So, Todd W., a devout and rather arrogant Mormon, thinks that Todd D., a gay ex- or non-believing Mormon, should honor Todd W’s beliefs, and not his own.
Says Todd W.:
I gather from your comment that you believe it’s okay for you to take your beliefs and enshrine them into law; but it’s not okay for me and others, who believe that redefining marriage is a bad idea, to do the same?
Now that’s irrational, as is your childish “you won’t let me have my way, therefore you don’t love me” logic.
Marriage is not an inalienable right. It’s a right granted when individuals meet certain conditions. Conditions that are defined by the people, for the people. Our laws are filled with these conditional rights (driving, drinking, running for elective office, etc.).
These marriage laws don’t make those attracted to the same sex lesser, any more than the driving laws make blind people lesser. Those who choose to be blind deserve the restrictions placed on them. Those who don’t choose to be blind might not deserve the restrictions, but they’re required to abide by them anyway because most people agree it’s best for society as a whole.
I certainly respect your right to express your views and do your best to influence those partial to your cause. I expect the same in return.
With all my love,
Todd
He is responding to this message from Todd D.
Personally, I don’t care what the Mormon or any other church believes about homosexuality or gay people. They are free to believe that god hates it and gay people will not attain the celestial kingdom or heaven or wherever they believe they will go when they die.
I do care when they try to take their beliefs and enshrine them into law and ensure I have second class status in society. As we see, people can and have taken their religious beliefs and created laws around them (Prop
, but reality shows that these laws discriminate unfairly and are not based on rational reasons. So while fortunately these will be struck down and repealed by the courts and more just legislators, it will unfortunately take a long time.
And no, you do not love your gay friends when you work to teach they are lesser than you because apparently you believe they “chose” to be gay. It isn’t changeable like religion or your wall color. You treat them differently so it isn’t love, it is barely tolerance…
TW defines TD’s desire to marry, have a valid relationship with a partner, possibly have a family, make life decisions, and do ALL of the things that TW gets to do, as a conditional right NOT given to gay people. Man and woman only. Of course, the Mormons believed for years in man and WOMEN only, and still do, although they believe polygamy is a tenet that will only be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. That, apparently, is not a problem for TW. As long as HIS rights are intact, he’s just fine. Why should someone else get the same rights as him? He’s special. I’m not sure why, but he’s telling you that marriage is a “conditional” and not an inalienable right.
So as long as it’s one man, and forty women, it’s cool, but if it’s one man and one man, somebody better get the hanging noose. (Yes, that IS sarcasm, and I realize that the Mormons and other religions are NOT going to hang gay people. So get your panties out of a wad.)
Well, TW, guess what? Did you know it used to be legal to make African Americans go to the back of the bus? Did you know it was ALSO legal to have segregated schools, so the white kids didn’t have to go to school with the black kids? Did you KNOW it used to legal to keep African Americans as SLAVES? Of course you do.
And until 1978, African Americans could not hold the LDS priesthood. Of course, after a lot of controversy, and more than one school refusing to play football against BYU because of the Church’s discriminatory stance, VOILA. There was a prophecy, and now African Americans can have every right the white Mormons do.
Of course, there is still not an apostle (of color), and the Native American who WAS an apostle was excommunicated from the church. Basically, the stance was changed to placate people. Just like the “manifesto” that ended polygamy in this life, but not after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Polygamy WAS never officially ended. It simply was “discontinued,” and until the 1940s, polygamous families were NOT excommunicated and were allowed to continue living polygamy.
Bigotry, hatred, and prejudice. All shown in the above paragraph. And yet, I know many Mormons, and I do NOT believe they feel hate. I think they are good people who don’t really understand why “the rules” are the way they are, but they believe in following their prophets, and so they do, even if they are slightly uncomfortable with “the rules.”
The stance to not allow homosexual marriage by Christians is based on the Bible. One of the most interesting quotes in the Bible, to me, is this one:
“Test all things and hold fast to that which is good.”– 1 Thessalonians 5:21
Who defines good? Everything in the Bible? Because if you follow the Bible, you BETTER get busy.
