Brave lady. Hopefully she'll inspire others to speak out as well.

Did I just watch a video that contained the subjects of Faith and Logic and Tolerance? Mind=blown. She needs to be made Pope or something, like right now.

I also am LDS (not active but believing) but her acting like this video will threaten her temple recommend and standing in the church is a flat out joke. Harry Reid is a member of the Mormon Church and has a Temple Reccomend. Harry Frickin Reid! And this video is somehow gonna get her kicked out? Please. Also, I have no problem with her stance on Gay Marriage, I don't agree but I am fine with her opinion (you would be surprised how many members of the Mormon faith feel like her).

There is nothing wrong with the church promoting and asking members to offer support for what it espouses. I don't hate gay people (my brother is gay) but I reserve my right to stand against gay marriage if I so choose. I love illegal immigrants (the non-felon ones) and treat them as such but at the same time I will argue and ask for a more secure border. You can love the individual and disagree with the behavior.

"Heya gay folks, we love you but can't give you the same rights as everyone else. Sorry!"

^Right..

Love => Respect => Equal Rights. Claiming to love an individual and treating them as second class citizens is bullshit. Somewhere in there you are lying to yourself.

But in regards to the video, kudos to finding and sifting this excellent example of a religious person who does not have their head up their ass! This is the kind of person I have no problem leaving alone to live in their fantasy world. If more religious people were like this, there would not be an atheist assault on religion at all. And they could go back to attacking other religions.

>> ^Ydaani:

You can love the individual and disagree with the behavior.


"Disagree with the behaviour." Up my ass. Up many asses, up gay asses with cocks in them, with lesbians watching while having lots of lesbian sex.

It's just sick, arrogant, pompus prejudice dressed up as tolerance. It's none of your fucking business who other people love and/or have consensual sex with. By what right can you claim that the behaviour is disagreeable? Oh yeah, thats right, people turn fast into self-righteuos assholes when they think they know the will of the creator of the universe.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Appreciate you speaking up and contributing what will definitely be a dissenting view.

How is it OK for the Church to actively spend money and time to keep a subset of society from getting married?

How about mixed race marriages? Does the Mormon Church want to prevent that as well? Seems like it.

Ever since the Mountain Meadow Massacre the Mormon Church has been on the wrong side of morality and history.

>> ^Ydaani:

I also am LDS (not active but believing) but her acting like this video will threaten her temple recommend and standing in the church is a flat out joke. Harry Reid is a member of the Mormon Church and has a Temple Reccomend. Harry Frickin Reid! And this video is somehow gonna get her kicked out? Please. Also, I have no problem with her stance on Gay Marriage, I don't agree but I am fine with her opinion (you would be surprised how many members of the Mormon faith feel like her).
There is nothing wrong with the church promoting and asking members to offer support for what it espouses. I don't hate gay people (my brother is gay) but I reserve my right to stand against gay marriage if I so choose. I love illegal immigrants (the non-felon ones) and treat them as such but at the same time I will argue and ask for a more secure border. You can love the individual and disagree with the behavior.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gay marriage, mormon, prop 8' to 'gay marriage, mormon, prop 8, lds' - edited by kronosposeidon

>> ^Aniatario:

"Heya gay folks, we love you but can't give you the same rights as everyone else. Sorry!"
^Right..


Who's stopping gays from getting married?

Truth is, nobody is stopping them from getting married. There is no test or query when getting married. Nowhere in Canada or the US are you asked if you are gay or not when getting married.

Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?

Oh, right. The existing definition of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman. Changing definitions is NOT a right in my book, sorry.

If the problem is wanting similar legal privileges for a union between two men or two women as there exists for marriages, then pursue changes to the law, not the definition.

I'll go for even more down votes here by noting my belief that one's sexual behavior is a choice, not a genetic predisposition. Flame me all you want, but if you can explain to me where I'm being illogical or prejudiced in any of this I'd like to hear it.

^Define marriage on your own religious terms if you want to, but saying marriage is defined as "a union between a man and a woman" is complete and utter bullshit. Marriage isn't about definitions or politics, Keith Olbermann said it best. This is about the human heart.

You talk about "redefining" marriage. If we hadn't "redefined marriage" it would still be illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. Anishnabek women would still be loosing their Indian status if they had "the audacity" to marry a white man.

You wanna talk about being illogical? The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatrics Association, The American Psychological Association, and God knows how many other level-headed scientists and doctors out there, all recognize that Homosexuality isn't a fucking choice.

