a reason why the benefits of marriage should be extended without resorting to "because it's the right thing to do"?

The principle of substantial difference: people (and things) should only be treated differently inasmuch as is warranted by the relevant difference between them. To do otherwise is unethical.

One form of this principle is expressed in the Golden Rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".