The Bible also states these little goodies:
- DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately. - DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death. - MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced. - LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. If they disobey, both shall be executed. - MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. - DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
So, why do we not follow THESE scriptures, TW? Why are you clinging to the ones that your church tells you to cling to, and not taking them ALL as literally as you are the one about homosexuality?
If you take the Bible literally, then you had best stop having sex with your wife, which I’m quite sure you still do even though there are probably not more babies in your future, because SEX is only for procreation, correct?
Please don’t sign your posts with the word “Love,” because love does not discriminate and you do not love these people. You think YOU are entitled to rights they are not. Because God said so. Of course, he also said that if you should die your wife should have intercourse with your brothers in order to bear a male heir. Are you okay with that?
Just wondering…..
Writer in a Bubble 
Todd W when you get here, which we all know you will…here’s another link to UC Davis and the history of homosexuality…
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
LikeLike
I loved the scripture references and agree with what you said in our post. Thanks.
LikeLike
Oooo Laa Laa… I get another dishonorable mention in a full-blown post? C’mon Natalie you’re just stroking my narcissism now, aren’t you? Or, are you just trying to stir up some more interest for your book? Hmmm…. Either way works for me!
First and foremost, my devotion is to truth. All we ever get from you are more baseless accusations.
Where, oh where, have I inferred that “Todd D., a gay ex- or non-believing Mormon, should honor” my beliefs, “and not his own?” In typical fashion, you skirt the point to make another outlandish and baseless assertion.
His point was that I shouldn’t be able to enshrine my beliefs into law. My point was that I have just as much right to enshrine my beliefs into law as he does to enshrine his beliefs into law. It’s a very logical, rational concept.
Where, oh where, did I define TD’s “desire to marry, have a valid relationship with a partner, possibly have a family, make life decisions, and do ALL of the things that TW gets to do, as a conditional right NOT given to gay people?”
To be clear, I haven’t defined ANYTHING! Society has!
Are you inferring that TD can’t have ANY of those things WITHOUT being married? Is the VALIDITY of TD’s relationship based on a marriage certificate? What about all of those domestic partner laws that are in place guaranteeing ALL of those things (except being able to call it “marriage”)?
I believe “marriage” IS a conditional right, and SO DO YOU! Otherwise you’d be fighting for marriages between brother-sister, father-son, father-daughter, mother-grandmother, etc. Do you support those types of perversions?
Biblical societies defined their laws according to their perceptions of right and wrong. Our society is doing the same. And, I fully support cutting off the hand without pity of ANYONE who grabs my genitals!
Once we peel away the layers of your hatred and bigotry, it’s abundantly clear that you’re not about love, truth and understanding at all. You’re about smear.
And, yes, those who meet the conditions ARE entitled to certain rights that those who don’t, aren’t. Are you suggesting that the blind should be given the right to drive? They didn’t “choose” to be blind.
You, on the other hand, choose to be blind.
Love,
Todd
LikeLike
Todd W…once again, you dance a merry dance, say nothing and dance full circle around what you previously stated.
Thanks for the end of the week dance and song…and the laugh to go with it.
“And, yes, those who meet the conditions ARE entitled to certain rights that those who don’t, aren’t. Are you suggesting that the blind should be given the right to drive? They didn’t “choose” to be blind.”
Todd…read the link…same sex attraction has not been considered a choice for 35 years…that only happens in your world.
“I believe “marriage” IS a conditional right, and SO DO YOU! Otherwise you’d be fighting for marriages between brother-sister, father-son, father-daughter, mother-grandmother, etc. Do you support those types of perversions?”
Tood…once again you dance and infer that same sex marriage is a perversion equal to incest…The “love” that you show your fellow man is not in any form Christian like.
Thanks for sharing and letting us once again find humor in the rhetoric of the apologist…
LikeLike
Birdman,
Blindness hasn’t ever been considered a (reasonable) choice for way more than 35 years. I still support the conditional aspects associated with issuing driver’s licenses.
I’m sorry about inferring that same sex marriage is a perversion. I should have stated it explicitly. What does love have to do with it?
You know me, I’m always glad to shed light and truth on a topic.