I'm gonna stop now, I'm getting too emotionally invested in this to be civil.

You talk about "redefining" marriage, if we hadn't "redefined marriage" black people still couldn't marry white people. Anishnabek women would still be loosing their status if they had "the audacity" to marry a white man.

Marriage was still defined back then by the union of a man and a woman, but racist religious idiots wanted mixed race couples to be denied the right to marriage. They wanted to deny rights based on race, seems obviously distinct.

If you want argue, as Olbermann, that the definition needs to be changed at least be honest about that being the goal and don't misname it as 'rights' issue.

The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatrics Association, The American Psychological Association, and God knows how many other level-headed scientists and doctors out there, all recognize that Homosexuality isn't a fucking choice.

citations needed.

You realize that the genetic and twin studies that have been done on sexual orientation are actually no more statistically significant than the exact same studies done on criminal behavior and on addictive behavior and more recently on religious belief. The best that can be said is that genetics can predispose us to certain behaviors. There is no genetic test that can determine a persons religious, sexual or criminal 'orientations'.

Even identical twins raised in identical homes will as often as not go one way while the other twin goes the other. Even the sexual orientation studies demonstrate that more than 50% of the time, if identical twins are raised in the same home and one of them chooses same sex as their orientation in the study, the other twin will NOT. Last time I checked, identical twin studies on race have shown a near 100% fit where if one twin is a given race, the other is too.

Her heart's in the right place. But her argument is pretty bad. The government does now and always will decide what constitutes a legal marriage and they will always ban certain types of marriage.

You cannot marry animals, or inanimate objects.
You cannot marry children.

I agree that consenting adults should be able to choose, but the 'slippery slope' argument she presents is completely flawed.

Do you all realize that the Mormon Church believed that black people were cursed by god for their "iniquities?"
I quote from their ridiculous bible:

"And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

2 Nephi 5:21

>> ^bcglorf:

Oh, right. The existing definition of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman. Changing definitions is NOT a right in my book, sorry.


I wouldn't call it a "right" either -- I would say that's just the way language works. The definitions of words change all the time; it's why dictionaries have new editions every year and why words are added and removed from them. As Aniatario pointed out, the definition of marriage was changed very recently (in 1967) to allow interracial marriage, so there certainly isn't anything inherently untouchable about it. As such, "preserving the definition" is probably the single *weakest* argument against gay marriage.

>> ^bcglorf:

I'll go for even more down votes here by noting my belief that one's sexual behavior is a choice, not a genetic predisposition. Flame me all you want, but if you can explain to me where I'm being illogical or prejudiced in any of this I'd like to hear it.


So when did you choose to be heterosexual?

Illogical and prejudiced, yes. And also arbitrary and rather dumb in how you desperately try to rationalize your discrimination.

You imply that gay people have the right to marry since they can still marry a person of the opposite sex. But having the right to marry means exactly having the right to marry who you want. This is where you should have used your brain, applied your reasoning to other situations, and pondered if it actually made sense. For example, suppose black people were not allowed to marry each other, and the powers that be tried to pull the same trick you just pulled by saying black people can still marry any morbidly obese white person they want. Would black people have the right to marry? Absolutely not. Suppose a government claims its people have freedom of speech since it does not preempt any attempts at speaking; instead it just goes around, after the fact, and punishes anybody who said something it dislikes. Do the people have freedom of speech? No.

The issue of definition is a non-issue. Any language that has a population of native speakers is undergoing constant evolution. You must be religious, since you think words are sacred, and apparently magical. (They must be magical, if words defined in one age have the ability to correctly dictate morality into the unknown future.) Again, we can imagine this applied to race, i.e. marriage defined to be between "a white man and a white woman".

You seem to imply you'd be okay with it if there was a different word and corresponding laws. I doubt that, it sounds like a grasp for a rationalization. But lets suppose that actually happened. The end result would be exactly the same. The vast majority of the population would continue to use the word "marriage" when talking about same sex unions. The people against gay marriage would be the most likely to use the word "marriage" because their real concern is the act, not the word; the issue of sacred word definition was only ever an excuse, one which they would not want to give up. They would claim that legalizing gay marriage under the phrase "civil unions" was merely a bureaucratic trick, and rightfully so since the body laws concerning straight marriage and gay civil unions would be identical except for the phrase used to name the act. And after a few decades, the dictionary publishers would update their definitions to match the language people actually use: mar riage (mar-ij) n. the state in which two people are formally united for the purpose of living together(often in order to raise children) and with certain legal rights and obligations toward each other. (straight forward adaptation from the Oxford American Dictionary)

And finally, whether it is a choice or not has absolutely no bearing on the morality of it. All that matters, in general, is whether an act causes harm to non-consenting parties. Gay marriage does not. That means, as far as morality is concerned, being gay or straight is merely an issue of aesthetics. Therefore, you getting irked over gay marriage is quite similar to a teenage girl, who upon seeing another teen girl whose shirt and pants do not match, becomes irate that another person would dare wear something that she personally dislikes. Please grow the fuck up.



