Illogic of Prop. 8

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

And what about homosexuality itself. We're still VERY conflicted as a nation about where it exactly comes from. Does one choose it or not? Is it a behavior or is it a condition? No one asks these questions about race. Tell me, can you identify a gay person at birth?

It's interesting that many of the explanations given by church leaders and members regarding why people are born black actually did center on choices they must have made in the pre-existence.

To the last question, are you sure you can identify a black person at birth?

It's not a flip question. I have a step daughter who has blonde hair and blue eyes, as well as caucasian skin. Nobody's ever thought she was anything but caucasian. Yet, she's 3/8 black. Therefore, under pre-1978 church policy, she would not have been able to go to the temple, and her sons would not have been able to hold the priesthood.

This sort of begs the question. Why is it significant to the issue whether you can identify a gay person at birth?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

It's interesting that many of the explanations given by church leaders and members regarding why people are born black actually did center on choices they must have made in the pre-existence.

To the last question, are you sure you can identify a black person at birth?

It's not a flip question. I have a step daughter who has blonde hair and blue eyes, as well as caucasian skin. Nobody's ever thought she was anything but caucasian. Yet, she's 3/8 black. Therefore, under pre-1978 church policy, she would not have been able to go to the temple, and her sons would not have been able to hold the priesthood.

This sort of begs the question. Why is it significant to the issue whether you can identify a gay person at birth?

There are two issues here:

1. Any injustices real or perceived experienced by gays as a group today do not approach in any way the injustices experienced by blacks as a group in the pre-civil rights era.

2. Race is widely recognized as an immutable birth trait. Sexual orientation is not.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is an ignorant post. It's only a ceremony to which religion holds title to the extent that everything merges into religion if you go back far enough. Marriage has existed in all societies of whatever religious background, pagan, buddhist, whatever. You could say the same thing about government or war. Marriage's evolution thus mirrrors that of our greater free society. The fact is today it is more often performed as a secular ceremony than a religious one. It is an institution thoroughly relugated by law.

They want to be married because they want to be a franchised part of society.

Huh. So I tell you I don't understand something, invite you to explain it, and your first insight is my ignorance. Did that leap right out at your or dawn slowly on you as you read and re-read?

Your last sentence is essentially what I have concluded. I still maintain that were I gay the official approval of society would mean nothing to me.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Huh. So I tell you I don't understand something, invite you to explain it, and your first insight is my ignorance. Did that leap right out at your or dawn slowly on you as you read and re-read?

Your last sentence is essentially what I have concluded. I still maintain that were I gay the official approval of society would mean nothing to me.

Becasue he was raisded in Utah, maybe SU meant ignernt and not ignorant.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Huh. So I tell you I don't understand something, invite you to explain it, and your first insight is my ignorance. Did that leap right out at your or dawn slowly on you as you read and re-read?

Your last sentence is essentially what I have concluded. I still maintain that were I gay the official approval of society would mean nothing to me.

The ignorance was displayed in your statemnt that marriage was a religious ceremony. Our whole society has roots somewhere in religion. Marriage is no more inherently a religious institution than war.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The ignorance was displayed in your statemnt that marriage was a religious ceremony. Our whole society has roots somewhere in religion. Marriage is no more inherently a religious institution than war.

I'm too tired to dismantle this silly assertion. Not one concept in those three sentences is correct.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I'm too tired to dismantle this silly assertion. Not one concept in those three sentences is correct.

Moreover, today it is far more often a civil ceremony than a religious one.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

exactly.

Tex seems to support separate but equal. We all know how that went back in the day.

You support it, too. Is it OK to have "separate but equal" male and female restrooms? How about sports teams? Why aren't women and men competing in the 100 meter dash together in Beijing next month? Why aren't you up in arms at this horrible injustice, all in the name of "separate but equal"?

[BlueHair]

I think hetero marriage should be banned. Hetero couples just get married for health insurance and tax breaks.