Kindest Regards,
Todd
LikeLike
The is absolutely no truth in your explicitly stated “opinion” that same sex marriage is a perversion. Love has everything to do with it…did you not marry for love, Todd?
Todd, dance and dance…I plainly did not state that blindness was a choice, but you inferred that same sex attraction was a choice. You and all apologists are good at that…infer without proof and assume without knowledge.
I. along with several other of the regular readers of Natalie’s blog, thank you for once again standing up for what you believe to be “the truth,” “the way,” and “the one true church.” By your example we learn what an ignorant, backwards-thinking group the Mormons really are…all the hype to become a mainstream Christian religion was destroyed with just one speech given by BKP…I’ll bet GBH is spinning in his grave after all the money and time he spent trying to salvage the damage of the salamander and Mark Hofman…lol
LikeLike
Birdman,
The union of a same-sex couple in marriage vitiates the institution of marriage and is, therefore, a perversion. Yes, it’s an opinion a majority of Americans currently hold, your own contrary opinion notwithstanding.
Where, oh where, did I infer that same-sex attraction was a choice? The reason I chose blindness as my analogue was because it is decidedly NOT a choice. You baseless asserters are good at finding things that simply aren’t there.
Of course I married for love. Are you proposing that there should be no restrictions on marriages between brother-sister, father-son, father-daughter, mother-grandmother, etc.? Your only condition is that all involved love each other?
Hmmmm…. blindness really is a good analogue.
Todd
LikeLike
Todd…number one…your opinion is just an opinion…and no, it is not in the majority…and it is losing ground daily…
Todd…when you said “Are you suggesting that the blind should be given the right to drive? They didn’t “choose” to be blind.” in comparing blindness with same sex attraction, you inferred that it was a choice to be born gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered…YOU did without any doubt by that very statement infer that it was a choice.
Todd…incest is not the same thing…apples and oranges…even you in your social blindness should see that…lol
LikeLike
Birdman,
I did not infer same sex attraction is a choice, nor do I. My apologies if my comment was written in such a way that you perceived that inference.
In comparing blindness and same sex attraction, the analogy was that neither is a choice. Yet there is no dispute regarding conditions for obtaining a driver’s license. Your side seems to think that not being able to choose one’s sexual orientation is sufficient justification for redefining the conditions for marriage.
In regards to incest, are you suggesting that there are inherently wrong sexual relations between two consenting adults who love each other? I believe you just drew a line in the sand. I’m curious. Why, in your social blindness, is incest wrong and not gay sex? Why is one an apple and the other an orange?
In my social blindness, they’re both inherently wrong, apples and apples.
Kindest Regards,
Todd
LikeLike
Pingback: Book Review – A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini | All Top Reviews | book|music|movie|hotel|camera|software reviews|phone|game|laptop|reviews
wow, just wow…
I wrote a long comment on the difference between a gay relationships and incest unable to believe that Todd could not see a difference. Then I realized that the reason was that to him, any sex outside marriage is wrong and therefore equally bad. I won’t waste my time explaining the difference because in the end, he has failed to address the simple question of how gay marriage harms straight marriage or society and additionally why existing marriage equality does not bother him but allowing more would be bad. In the end, the churches stance is they say that they are fine with domestic partnerships or civil unions for gays, unless, like Hawaii they don;t even have that, then the church fights to deny even those basic protections.
In the end, as much as Todd contents himself by saying we have the same rights by a different name, it sadly doesn’t exist because even in those states that give all couples marriage, those couples still do not have the more than 1200 rights granted by the Federal Government to married couples.
I know I waste my time explaining these simple truths to those who do not want those truths to exist. As I have often heard, you can’t reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Todd can’t name actual harms because reality has shown us there are none. Kids who grow up with gay parents are no more likely to be gay themselves, and grow up to be just as well adjusted as their peers. Research consistently shows having two invested parents in a stable relationship is the best indicator of success. Gay couples marrying have not caused straight couples to choose to not marry, and birthrates have not declined due to everyone spontaneously becoming gay and no longer having kids. There is no finite number of marriage rights that gay couples are not using and therefore straight couples don’t have enough rights to go around.