>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Aniatario:
"Heya gay folks, we love you but can't give you the same rights as everyone else. Sorry!"
^Right..

Who's stopping gays from getting married?
Truth is, nobody is stopping them from getting married. There is no test or query when getting married. Nowhere in Canada or the US are you asked if you are gay or not when getting married.
Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?
Oh, right. The existing definition of marriage meaning a union between a man and a woman. Changing definitions is NOT a right in my book, sorry.
If the problem is wanting similar legal privileges for a union between two men or two women as there exists for marriages, then pursue changes to the law, not the definition.
I'll go for even more down votes here by noting my belief that one's sexual behavior is a choice, not a genetic predisposition. Flame me all you want, but if you can explain to me where I'm being illogical or prejudiced in any of this I'd like to hear it.

>> ^CrushBug:
Did I just watch a video that contained the subjects of Faith and Logic and Tolerance? Mind=blown. She needs to be made Pope or something, like right now.


Your mind is only blown by the fact that only the ignorant get attention on the TV, and you believe the perceptions the Media wishes you to have. All blacks steal cars and abuse welfare, all whites in the south are racists, all cops beat their citizens daily, all religious people have no tolerance.

This lady will never get more attention than this video.

You betcha!

And finally, whether it is a choice or not has absolutely no bearing on the morality of it.

No. Whether it is a choice or not trumps all other considerations regarding the morality of it.

It is the difference between disagreeing with, as you noted, someone's choice of clothing and disagreeing with someone's color of skin. The former disagreement should be protected as an individual freedom, the later should be banned and abolished in every way possible.

You seem to imply you'd be okay with it if there was a different word and corresponding laws.

I'm saying I'd be willing to agree to disagree. Changing the definition includes the implication that the existing definition is prejudiced, as has been suggested in thread multiple times regarding interracial marriages. Redefining marriage is about the belief that the current definition is akin to opposing interracial marriages, and I'm not ok to agree to disagree on that.

I will not cede the 'just born that way' argument. Particularly in the face of scientific studies of identical twins that show more often than not when one twin is gay the other is not. That doesn't prove that you are 'born that way', it proves quite the opposite.

As Aniatario pointed out, the definition of marriage was changed very recently (in 1967) to allow interracial marriage, so there certainly isn't anything inherently untouchable about it.

From Webster's unabridged dictionary in 1900, the definition of marriage:
1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

I'm not seeing anything in the 1900 definition that demanded or banned interracial couples from marriage. In fact, it would certainly appear that long, long before your arbitrary 1967 date, marriage was already defined as the union of a man and a woman, without regard for race or any other considerations.

It appears to me the definition that was used more than 100 years ago still is remarkably unchanged, save for the very loud and demanding cry from some today that want to remove the reference to "a man and a woman". Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?

Why not ? Since when was the dictionary sacred text ?

Seriously, pick another premise; the 'argument from dictionary sanctity' is easily the weakest and stupidest.

Civil partnership should be equal to marriage in everything but name and ceremony and straight couples should boycott marriage in solidarity. Saying "you can get a partership but you can't call it marriage" is almost like telling them they can ride on the bus, just not in those seats.

Marriage doesn't belong to the church anymore, it belongs to society.

>> ^bcglorf:

As Aniatario pointed out, the definition of marriage was changed very recently (in 1967) to allow interracial marriage, so there certainly isn't anything inherently untouchable about it.
From Webster's unabridged dictionary in 1900, the definition of marriage:
1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.


From merriam-webster.com:

1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Looks like Webster's has changed their definition.

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm not seeing anything in the 1900 definition that demanded or banned interracial couples from marriage. In fact, it would certainly appear that long, long before your arbitrary 1967 date, marriage was already defined as the union of a man and a woman, without regard for race or any other considerations.


The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 criminalized all marriage between white and non-white:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924
The Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia ruled the Racial Integrity Act unconstitutional in 1967:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I can't help but notice you ignored my question. When did you choose to be heterosexual?

