Published: Tuesday, Dec. 18 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
@ciThat was a bit of a stretch even for you.
Mukkake - Wow, that's an amazingly balanced view you have there on
traditional marriage. Yes, of course traditional marriage is defined solely by
cases of rape, abuse, and murder by stoning...and I'm sure gay
relationships have NEVER historically dealt with the same challenges...of
course, it's not relevant at all that traditional marriage creates by far
the most stable environment for children, the only one that binds both genetic
parents to the children - the adults with by far the strongest likelihood of the
strongest emotional bond to the children, institutionalizes the only human
relationship that can naturally produce children, has the lowest rates of
childhood delinquency and domestic abuse, brings the highest expected life
expectancy as measured from childhood...shall I go on? I'd love to, but
I'd run out of room.Does that mean that single parents,
polygamists, gay parents, etc. are all evil and don't love their children?
Of course not...but government has a compelling interest in promoting
traditional marriage for the greater good of society, while not in any way
prohibiting other parents who don't enjoy that situation.
VOR:I'll make this as simple as possible. What is
"traditional marriage"? Because, as I mentioned earlier, the institution
we, in the United States, call "marriage" is not the same institution it
was 200 or 2000 years ago. It is also not the same institution all over the
world.What makes a marriage valid? Religion, state, commitment, the
most violent guy in the village declaring which women he owns?? Its pretty
relative, isn't it?Gays want the same LEGAL rights that have
been invented the last few centuries/decades. Protections that are all new stuff
anyway. Nothing "traditional" about child tax credits, modern
inheritance rights (historically in the West it was everything goes to the
oldest son), and so on."Traditional marriage/values" have
changed plenty of times. So we can, and will, just keep changing them.
AVOR: What you cannot do, however, is force your fellow citizens through their
government to endorse a particular type of sexual relationship - homosexuality.
LDS4:I may be morally opposed to interracial marriage, first cousins
marrying, Old Geezer (Hugh Hefner)/young hottie marriages, but using subjective
moral opinions to restrict the rights of others is contrary to scripture and
American values of equality under the law.AVOR:I actually support
allowing two adults, regardless of relationship, to designate each other for
purposes of visitation rights in hospitals, medical decisions, inheritance, etc.
so that a gay person can access all those rights that married people can access
regardless of lifestyle. LDS4:Whites in the South allowed Blacks public
drinking fountains...You seem to advocate “separate but equal”
too.AVOR: an extremely high-risk lifestyle..LDS4:Huh?
That’s what gays in Africa say about heterosexuality due to the
heterosexual AIDS epidemic there.AVOR:..to the same plane for
official endorsement and encouragement as the traditional family, ..LDS4:Gays are no different than old or sterile heterosexual couples...neither
can breed. There is no objective reason to deny them marriage.
AVOR:Point is, you're never going to intellectually succeed in your
argument by appealing to miscegenation, a completely irrelevant comparison about
an actual physical trait-race-that doesn't change the traditional family
structure. You need to make the case for why governments should endorse gay
marriage as a unique benefit to society, to the same degree that traditional
marriage has been shown repeatedly other thousands of years to benefit
society.LDS4:Easy. Traditional marriages raise kids. Gays do too.
Denying them marriage harms those kids and families. There is a senior newlywed
couple in my ward who will be NOT producing kids. Why should they be granted
marriage when they aren't benefitting society? Why grant marriage to
straight couples who purposely don't have kids? You want to grant marriage
people unable or unwilling to produce kids and deny it to homosexual couples
raising kids? How does THAT make sense? That hurts innocent kids. So much for
being pro-family.Denying gays marriage is EXACTLY like denying
interracial couples marriages. Both are based on subjective prejudice rather
than objective facts. That is inescapable.
Lds4gaymarriage,With all due respect, I’m not sure how you can
call yourself LDS without a massive case of cognitive dissonance, since the
Church is unequivocally opposed to gay marriage. And stop with the sinister
comparisons to racism; you know very well that gender is legitimately treated
differently in ways that race is not. If you really think the
comparison’s apt, then why aren’t you up in arms about separate men
& women’s restrooms, dressing rooms, etc.? These were also relics of
the Jim Crow era. Recognizing the unique natures of men & women, and their
natural heterosexual state, is hardly the same as racism else we’d all be
no better than racists every day. It’s simply a cynical, dishonest debate
tactic used by gay activists to scare people into not using their brains, one
that's contested by observable reality.And this isn’t
about “denying” marriage, it’s about preserving the
institution of traditional marriage in society. And if you’re not for
that, then you’re due for an enlightening discussion with Heavenly Father
on the subject as a practicing LDS.
AVOR:With all due respect, I’m not sure how you can call yourself LDS
without a massive case of cognitive dissonance, since the Church is
unequivocally opposed to gay marriage. LDS4:I agree SSM violates LDS
doctrine. We LDS should oppose performing such in our temples and chapels.
Denying the legal rights of marriage to gays, especially regarding Prop.8, is
contrary to scripture. The Church/prophet isn’t always right. The 18 mo.
mission term for elders was a mistake that was quickly dumped. Pres. Benson
said that Paul meant in 1Thes.5:22 to avoid doing things that seemed/appeared to
be evil. The Bible footnotes, and every other translation (English and non)
show that he really exhorted to avoid all forms/manifestations of evil. Benson
was wrong. President JFieldingSmith wrote that men would never travel to the
moon.Regarding separate restrooms, those physically protect
women/girls. These have nothing to do with legal rights. We don’t have
different tax rates or speed limits for women. Gender is not an objective reason
to deny equal rights.Why didn’t you address my points about
kids or AIDS?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments