Uhh, most people do regard Mormonism as a cult founded by a complete and utter heretic fraud. You can argue it's not until whenever, but those guys are on about the same level as the Branch Davidians. Like when the BYU basketball player was suspended for having sex--with his FIANCEE--safe to say that doesn't fall into mainstream America or virtually anywhere else.
http://www.cultwatch.com/mormon.html
http://mormoncult.org/
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/cults/mormons.HTM


We already had a war with the Mormons, and there would have been more had they not acquiescenced to the demands of the US government. Now you're just arguing dishonestly and denying basic historical facts and syllogism, but I'll continue to play along.


You think I'm a liberal? Wow, maybe to a Nazi or some small town, narrow minded ignorant ass but not in general. And again, when there's a popular outcry for polygamy like there has been for same sex marriage it'll be addressed. But I wouldn't hold my breath. Spoiler alert: It's not even on the radar.

You can't cite one mainstream media poll where the opposition is higher, because Fox News has it even. And those states are falling one by one, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, with you and others dragging your feet every step of the way.

Well I'm NOT living on planet Kolob with you and your cronies, but I'll tell you now that none of those social conditions you mentioned will be mitigated by the disallowal of same sex marriage (cetainly not women in the military or whatever else you throw in there). People will still get married in traditional settings and have kids; some will be good parents, some not, but even that is highly subjective as to what constitutes good parenting. This all sounds like a cop out to cover your own personal biases.

This may come as a shock to you but you posting a few internet links doesn't equate to most people. Are you even familiar with the definition of a cult? It doesn't apply to the LDS Church, regardless of whatever your personal opinion is.

I'd also like to point out that the three links you posted above, two of which I am familiar with, are run by either Evangelical Christians (the type who have nothing good to say about anyone) or ex-Mormons. At any other time, these people would have no credibility in your eyes. But since they're slamming the LDS Church, you have no problem referring to them here.



Much like your lack of understanding of the word "cult," you apparently don't understand the meaning of the word "war" either. While I'm very familiar with the historical context that brought about the manifesto and the LDS Church abandoning polygamy (though it certainly wasn't directly because of the U.S. government's threats) you're trying to paint of picture of history that isn't correct or justifiable but simply a lame attempt to smear the LDS church, both past and present. This is what many gay marriage supporters like you do. You're really ones who are fueled by bigotry and full of vitriol. Your posts have been a perfect example of that.



You keep dodging the point because you know you can't get around it. One can't argue for gay marriage, while arguing against polygamy, and be intellectually honest and consistent at the same time.



You may have missed the part where I said I couldn't care less about what the polls say, either one way or the other. They're just numbers up in the air until the people in each state actually make their voices heard on the issue. And, so far, a lot more states have banned gay marriage. And I don't expect that to change for most of them any time soon.



Allowing gay marriage only adds to the social decline.

In a post above, the divorce rate (national, I guess) was stated to be around 50%. The divorce rate is generally misundertood. There are several ways in which it can be calculated. Usually, its calculation is a function of a ratio between marriages performed and divorces granted in any one year. Thus, part of its calculation is based on marriages performed in any prior year.

Ivy you kind of dodged the last part of Franks question. How does gay marriage affect any of the social declines you mentioned?

Like I said, it adds to the over all decline of our society. It's about the sum total of it all. That said, it further blurs the differing roles of men and women in society. That's one of the worst things gay marriage does - it says men and women are interchangeable. That it doesn't matter if a family is headed by, or children raised by, two men or two women. That they can offer anything a man and woman can. That's a lie. The family unit was already under enough stress with divorce, infidelity, children born out of wedlock, abortion, and everything else. Gay marriage only leads us further away from the stable, nuclear family of a husband, wife, and children - the building block of society for millenia.

^Ive heard that one before from plenty of rightwing nutjobs. Just makes me yawn honestly. Just like frank said, dragging your feet. A fair amount of people, including an overwhelming majority in my generation, support or do not care about gay marriage. Thirty years from now it won't even be an issue

Joe how old are you?

I turned 24 in January.

I think you and the rest of your generation are in for a rude awakening. What one generation tolerates, the next embraces.

I think my generation and I are doing the right thing by accepting or at least tolerating gays as opposed to telling them they're sinful and going to end up being tortured in hell. You tell me which sounds better. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree

I'm 22, and think it is disgusting and sick. A lot of my friends in my age group feel same way, but if we speak out, we are wrongfully condemned as haters or some other dumb term. Many people in my age group are looking for approval or just tend to go along with whatever trend seems to be popular.