(snip of BRP profane rant)

Well - if that plunge into logic doesn't lay out the sides then nothing really will.

Look - this isn't difficult. Judaism banned homosexuality under judeic law. Now - those who are not religious would argue that such a standard was established by evil men. Those who believe that God exists & has a plan for his children would accept that these rules ("Commandments" if you will) were established to help the mortal family to know the ins and outs of what God expects his children to do or not do for their own happiness.

So homosexuality was wrong both under Judaic law, and Judaic moral belief. This is not in question except by people who are trying to reverse-engineer history in order to justify their own world views. Christ did not come along and say, "That was wrong". Quite to the contrary. Christ doubled down. Judaic law commmanded people to not commit sexual sin. Christ didn't say, "It's OK now as long as you love each other..." Nuh-uh. Christ said, "He who LOOKETH upon another woman and hath committed adultery in his heart." The lesson is clear. Judeaic law was trying to command & control people with "don't do this" rules. Christ was trying to teach people to not even THINK about doing the wrong thing.

What does that say about homosexuality? People who think Christ or God would be "OK" with it are lying to themselves. Sexual sin is sin and needs to be forsaken. Period. That never changed. Christ told the adulteress, "Go thy way and SIN NO MORE". He did not say, "Go thy way and I don't care what you do as long as you love them."

So yes - like ANY moral sin - you can love the sinner and hate the sin and labor to correct it. It doesn't make you a bigot. It doesn't mean you're a hater. It means you see people who need help, and you try to help them.

As far as this chick goes - phht. If she's even LDS (which isn't a given), her argument is full of holes and we've got an actual LDS guy who says she's full of bologna with her claims of "being cast out". Is such a thing possible? You'd have to ask the guys in SLC about that and not this chick. As far as the Mormon church's opposition to Prop 8? I saw that more as a means to prevent a lousy law from happening. The gay community needs to come up with a plan that addresses their wants (equal rights) without stepping on the definition of marriage and protections for those who hold to a traditional view. When that happens they'll find they have a better shot compared to these half-@$$ed bum-rush votes on lousy, flawed legislation.

Throughout human history every society has had their own definition of marriage. In many, even our own western civilization in the past, women were considered property and expected to obey their husbands much like slaves. The relics of this are still in the traditional vows. Women couldn't vote, and couldn't own property. But that changed over time. Women were recognized as equals, and society changed the definition of marriage accordingly.

Furthermore, gay marriage is already happening and has been happening for some time. Many churches will perform gay marriages even in states where they are not legally recognized. It's already happened. The definition is changed. GET OVER IT.

The only fight left is this pathetic vestige of religious homophobia.

@bcglorf - You are correct in your assertion that homosexuality is not a primary genetic trait, otherwise it would disappear within a few generations. It is likely recessive, triggered with some sort of environmental factor or other random variable.

But let's put the science aside for a second and talk logic. Did you ever "decide" to be attracted to somebody? No, you simply are, or are not, or find them somewhat attractive, or grow more attracted over time, or see them differently when you are buzzed. There is no decision factor there. I could not decide to be attracted to a man. In fact, if I find out I'm looking at a gorgeous woman who used to be a man, my attraction to her disappears instantly. It is not a choice, it is a subconscious reaction and I have no control over it.

So why do you think this is different for gays? Did you, bcglorf, decide to be straight? That means you could have decided to be gay. That was not a choice I was ever given.

You do an amazing job of not even remotely listening to anything she said.

>> ^Ydaani:

I also am LDS (not active but believing) but her acting like this video will threaten her temple recommend and standing in the church is a flat out joke. Harry Reid is a member of the Mormon Church and has a Temple Reccomend. Harry Frickin Reid! And this video is somehow gonna get her kicked out? Please. Also, I have no problem with her stance on Gay Marriage, I don't agree but I am fine with her opinion (you would be surprised how many members of the Mormon faith feel like her).
There is nothing wrong with the church promoting and asking members to offer support for what it espouses. I don't hate gay people (my brother is gay) but I reserve my right to stand against gay marriage if I so choose. I love illegal immigrants (the non-felon ones) and treat them as such but at the same time I will argue and ask for a more secure border. You can love the individual and disagree with the behavior.

The only fight left is this pathetic vestige of religious homophobia.
...
let's put the science aside for a second and talk logic.

Let's not.

You dismiss my views as 'religious homophobia' and moments later ask to put aside science as it's inconvenient to your own. I hope the irony of this isn't wasted on people.

