Comments on: Pretty and witty and gay

By: Darren

Darren — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:16:49 +0000

The definition of “conservative” is not “opposed to rapid change”; nor is a “liberal” the opposite of a conservative.

I consider myself a conservative; most people who are classified with that label are not. To be conservative is to believe that government should get involved with people’s lives only to protect people’s basic rights (”life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; or as I count them: health, freedom, and the right to be let alone). No, I’m not a libertarian.

A true conservative would not want to see any Constitutional amendment that has the effect of removing personal freedom. A true conservative would understand that it’s not the government’s business who I sleep with or fall in love with, or whom I form a contract with (save that said person must be willing and capable of understanding the contract). Marriage is a contract, so the government shouldn’t care who I marry, so long as everyone is consenting.

Keep your damned laws out of my bedroom, and off my body.

By: Critical thinking about personal beliefs | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:46:43 +0000

[...] Even if someone were to come up with some difference — and I’m willing to listen — then the video still has impact. I would think that most people have little or no issues with interracial couples, and ones who do are an endangered species (I hope). So by changing the wording of the video a little bit, it contrasts feelings about homosexuality with feelings about race. It forces you to examine your thoughts on both. We already have far better feelings about race as a country than we did a few decades ago. Yes, a lot of ugliness in the populace is surfacing about Obama, but I still think that kind of person is in the minority. That contrasts pretty strongly with feelings about sexual orientation. [...]

By: Sfurules

Sfurules — Fri, 06 May 2005 22:52:43 +0000

I will admit that my use of the word “anyone” (which in this instance implies “everyone”) is a generalization that can never be supported in truth. Of course there will be someone that believes in polygamy as well as homosexual conduct…but I do not concede the argument based on that semantic error.

I suppose a better way to put it would be to say that any GROUP that professes belief in polygamy based on a commandment from God would be againts homosexuality. Again, there might be some small small faction somewhere that doesn’t fit that mold, but they will have broken off from a larger group that does.

I had made the incorrect supposition that, since the topic was based on religous beliefs, the arguments set forth would be viewed in that light and with that premise. If the God factor is taken out, then yes, I would bet that there are lots of groups that profess plural marriage, as well as sanction homosexual rights.

By: Erik Johnson

Erik Johnson — Fri, 06 May 2005 20:52:28 +0000

This debate has a very simple answer; no need to get into all this detail. Marraige is a union of holy matrimony. If the separation of church and state is to remain intact, the state should have absolutely no say in what constitutes a marraige. The preist, rabbi, etc who is marrying the couple should have freedom to marry whomever they choose on an individual basis according to what they believe regardless of what the people being married believe. If the person with authority to marry the couple does not object then that is all that should matter. This is part of a massive shift by the government to condition people to get used to giving up control to the state. “But the state isn’t taking any power away from us!” you say? The point is that they are taking control of issues they shouldn’t have any say in. In the past the state merely recognized marraiges, but now they are dictating what a constitutes marraige which is wholly unconstitutional.

By: Irishman

Irishman — Fri, 06 May 2005 20:39:13 +0000

I’m sorry, my asterisked remark was meant as a disclaimer to preempt any squabling over the official LDS policy. Some Mormons get miffed at any mention of Mormon polygamy, and I just wanted to make clear my awareness of the official position in an aside, not directed at anyone in particular.

apestench, yes, many people would make that argument.

Sfurules said:
“Anyone who believes in polygamy will do so because of a belief that God has sanctioned said unions. That belief will also carry with it the belief that God has condemned homosexual relations. ”

That’s just not true. There are many reasons people might accept polygamy. Even religious basis for acceptance of polygamy does not require one to accept religious bias against homosexuality. I will accept that the preponderance of those using the religious justifications for polygamy stated in this thread would also be against homosexuality because of the religions involved, but it’s not 100%.

However, I will agree with this statement: “Furthermore, polygamy is not a sexual preferance, it is a way to EXPRESS a sexual preferance. ” Multi-partner unions can be structured with and without homosexual components.

By: Sfurules

Sfurules — Fri, 06 May 2005 16:54:08 +0000

I have to point out that the arguement that polygamy is a sexual preferance is not a valid one. Anyone who believes in polygamy will do so because of a belief that God has sanctioned said unions. That belief will also carry with it the belief that God has condemned homosexual relations. Therefore, to group the 2 together for this arugment would be falicious. Furthermore, polygamy is not a sexual preferance, it is a way to EXPRESS a sexual preferance. Polygamy, strictly by definition, is not biased towards homosexual or heterosexual unions. It only means the joining of one to multiple other others. If you are going to use a religous argument (pro or con), then do not use polar groups of the argument to make the same point. From a governmental point of view (and/or legal) you may have a valid point. I have not (nor is it worth the time for me) done any research on this topic, so I am not sure what the legal ramifications are.

By: apestench

apestench — Thu, 05 May 2005 21:13:57 +0000

I know that the LDS church does not currently sanction polygamous marraiges. The question was meant to ask. If one believes that the government should change the definition of marraige “in the legal sense,” to favor homosexual preferences (as long as they are between consenting adults) then shouldn’t the government also allow polygamous marraiges between consenting adults. Polygamy is the sexual preference of some people just as homosexuality is the sexual preference of some people.