Prop 8 Support Defense for those of us who are LDS or like-minded in moral values (ritual, virtual)

[LuisDantas]

Originally Posted by OSC, cited by madhatter85

4. Only those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and express our belief that marriage is only meaningful between heterosexual couples, move into the category of enemies of freedom. And that will be because of their attempt to suppress religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, and the right of parents to control their children's moral education.

Parents invariably make some degree of concession to society when it comes to moral education. That's unavoidable, except by choosing some other society, I guess.

However, this item is quite a misdescription of the situation. Legal acceptance is hardly "promotion" of homosexuality; there is certainly no attempt to forbid LDS teachings; and freedom of religion, speech and press, if at all related to Proposition 8, would be a reason to move against it, not in favor of it. Proposition 8 does not really further or protect anything that the LDS - or any other religious group - want.

Supporting Proposition 8 in California is a political action, which we undertake as citizens.

Preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ -- including our beliefs about marriage and the proper conditions for acts of procreation -- is quite separate.

We do not think that any belief system, whether it calls itself a religion or not, should be imposed on other people by law -- we won't impose ours on them, and we won't let them impose theirs on us or our families.

Instead, we believe that as long as we are citizens of a free country, changes in the laws and institutions of our society should be made only by common consent, after a free and candid discussion.

There is no place for any Latter-day Saint to be unkind to, or speak slightingly of, those who disagree with us. Just because someone else is engaging in conduct that we believe is wrong does not give us the right to hate them or mistreat them. We preach the gospel of Christ to any who are willing to listen, but we will force our beliefs on no one.

If so, then why support the Proposition?

However, we do have the right, as citizens, not as Mormons, to try to persuade our fellow citizens to vote for good laws based on sound principles. We have a right to advocate laws that we believe will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

We would never try to force our beliefs on an unwilling majority, and we hope that our opponents on this issue will have the same respect for democracy and the Constitution.

In fact, I believe that even those who absolutely believe in gay marriage should join us in opposing any law that is forced on an unwilling majority by the dictates of judges. For those that are wise will recognize that once judges are given such power, that power has as much chance of being used against them as for them.

That is not the case, however; there is no judge "forcing" anyone on any matter. Allowing same sex marriage is a far cry from forcing it on anyone, which would be very wrong indeed... but is simply not happening.

What are the reasons that we, as citizens, oppose gay marriage?

Legalizing gay marriage has huge legal implications far beyond letting same-sex couples enter into marriage contracts. Once "marriage" has been so radically redefined, it will become unlawful and discriminatory for schools or any other public facility to favor, for instance, heterosexual dating or dancing.

Uh, and in just which ways are schools allowed to favor heterosexual dating or dancing anyway? Some very limited ones, I would hope. I would be very unconfortable in being pushed towards opposite sex mates, anyway. Even if I happened to be attracted to them.

Since our culture (like all human cultures throughout all of history) is oriented toward promoting the maximum opportunity for reproductive success for all members of the community, but channeled in a way that will best promote the survival of the community, such a radical change should not be entered into lightly.

It is ludicrous to think that we must pull people away from homosexuality lest their reproductive handicaps endanger the survival of the community. For one thing, it is at best questionable just how possible it is to begin with. For another, homosexuals often do have offspring, and raise them generally better than heterosexuals do. Then again, it's not as if we're running any significant risk of not having enough births either. And even if we were, the ethical and moral challenges of pressing the issue would be considerable.

Any way I see it, it is a nonproblem being presented as a reason for panic.

Yet serious examination of scientific, historical, and legal issues has been all but drowned out by name-calling and demands for "rights."

That is a far better description of Proposition 8 than of its opposition, however.

Why do we oppose legalizing gay marriage?

1. Homosexuality itself is simply not understood. The available evidence suggests that bisexuality is far more common than exclusive homosexuality, that same-sex attraction may be a phase in some individuals and is merely an option for others.

So, the idea presented is that we should scare young people away from any possibility of finding out that they are happier in same-sex relationships than in heterosexual ones?

Really?