I make a big deal of the definition of marriage because inherent in the demand for changing it is the implication that sexual orientation is akin race or skin color. Obviously it's not the language but the implication that is behind my vehemence.

Did you, bcglorf, decide to be straight?

Yes.

You are correct in your assertion that homosexuality is not a primary genetic trait, otherwise it would disappear within a few generations. It is likely recessive, triggered with some sort of environmental factor or other random variable.

You understate the science against your view. Many studies have been done on identical twins and the connection between genetic traits and behaviors. Those studies show the same strength of connection between sexual orientation, criminal behavior, addictive behaviors and even religious beliefs.

If you want to say people are just born with a sexual orientation, and choice doesn't enter into it, the science demands the same standard be held to criminals, addicts and ...... religious homophobes.

If we agree on that, then logic can carry us into drawing lines around where those built in genetic dispositions cross the boundaries of intruding on other peoples freedoms and what to do about that.

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?


Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.

Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?

You are very wrong.

Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.

Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.

@bcglorf

Do you know how hilariously dumb the choice argument is?

1) No homosexual will tell you it was a choice. There was never, ever a moment when they consciously thought "Ok, I can either be attracted to girls or boys. You know what? I'll choose [x]!" I'm sorry, but thinking that is even credible is so outrageously stupid it is offensive.
2) Why would anyone choose to be gay and suffer a lifetime of bigotry and oppression? Because of the fabulous parties? Come on.
3) If you think your sexuality was a choice, that implies that at any moment, you could choose to be attracted to the same sex. So everyone is a latent bisexual. Does this not strike you as COMPLETELY untrue?

Furthermore, stop misrepresenting the science on sexuality. As a behavioural scientist, your nonsense is not only tedious, it is offensive.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?

Because they are not the same thing. The legal definition of marriage carries with it certain tangible rights and responsibilities that a civil union does not.
Are are you seriously implying that the only difference between a civil union and a marriage is in a name or that same-sex couples are merely quibbling over superficial differences for the sake of tooting their own horn?
You are very wrong.
Note the part where it says, "These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman." It would be disingenuous to say they want a complete overhaul of the definition of marriage; an addendum to an existing definition for further inclusiveness is not a redefinition but a modification. It's simply adding to the definition, nothing is being taken away. I'm talking legal definition, just to be clear.
Definitions morph and evolve all the time, I really can't think of one good reason why the legal definition of marriage shouldn't be modified to reflect the social progress that has been made since its inception.


I never suggested that civil unions have the same rights as marriages now do. I suggested that is what should be fought for by those wanting the same rights given to same-sex unions as are given currently to marriages. I argued for that over fighting to have marriage redefined, once again for the reason that redefining marriage implies that sexual orientation is a trait like race and not a choice.

Furthermore, stop misrepresenting the science on sexuality. As a behavioural scientist, your nonsense is not only tedious, it is offensive.

Please do point out any factual errors I made. Not only do I doubt that you are a behavioral scientist, but even if you were, your simple say so doesn't close a matter. The actual studies and results speak for themselves and I believe I cited them quite accurately, even if many may not like the conclusions.

>> ^bcglorf:

Furthermore, stop misrepresenting the science on sexuality. As a behavioural scientist, your nonsense is not only tedious, it is offensive.
Please do point out any factual errors I made. Not only do I doubt that you are a behavioral scientist, but even if you were, your simple say so doesn't close a matter. The actual studies and results speak for themselves and I believe I cited them quite accurately, even if many may not like the conclusions.


Citations? Where? I've re-read all your responses multiple times and I haven't found any.

In response to your response to me, "Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?" sorta has a way of making people think you really don't know of what, if any, fundamental rights that might be denied to "gay folks" and that their grievances are superficial, hence the implied minimization of real issues, hence my response.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

>> ^bcglorf:
Furthermore, stop misrepresenting the science on sexuality. As a behavioural scientist, your nonsense is not only tedious, it is offensive.
Please do point out any factual errors I made. Not only do I doubt that you are a behavioral scientist, but even if you were, your simple say so doesn't close a matter. The actual studies and results speak for themselves and I believe I cited them quite accurately, even if many may not like the conclusions.

Citations? Where? I've re-read all your responses multiple times and I haven't found any.
In response to your response to me, "Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?" sorta has a way of making people think you really don't know of what, if any, fundamental rights that might be denied to "gay folks" and that their grievances are superficial, hence the implied minimization of real issues, hence my response.


