Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Archaea
Enforcing our moral opininons? You are really too much.
By consensus of LDS and NON-LDS, the peoples of various states have declared that gay marriages is an anathema and should not be allowed.
In California, there is no majority of LDS, but a majority of Californians simply refused to take the affirmative action of recognizing something never before recognized.
You are stating far more than you are willing to acknowledge. You are completely intellectually dishonest, without a doubt.
And the simple case of Rocky in SLC showed adding additional beneficiaries DOES cost money. There was a fiscal note to it.
And you make a logical conclusion which isn't compelled. What empirical proof do you have to show adding gay marriages will reduce the spread of disease? What categorical proof do you have gays would be monogamous? If you want to argue, they might be, then I can see an argument, but based on my surveys and knowledge of some of the activities that occur in the gay community, I would say you have no idea how promiscuous that tendency simply is. Adding a marriage construct would have little or no influence on the spread of disease, and there is no data to support that hypothesis.
|
Somebody forgot their morning exercises to purge all emotion from their life!
I can't follow your position on the subject. On the one hand, you argue that homosexual marriage is anethema to LDS beliefs and cannot be accepted. On the other hand, you argue that you would accept arguments that homosexual marriage should be allowed if it proves fiscally beneficial. Does fiscal policy trump your perception that homosexual marriage is anethema to LDS values? Just trying to pin down your position here.
What exactly do you mean when you say "based on my surveys....?" Exactly what surveys have you conducted on this issue? This makes the second conversation in a row where you have cited your surveys. Can you provide any actual data produced by your surveys?
I will say this, your surveys somehow missed an awful lot of data that homosexuals married or in civil unions are more likely to be monogamous. Here are a few links for your perusal:
1. Gay male couples who go through a public "union ceremony" seem to show a higher commitment to monogamy. Gretchen Stiers's 1999 study, From This Day Forward, looked at nearly every gay male couple in Massachusetts who had gone through a commitment ceremony. Among these highly committed couples, over 80% of them indicated that they practiced monogamy.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031...59948?n=283155
2. Vermont allows civil unions between same-sex couples; so two University of Vermont psychology professors did a study comparing these homosexual couples in civil unions with 1) homosexual couples not in unions and 2) married heterosexual couples. Among the findings: 79 percent of married heterosexual men felt non-monogamy was not okay, compared with only 34 percent of gay men not in civil unions and 50 percent of gay men in civil unions. (From a web article hosted by "Out In The Mountains" -- Vermont's voice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues; at
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oi...an2003/news06_ firstyear.htm.)
3. A survey was done in 1988-1989 that involved 560 male couples (
http://www.buddybuddy.com/survey.html). Survey forms were circulated through gay churches and community centers, but most couples requested the forms after reading notices in the gay press, so these also were some of the "very most committed" gay couples. Among these couples, 63% said that their sexual agreement was one of monogamy, 26% said their relationship was one of monogamy with agreed exceptions, and 11% said they had agreed to non-monogamy.
While I don't find the statistics noted above to be conclusive, I do think they are persuasive.
As for "categorical proof that allowing homosexual marriage will reduce the spread of disease," if homosexuals who are married are monogamous, then they are limited to spreading any disease to just one partner. Homosexuals who are NOT married, by the way, are extremely likely to have multiple partners (thus INCREASING the likelihood of disease).
A final thought: how does the fact that over 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce factor into maintaining the sanctity of marriage? How about the fact that over 70% of married men have seriously considered adultery?
The church is a moral beacon for the world. I don't question that. There are a lot of problems with marriage overall in society and the church is right to be concerned. I have no problem with the church saying what it feels is right and what it feels is wrong. That is the job of the church, and of any church. My problem here is that the church is taking an active role in legislatively defining what the moral definition of marriage should be. In that regard, I think the church crosses a dangerous line that makes the church more susceptible to problems down the road.