2. Even where individuals feel they have no option except same-sex attraction, we do not understand the cause. The available evidence argues for at most a genetic contribution, with other -- probably environmental -- causes involved. The best evidence is that children are most likely to be reproductively viable -- i.e., able to mate successfully in circumstances likely to produce children who grow up to be reproductively viable -- when they have two parents, one of the same sex, and one of the opposite sex.

Is it just me, or is OSC confusing homosexuality with some form of sterility? The two matters are pretty much unrelated.

3. Growing up with opposite-sex parents, but in a society that has normalized and actively promotes one-sex marriages, will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents, potentially tipping the balance for children whose sexual identity is still formable.

The assumption here is that one's sexual identity is so fragile that it is often society who decides whether one will end up being heterosexual or otherwise.

Again, this is a far better argument for serene acceptance of homosexuality than against it. There is no point in forcing children to be heterosexual; if they are inclined to do so anyway, then they don't need the pressure, and if they are not, then it's abusive parenthood.

Must we really be scared that our children may find a path to their happiness that we are not very confortable with?

In my book, it is far better to simply recognize that there are both heterosexuality and homosexuality, and they are a private matter that does not have any reason to be understood as morally significant.

In fact, I am far more worried about the children that are being taught not to accept homosexuality as a normal part of life - not for everyone to practice, obviously, but for everyone to be at peace with.

4. Those who promote gay marriage have already shown a disposition to insist on uniformity of thought on the topic, and will certainly attempt to use the power of the state to suppress any attempt to publicly express a preference for heterosexuality, even (or especially) when such a preference has a religious basis, making this a potential religious-freedom and freedom-of-speech-and-press issue as well.

Uh? That's speculative at best. And unlikely to the extreme. In fact, it borders on proposing that heterosexuality has so little appeal that it must be taught by society. That's not quite how I remember my youth, but who knows?

5. Gay marriage has been instituted in three states (so far) only by judicial decree, and without even the pretext that the constitutions involved were ever written with the intention of promoting or allowing gay marriage.

How dare they think about maturing and improving their laws?

This has happened even in a state (California) where a large majority of the people had already rejected gay marriage at the ballot box.

How large a majority, however? And for how long?

Public opinion changes. And that's not a bad thing.

No serious attempt has been made to consider anything more than a general feeling that "tolerance is good" and "discrimination is bad." Yet we are proceeding headlong into a vast social experiment whose consequences, as far as we can see, risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few.

Again, that's more true of banning the marriages then of recognizing them.

What's the hurry? Why the hostility toward even the slightest opposition? Can't our opponents wait to get their way until they have persuaded a clear majority? Can't they listen to people with ideas that are different from theirs?

Not very confortably, no. Not when there are real people suffering for the failure of acting.

Link to article here

[Green Gaia]

Interesting article. Still think I should be treated equally and not discriminated against because of your beliefs. Sorry.

[madhatter85]

Originally Posted by Green Gaia

Interesting article. Still think I should be treated equally and not discriminated against because of your beliefs. Sorry.

Right back at ya, not saying you have personally, but generally, people who are supporters of the GLBT community are intolerant about my opinion.

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

Right back at ya, not saying you have personally, but generally, people who are supporters of the GLBT community are intolerant about my opinion.

Oh I don't mind you holding opinion you want as long as that doesn't translate into laws that infringe upon my civil rights.

[Reverend Rick]

Originally Posted by Green Gaia

Oh I don't mind you holding opinion you want as long as that doesn't translate into laws that infringe upon my civil rights.

Green, what do you think about plural marriages?

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

Right back at ya, not saying you have personally, but generally, people who are supporters of the GLBT community are intolerant about my opinion.

No, you just want to see it that way. We're not intolerant of your opinion. We support your right to have your opinion. We just don't support your decision to try to impose your beliefs on everyone else. The difference is that your actions make it so that no one else can act in a way with which you disagree. Our actions only make it so that you can act how you want and we can act how we want. We may not agree with how you live your life, but we're not trying to prohibit you from living it that way, or else it would be intolerance.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Surely an article that appeals to reason would be better reasoned than that one.

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.

[Red Pill]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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.

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

[Nanda]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Nature does not sanction homosexual behavior because it has no use for it.

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.

[Sententia]

Originally Posted by Nanda

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.

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