From the handbook of behavior genetics, the chapter on Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation. They summarize quite nicely the history of scientific studies on twins, and the results absolutely demolish the idea that identical twins raised in the same home will share a homosexual orientation. At best 50% of the time if one is homosexual, the other will be too. The majority of studies find a much lower likelihood still, and incidentally those studies are generally of more sound methods as well, again as noted by the authors and not myself. To be sure, the text asserts a link between genetics and orientation, but nothing near the definitive levels people seem to be advocating as self evident. It is, in fact, in the same realm as studies on other behaviors.

This whole issue has been framed as a false dichotomy: Legalize gay marriage or ban gay marriage. This woman was not particularly well spoken but she hinted at what I feel is the critical point in this debate: Government should not be involved in marriage. So many of you think the solution is for the government to step in; have you even considered that the government should step out? Marriage is a religious ceremony and, as such, the government never had any place promoting, regulating and rewarding it. There wouldn't be a problem if the government wasn't involved.

Contract law can already handle what marriage currently does without the need for coopting religious traditions. Here and now any 2 people of adequate age can enter into a binding contract, gays included. Tax revenue instantly increases; nobodies marriage changes; everyone has equal rights.

It's also amusing how many "Conservatives" are perfectly willing to have the government step in and outlaw gay marriage. How exactly is that conservative? Sounds a lot like Big Government^TM to me.

Someone give me a good reason why marriage should be legislated. I don't dismiss the possibility that there could be one, but nobody has provided me one yet.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

This whole issue has been framed as a false dichotomy: Legalize gay marriage or ban gay marriage. This woman was not particularly well spoken but she hinted at what I feel is the critical point in this debate: Government should not be involved in marriage. So many of you think the solution is for the government to step in; have you even considered that the government should step out? Marriage is a religious ceremony and, as such, the government never had any place promoting, regulating and rewarding it. There wouldn't be a problem if the government wasn't involved.
Contract law can already handle what marriage currently does without the need for coopting religious traditions. Here and now any 2 people of adequate age can enter into a binding contract, gays included. Tax revenue instantly increases; nobodies marriage changes; everyone has equal rights.
It's also amusing how many "Conservatives" are perfectly willing to have the government step in and outlaw gay marriage. How exactly is that conservative? Sounds a lot like Big Government^TM to me.
Someone give me a good reason why marriage should be legislated. I don't dismiss the possibility that there could be one, but nobody has provided me one yet.


The only reason I've ever heard for government to care about marriage was population growth, which obviously only applies to 'some' definitions of marriage.

I'm quite happy to see government take it's hands off the matter altogether, nothing special for anybody.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:
>> ^bcglorf:
Furthermore, stop misrepresenting the science on sexuality. As a behavioural scientist, your nonsense is not only tedious, it is offensive.
Please do point out any factual errors I made. Not only do I doubt that you are a behavioral scientist, but even if you were, your simple say so doesn't close a matter. The actual studies and results speak for themselves and I believe I cited them quite accurately, even if many may not like the conclusions.

Citations? Where? I've re-read all your responses multiple times and I haven't found any.
In response to your response to me, "Please explain then, what rights are being denied to "gay folks"?" sorta has a way of making people think you really don't know of what, if any, fundamental rights that might be denied to "gay folks" and that their grievances are superficial, hence the implied minimization of real issues, hence my response.

From the handbook of behavior genetics, the chapter on Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation. They summarize quite nicely the history of scientific studies on twins, and the results absolutely demolish the idea that identical twins raised in the same home will share a homosexual orientation. At best 50% of the time if one is homosexual, the other will be too. The majority of studies find a much lower likelihood still, and incidentally those studies are generally of more sound methods as well, again as noted by the authors and not myself. To be sure, the text asserts a link between genetics and orientation, but nothing near the definitive levels people seem to be advocating as self evident. It is, in fact, in the same realm as studies on other behaviors.


Fair enough. I'm no expert but after second-guessing myself and researching this further, I've read that the current consensus seems to be leaning towards there being a complex mix of biological and environmental factors at work here in varying proportions for varying individuals, and more research to be done to be able to attribute and quantify just how much of either influences sexual attraction as our understanding of it is far from complete.

So I say to you, in the same vein, you may be appear to be attributing far too much to "choice" as you think others do to purely biological factors. Most homosexuals report their same-sex attraction to be something they've never had a say or a choice in. It might be helpful to distinguish attraction from behavior, there seems to be some overlap going on there in the discussion.