My feeling is that if pressed, Todd’s harm argument will be the same as my brothers. Basically, “I don’t want my kids to know that gay people exist”. Because if gay people are allowed to get married and the government recognizes it, they might actually see more acceptance of gay couples, and that might lead to them having to see two men holding hands out in public. What if there own child were gay and because it was accepted choose that “lifestyle” and not fall into the expectations that they are given? Those, I believe. are the real fears Todd sees. If people accept gay couples as normal, those like Todd will be seen as the close minded bigots they are. They won;t be able to hide behind their confessed “love” for us.
Todd, keep your love, I don’t need it. Continue to vote for candidates and causes that suit you and the churches agenda. Stay in Utah, it will be one of the last places equality will come, and you will feel more comfortable there with those who will support you in those beliefs. But understand, you will move more into the minority, And hey! Mormons love feeling persecuted! so extra win for you! You will hold it as another sign you are special and a chosen people. So you get to hold onto your beliefs and they will get reinforced because those beliefs will continue to marginalize you. It’s self-fulfilling prophecy! But no harm will come to you from my relationship when I get married. I even promise I will not invite you. 😉
LikeLike
Todd D. Well spoken!!!
One minor adjustment…Todd W is in Texas…the Mormons here even get tired of him…lol
LikeLike
Well, I came back this morning hoping for more entertainment or enlightenment from Todd W…but didn’t find any.
Todd D. I for one am proud of you and your determination not to let the Todd Ws of this world rain on your parade.
In your very first paragraph, you stated the reason that I (and I think most ex-/post- Mormons) find the apologist like Todd W to be humorous…they dance and dance and never approach the subject. Instead, they infer that different things are the same, that their approach is the only approach to the issue, and that NO ONE should have the right to disagree with the minority of the world population that is Mormon…even using the LDS churches figures that still include me and Natalie along with a few thousand of our post/ex-Mormon friends…they only total about 1.9% of the world population…even Christianity is still in a minority, with less than 33% of the world population.
LikeLike
Birdman,
You haven’t answered the question. Just more dodging, dancing, and evasion.
Why are sexual relations between close relatives (incest) different than sexual relations between same sex partners (gay sex)?
Your justification for gay sex and SSM seems to be centered on 1) an attraction, 2) love, and 3) consent.
Please do enlighten us.
Todd
LikeLike
Todd D,
Please post your comments on gay sex vs. incest. I’m dying to hear your rationale.
If the truths are simple, then they shouldn’t be hard to explain.
Recent studies have shown that kids who grow up in same-sex marriages ARE more likely to have same-sex attraction.
Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data.
I don’t have time now, but will post later on more reasons SSM is a BAD idea.
Kindly,
Todd W
LikeLike
HA! i used that phrasing I did knowing I would get that study from you, so here is the link to the breakdown and errors that study contained. And since you earlier stated gay behavior is not chosen, it seems odd that you know throw out a study which if correct would show the exact opposite.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400
Still waiting on the why SSM is a BAD idea.
LikeLike
Todd W. you don’t avoid responding by asking more questions…
Why is SSM a problem for you?
LikeLike
Todd W.
Not to put you off, but you still didn’t answer the question.
Here is the primary reason that incest is different than same sex relations.
Same Sex relations are dominately by consenting adults or experimenting adolescents.
Incest on the other hand is typically non-consentual and generally abusive in nature. Here’s your link: http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:290390
Additionally, victims of incest tend to go on to victimize others: “to have victimized a nephew/niece or grandson/granddaughter, and to have denied their offense(s)” (quote from the above link).
The difference is primarily that in cases of incest, there is a victim…in same sex relations, there is no victim.
But of course in your mind…if they aren’t married, any sexual relationship is wrong…your logic makes the rest of us dizzy. It’s wrong to have a relationship outside of marriage, but you would deny same sex couples the right to marry…making any relationship they have “wrong” by your standard.
You keep me laughing…can you really believe half of what you put in your comments???? lol
LikeLike
Todd, as I may have mentioned, STOP signing your posts with “love.” There is no love in your heart. Love is kind, thoughtful, caring and forgiving. Love doesn’t judge. Love shares his supper with a poor man NO MATTER what religion that poor man espouses. Love goes out on cold nights and gives blankets to the homeless people, and doesn’t think about why the person is homeless or make judgments. Love only knows the person is cold.