Get Hype Son!

I have felt this many many times. The loud vocal people make it seem that everyone feels the same way they do, but very often it is simply not true. It is the same right here on this board.

and just like you say so many just want to belong or be liked so they stay quiet and go along. Some call this "the Sheep" effect.
Sad, because without someone speaking up the vocal ones imply that "EVERYONE " feels the way they do.

Thanks for stepping up and telling it like it really is.

Im 21 and i also think its sick...when men do it, but women should be able to do whatever they want lol.

I just think we should live and let live. If you found out tomorrow you only had a year left of Earth, would you waste one second of it trying to deny something as trivial as same sex marriage? With so many pressing issues in the world and so many people suffering there has to be a better way to spend one's time. IMO such broad social engineering on such a trivial issue is done by those without perspective and context on what really matters in life. People who are gay and can't change that fact already feel bad enough and out of place as it is, why waste your time making them feel even worse? Sounds simple, but love your brothers and sisters and try to make the world a happier place.

Where are you from jace? And I don't see why you should give a shit about gays, what they do or if they get married. Sure it's your opinion and people have to respect that, but don't think you and your friends are in any sort of majority among our generation.

+1

To me it's a complete non issue i'm alot more concerned with the economy and foreign policy. It actually feels like a distraction more than anything else, but so many people on both sides get up in arms over it, in ways my cynical side almost thinks certain politicians enjoy this issue taking center stage when it distracts so many people from the real issues.

Boy, I can really understand that point. I have heard that a number of times. People saying that there are to many irons in the fire. So anything isn't center attention.

To me whether or not i believe in gay marriage isnt even the issue, to my the big issue is that fderal govt gives themselves the power to decide whether or not its legal. If the people in a certain state want it legalized they should vote on it and if the majority of the people are for it then it passes. There should be zero federal involvement. And i complely agree with you caramel that its just a big distraction.

You're frequently wrong, but seldom in doubt.

First of all, while the possible right to gay marriage has yet to be addressed, there are clear legal, policy, and constitutional differences between that and polygamy or bigamy. Heterosexuals can still exercise the right to marry while gays can't in most states. If we were to challenge a marital law that does not include polygamy under strict scrutiny (an overly generous standard under the circumstances), there are compelling state interests that are overriding. There are numerous rights, obligations, privileges and responsibilities associated with the state institution of marriage that are compromised anddestroyedby pluralistic or even incestual unions. These include matters involving death, secession, diminution of assets, social security, tax filings, exemptions, deductions, custody, transfers of property, insurance coverages, right to enter into prenuptial agreements, and many more. Fidelity is a state interest as well, which is nullified by the very existence of polygamy or bigamy.

Polygamists are not denied the right to marry, but by demanding a right to maintain multiple spouses they are altering the rights associated in marriage.

The rights, responsibilities and obligations associated with marriage can be fulfilled by same-sex partners as well as opposite sex partners. Moreover, gay marriage has a much more valid argument under equal protection as they constitute a distinct and immutable class of people, which would require heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

Finally, spare us all the hysterics and juvenile name calling, but feel free to keep hurling bible verses at us.

That would be like throwing every value we have out the window cause we are about to die. No one is denying them right to sex, it's them forcing way into boy scouts and other institutions that is the problem.

What does where I'm from have to do with anything? Give us your birthplace and current address, then I'll consider your question. As to who is majority in our generation, neither one of us can say for sure, since we are under a media dictatorship of political correctness that persecutes anyone speaking up on side against gay marriage, illegal immigration, and other issues. College is worse. It's as much about indoctrination as it is about education.

Thanks Kly for your in-depth post. It illustrates what so many posts do not on this subject (and others) - consideration for due process, judicial philosophies (e.g., Strict Scrutiny), and, among others, one of which so many posters are not aware: compelling state interests.

People like myself are fine with gay people living and being well. I want that for two of my brothers who, as I've said before, are gay. But it's a higher power than myself who says saying that lifestyle is a sin. And note that I never said anything about being "tortured in hell."



I'll give you credit for doing your best not to appear hypocritical on this issue. But, no matter how much legal mumbo jumbo you try to spew, in the end you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. This is a perfect example of how you couldn't care less about law or the Constitution. You start with your own personal opinion and then work backwards, perverting the law and Constitution to fit it. Polygamy at least has a Constitutional basis with the 1st Amendment. But here you are arguing against it but for gay marriage. Typical forked tongue, double talking lawyer.