I don't see how something not being solely determined by their genes or biology would automatically suggest "choice" to be its antonym and the answer. There are many unchosen attractions and desires and preferences that people have that can't be attributed to biology alone, yet they're also not consciously made choices. There's a bit of a false dichotomy going on here. The truth seems to be somewhere in the middle.

If I've erred in my ramblings, hopefully someone better trained/more learned in this area will tear it to shreds and set me straight (no pun intended ).

>> ^xxovercastxx:

This whole issue has been framed as a false dichotomy: Legalize gay marriage or ban gay marriage. This woman was not particularly well spoken but she hinted at what I feel is the critical point in this debate: Government should not be involved in marriage. So many of you think the solution is for the government to step in; have you even considered that the government should step out? Marriage is a religious ceremony and, as such, the government never had any place promoting, regulating and rewarding it. There wouldn't be a problem if the government wasn't involved.
Contract law can already handle what marriage currently does without the need for coopting religious traditions. Here and now any 2 people of adequate age can enter into a binding contract, gays included. Tax revenue instantly increases; nobodies marriage changes; everyone has equal rights.
It's also amusing how many "Conservatives" are perfectly willing to have the government step in and outlaw gay marriage. How exactly is that conservative? Sounds a lot like Big Government^TM to me.
Someone give me a good reason why marriage should be legislated. I don't dismiss the possibility that there could be one, but nobody has provided me one yet.


I fully agree with you, in principle. For my part I was speaking pragmatically, seeing as how the government is already entangled with marriage and that "institution" doesn't seem to be going anywhere, anytime soon. I'm with you abstractly though!

>> ^CrushBug:

Did I just watch a video that contained the subjects of Faith and Logic and Tolerance? Mind=blown. She needs to be made Pope or something, like right now.


Absolutely, she would make a superior Church president. Unfortunately within Mormonism every boy above the age of 11 is considered a priest, while priesthood cannot be granted to women under any circumstances. Within the hierarchy of the church she will always be inferior to a vast number of children - because they have peinses, however small.

It's always been difficult for me to imagine how self-respecting gays stay in the church. But it's good to remember it's equally baffling that any self-respecting women stay.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Truth!>> ^entr0py:

>> ^CrushBug:
Did I just watch a video that contained the subjects of Faith and Logic and Tolerance? Mind=blown. She needs to be made Pope or something, like right now.

Absolutely, she would make a superior Church president. Unfortunately within Mormonism every boy above the age of 11 is considered a priest, while priesthood cannot be granted to women under any circumstances. Within the hierarchy of the church she will always be inferior to a vast number of children - because they have peinses, however small.
It's always been difficult for me to imagine how self-respecting gays stay in the church. But it's good to remember it's equally baffling that any self-respecting women stay.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

(snip of BRP profane rant)
Well - if that plunge into logic doesn't lay out the sides then nothing really will.
Look - this isn't difficult. Judaism banned homosexuality under judeic law. Now - those who are not religious would argue that such a standard was established by evil men.


Not by evil men, but by ignorant, dersertdwelling goatherds who probably thought the wheelbarrow was the peak of scientific achievement, yes.

My point was that you are a fool if you think such rubbish gives you the right to decide what's "disagreeable" about other people's love life. Say you were white and got a black girlfriend, and I went "Well i love both black and white individuals, but I find your behaviour disagreeable" What would I be if not a disgusting, ignorant, racist idiot? if I got my "morals" from an old holy book, would that make me look any better? No. It would just go to show that I wasn't thinking for myself. Such idiocy can only come about if you actually believe that you know that the creator of the universe is a racist/homophobe, and that that makes it OK for you to be one too.

It might be helpful to distinguish attraction from behavior, there seems to be some overlap going on there in the discussion.

Indeed, but studies have had a hard time drawing that line. Your sexual orientation also is only one of thousands of places where there is a distinction between attraction and behavior. People with addictive personalities are attracted to certain behaviors. People with poor impulse control are attracted to certain behaviors. People with poor control of their temper are attracted to certain behaviors. There is still a distinction between having an addictive personality and being an addict. There is a distinction between having poor impulse control and a bad temper, and criminal behavior.

There are plenty of studies out there on twins and various behaviors, eg. smoking, that show very strong correlations between the behavior and identical twins as compared to non-identical twins. As I said, smoking studies on twins have shown that smoking is as strongly mirrored in identical twins as is sexual orientation. My point is to say you shouldn't attack people who say homosexuality is a choice with any more vehemence than those calling other behaviors like smoking a choice, as that is the conclusion supported by the existing scientific evidence.

bcglorf, you are a profound idiot, and I hope all of your children grow up flamboyantly, openly gay, and that they have gay sex all over your bed.