YOU are all about your superiority and right to things that others do not HAVE the right to, because they do not believe in the Mormon tenets. And it’s ridiculous. I don’t WANT what you think you have, and what you think is so wonderful. The God I believe in is not about hate, but about love.
You are a sad little man, living a sad little life in a monochromatic world.
I know you are intelligent. I can see it from your writing, yet you never stop dancing and answer the questions. You just come here, ask a partner to dance and then keep punching them in the nose.
It’s a diversion tactic.
There are GENETIC reasons why brothers and sisters cannot marry. It’s like comparing apples to oranges, when there IS no comparison. In addition, how kind of you to imply that two non-related homosexual loving beings can even be COMPARED to a brother/sister incestuous situation. That alone shows your bigotry and refusal to think outside your square little Mormon box.
YOUR CHURCH believes that man can have many wives. WHY is this not bothersome to you?
Stop the idiocy. You are making a complete fool of yourself in front of the world. And somehow, you think the world doesn’t see it. It’s like little kids who close their eyes rather than talk to someone. They figure if they close their eyes, they can’t see the person, so surely the person can’t see them.
YOU CAN BE SEEN. And you can change. And I will never have respect for you until you answer the questions honestly, and with kind intent and a genuine desire to understand and be understood.
I respect your right to believe as you do. I would like you to consider another side of things. WITH YOUR OWN BRAIN. Not with the one you have willingly handed over to an organization that is run by multimillionaires. Had Brigham Young not brought the “Saints” to Utah, and secluded them and set himself up as king, Mormonism as you know it today would NOT exist. It thrived because it was the ONLY THING OUT HERE. That’s commonsense and logic.
I truly, honestly, wish that you would, for just one minute, stop your arrogant, insulting behavior and just listen and respond with an open heart. You’re familiar with that because that is the Mormon way.
How about that, Todd? Can you just respond? Can you quit dancing and explain to me how Todd D’s marriage threatens YOU?
LikeLike
Pingback: How can I know which Mormon church is the correct one? I feel led to the Reformed Mormons…? | call center software
Natalie,
Thanks for the diatribe on love and your passionate pleas for kindness, respect, and understanding. Unfortunately, coming from you, based on the hate and bigotry you incessantly spew in your transparent attempts to smear Mormonism and religion in general, I’m unmoved.
It’s totally ironic and irrational that you continue to condemn plural marriage, while simultaneously praising same-sex marriage. I’m convinced that the only way you can rationalize that irrational position is your hatred and bigotry towards Mormonism and religion in general. If Mormons or religion are FOR it, them I’m AGAINST it.
Name calling, personal attacks, and guilt-by-association tactics won’t work. It’s trivial to extend your logic to relationships that are more intuitively perverse, so do us all a favor and YOU stop the idiocy.
Bringing up marriage between closely related individuals is NOT a diversionary tactic. It cuts straight to the heart of the matter. What GENETIC reasons are there that would prevent closely related individuals from having a fulfilling relationship? Can’t two brothers have a homosexual relationship that is exactly equivalent to two unrelated men? How does brother Billy Bob and sister Sally Sue’s incestuous marriage threaten YOU?
I can see that you and your spinsters are squirming over this, and rightly so, because you know that the very same rationale you use to justify SSM can be used to justify almost ANY type of marriage, even marriage between closely related individuals. They are EXACTLY analogous. Your criteria is 1) an attraction, 2) love, and 3) consent; and 1 & 2 are optional.
Same-sex as well as incestuous marriages are both abject perversions. They vitiate the institution of marriage, weaken society, and are deplorable. The fact that you refuse to consider the ramifications of the very slippery slope on which you’re willing to jump full force is disconcerting.
If you could only peel back the layers of your hatred and bigotry and open your eyes, you’d easily see that your present course is foolish and ill-advised.
Marriage needs to be strengthened, not weakened.
Love,
Todd
LikeLike
Birdman,
What about incestuous marriages that are consensual and not abusive? What about two brothers or two sisters getting married? Or, an old nephew marring a young aunt? Or cousins (same or opposite sex). I can imagine a lot of different combinations and frankly, I’m not even sure what the rules are.