Ivy,

You made the post below in the Anthony Weiner thread, but I figured this was a more appropriate place to respond .


Easy, buddy. I'm one of the only friends you've got here .

But all kidding aside, I've explained myself to you earlier on this matter, on the board an in pms as well. I don't "support" it as much as I just don't give a shit, and here's why (again):

If you go by the letter of the law of the Catholic Church (of which I'm a member), City Hall "marriages" aren't real marriages anyway. Now if my neighbor Joe married his wife Nancy at City Hall twenty years ago, and we've been friends for the last ten, and their "marriage" (or lack thereof) doesn't offend me, then why should a City sponsored marriage between a gay couple bother me? Neither is recongnized by the Church, so it's no skin off my apple. I'm just trying to be consistent.

And if they're entitiled to Government benefits, then they should get them. You're still a pretty young guy and I hope you've enjoyed good health. But you have no idea what a simple battle with a more than serious disease can do to a bank account. If a gay couple being married makes one of them eligible for the other's health insurance, that ain't a bad thing in my opinion.

As far as the morality of it all: I'm not going to preach eternal damnation on a message board any more than I'm going to get in my car, drive to the South Bronx, and preach peace and love to teenaged gangbangers. In short, it ain't none of my fucking business. It's between them and God. And I've used this one before but I'll use it again anyway: To paraphrase David Puddy, "They're the ones going to hell, not me."

@IvyLeague - Klydon's not spouting legal mumbo jumbo on polygamy, he's expanding on exactly what I said in post #722805--it's not possible to share marital rights and responsibilities equally between more than 2 people. No amount of covering your ears and burying your head in the sand changes this. The only ones arguing the polygamy point are people from Utah or those searching for a diversion via a straw man argument.

We can't and won't base our laws on what "God" supposedly said, that's insane. God has said, or has been interpretated to have said, a lot of things which simply don't hold up in the modern world. Being a creationist and a follower of institutionalized religion are NOT dependant concepts. I'm a creationist because my natural intuition and study of science leads me to it. No religion has the institutional right to tell anyone they've actually spoken to and speak for this creator, though. Atleast not in this country they don't.

@ jace - I actually agree on your 'them forcing way into boyscouts' statement to an extent. You wouldn't let a woman take a group of boys into the woods for several days just as a man shouldn't take a group of girls, it's a conflict of interest. Maybe if we as a society can get over the taboo of this issue we can actually have a meaningful discussion on these type things. However, none of that implies that Gays can't be join or be apart of the group.

My point about utilizing one's time is that opposing this issue is entirely futile, with no instrinsic or utilitarian value gained by it whatsoever. There's no discernable evidence that same sex marraige diminishes a supposedly stable definition of nuclear family or society in general, and is an entirely abstract, equivocale argument--it can't be proven scientifically or even syllogistically. And even if a connection could be established, again, what of it? They're not hurting anyone or effecting anything any other couple or person does, it's not going to have one iota of affect on how well other people raise their own kids or live their lives. Your personal values don't trump those of society as a whole.

@pizzaboy - I actually consider myself one of IvyLeague's friends, too. I just think he's gone waaay overboard lately with the proselytizing. This issue hits home for him which surprises me he's not more tolerant of it. I have too many wonderful friends who are in same sex relationships and I just refuse to deny them or anyone else their civil rights. Are there some hitches in this thing? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean it's worth discriminating for the sake of personal preference alone.

Eaxactly, Frank. Exactly .

An inclination toward proselytization skews one's understanding of important legal concepts, to several of which Kly referred. It also demeans the evolutionary efforts of so many to create a more perfect society just as the US Constitution is an effort to form a more perfect union.

It wasn't my intention to call you out or anything, PB. I suppose I just assumed that, if the issue is important enough that the Catholic church worked against gay marriage, it would matter to you.



What I'm saying, at least in relation to klydon, is that he can't argue against polygamy based on the interest of the state while, at the same time, arguing that gay marriage doesn't hurt the interest of the state. The best family unit is the most natural one that has been in place, as the building block of society, for millenia - father, mother, children. You can argue that polygamy shouldn't be allowed because it doesn't meet that criteria but you can't then turn right around and argue for gay marriage. It's entirely inconsistent and dishonest. It shows the hypocrisy of some supporters of gay marriage on this issue and how - as much as they espouse them - the Constitution, equal rights, equal protection, etc. doesn't mean a hill of beans to them. It's all about their agenda.