@bcglorf: Even if genetics have nothing to do with one being gay or not, it does not follow that it's a choice.

>>^Ornthoron:
@bcglorf: Even if genetics have nothing to do with one being gay or not, it does not follow that it's a choice.


Agreed, it is however evidence against the idea that you are simply "born that way".

The current scientific evidence suggest genetics DOES play a part in sexual orientation, but as small a part as genetics play in addictive behavior. I shouldn't be so lonely in observing the wrongness in pointing to that evidence as scientifically proving that "you are born that way". The actual evidence suggests quite the opposite.

Then change "born that way" to "grew up that way". Whatever. Just stop insisting it is a choice. Because it's not. I did not choose to be straight, I grew up that way, knowing from a very young age that I liked girls. Many gay people I've heard or spoken with describe either knowing from a very young age or "figuring it out" during puberty.

I have never, ever, heard a gay person describe the "choice" to become gay. There is the choice to come out. There is the choice to live a lie and pretend to be straight. There is the choice to hide what they feel ashamed of because of assholes insisting that it is morally wrong. Some are bisexual and have the choice to date men or women. But I have never heard of the choice to become attracted to somebody!

As I said before, the definition of marriage has already changed. It's done. You are on the losing side of this fight.

But when it comes down to it, I don't care whether you believe it is genetic or environmental or choice or some combination. We're not talking about people with anger management issues starting fights, or kleptomaniacs stealing things, or alcoholics causing car accidents. We're talking about two people in love who want to share their lives together and have all the rights and responsibilities that come with the word marriage. Give me one single good reason it should be against the law.

Every gay man or woman I have ever met (trust me, I'm a theatre Studies major, I have met ALOT of gay people) knows that in their heart of hearts they didn't "choose" their sexual preference. I'm gonna take an enormous leap of faith here and take their word for it. Honestly, your opinion is so seriously distorted it's ridiculous. Come to Canada, goto any public forum and state your opinion on this subject, almost EVERYONE will disagree with you. I just don't understand your reasoning, you desperately cling to one side of a scientific issue, spouting the same argument over and over again "it's not genetic! It's not Genetic! It must be a choice!"

All in the name of what? Semantics?! Arguing against the meaning of a word that's already changed?! Honestly man, fuck off.

Is anybody else thinking that maybe @bcglorf has been to gay reassignment camp? That is a whole lot of predigested wrong science to come from one person.

I'm thinking we are dealing with a closet case, my friends. Someone who looks at his own sexuality as an addiction.

This is profoundly sad. I pray that someday, some loving Christian can help him accept himself the way God made him.

I don't think his science is "wrong", I think he's interpreting it poorly. And drawing strange conclusions about how words should be defined and how society should function. The science is morally neutral, and doesn't really seem to apply to the issue at hand.

On topic, big thumbs up for the very tolerant woman in the video. I disagree with her religion but she has my utmost respect.

re: the debate regarding gay 'choice vs genetics' and how it pertains to marriage, who fucking cares? This is one big old red herring, okaying discrimination because a person chooses not to adhere to a societal norm rather than being forced to by genetic circumstance. We're not talking an involuntary relationship (ie. paedo/bestiality marriages) which in my mind are the only precluders. You can't marry a person if a) it's against their will or b) they are not capable of making the decision to accept. If a bisexual chooses to marry the same sex, the principle is the same, good luck to em. Two fellow citizens who should have the same rights as any other have their rights removed because they don't conform to what society thinks.

government... not involved...

I agree. Government really has no role in this, and should not be involved. "Marriage" is a ceremony with religious origins. If religions don't want to adminster 'marriage' to gay couples, then I don't see any problem with that. However, the issue is that marriage has become tied into specific legal and social benefits as a result of government promotion. I don't have a problem with that coming to an end. Let's get the government out of it. Make it so marriage is a purely religious ceremony, which also gains the societal and legal benefits of a 'civil union'. Then make it so gay couples, polygamists, or whatever can get their civil unions which will give them all their benefits. There. Problem solved. This isn't rocket science. Make 'marriage' a thing that churches can choose to administer (or limit) to whomever they wish, and let the civil union be the thing that confers the legal rights. It's ridiculously simple.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker: totally 100% agree. Well put.