You’ve drawn a line. Equal protection is equal protection, no? Why would you limit marriage at all? How would that type of marriage harm you?
I’m using your own logic. Please….enlighten us some more.
Todd
LikeLike
Todd D,
It’s interesting that you would reference a Jim Burroway article as a rebuttal to Dr. Schumm’s research. Mr. Burroway, besides being openly gay with a decidedly pro-gay bias, does little more than point out some possible weaknesses in the study’s data set. Further, he doesn’t offer any concrete evidence that refutes Dr. Schumm’s results or conclusions. It’s all hand-waving, dismissive rhetoric on a pro-gay website to a pro-gay audience that doesn’t even purport to approach “scholarship.”
For you to conclude that “kids who grow up with gay parents are no more likely to be gay themselves” when there is concrete (though imperfect) data indicating just the opposite, is a little premature in my opinion.
While reading your reference and doing a little more research, I came across the following article.
Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:
Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality
What struck me was the following quote:
I find this intentional concealment of findings a little more than disconcerting.
Your willingness to jump to conclusions about things which are still very much in question leads me to question your own judgement. I can understand your anxiousness to get what you want, but I’m less willing to bet the farm on a proposition fraught with uncertain, conflicting, and intentionally misleading information.
Kindest Regards,
Todd W
LikeLike
Todd D,
Just to be clear, I don’t know what drives sexual orientation. I’ll take you at your word that the attraction is real and you didn’t just decide someday to prefer males.
My point has been that ability to choose, or not, isn’t sufficient justification for redefining marriage. That was my thinking behind the whole blind person getting a driver’s license analogy.
Thanks for taking the time to provide a thoughtful dialog. I won’t be offended when you don’t invite me to your “ceremony.”
Kindest Regards,
Todd W
LikeLike
Todd, as usual, you have ignored the meat of the matter, and the questions I have asked you and resorted to dancing tactics. So I will go back and ask them again.
1. If we don’t follow ALL THINGS written in the Bible, why do we follow this interpretation of sexuality? I gave you SPECIFIC examples. Please address them.
2. I do not HATE Mormonism. I have made that patently clear. I don’t like some of the doctrine, and specifically the doctrine that discriminates. Please address the changing of the Book of Mormon to say “pure and delightsome” to say “white and delightsome.” Tell me, why was the most perfect book on earth changed so many times? Remember, Joseph Smith himself said it was “perfect.”
3. Are you unable to see that there is a revolution going on here? I really just want to know. Because you need to prepare yourself. This is akin to the civil rights issues of the 60s and 70s. It will take longer to get there, but it will happen.
4. Please explain to me how a brother marrying a sister is the same as a non-related man marrying another man. The law behind brothers and sisters marrying has more to do with the genetic problems than anything else. How does this have any relevance at all?
5. How do I “hate” Mormons. Please give specific examples of my hate. Because disliking a doctrine does not amount to hate or bigotry.
6. I’m going to be perfectly honest here. Why don’t you try it. I do NOT support polygamy as it is practiced by perverts like Tom Green, Warren Jeffs, et al., who are destroying the lives of children. As far as what consenting adults do, that is their business.
a. Why do you agree with polygamy and not gay marriage? And if you don’t agree with polygamy, why are you claiming to be a believing Mormon?
7. And my last question is this. WHAT impact would gay marriage have on YOU.
Not expecting an answer, and waiting for more hatred to come my way.
Natalie
LikeLike
Todd W…
Thanks again for the laughs…you really can not expect any thinking person to take you seriously or at your word…lol
You still leave the simple question unanswered, but your dance steps are becoming faltering and jerky.
Rather than simply answer the question of how same sex marriage would harm you or your marriage, how it would harm any heterosexual marriage…you keep insisting that there are analogies for apples and oranges.
Your insistance that incest is the same thing is ridiculous…even shown the data, you still contend that incest is consensual…well, you Mormons already fixed that one with Utah law…in the state of Utah you can marry a first cousin. If both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce. 20 states allow first cousin marriage without stipulation. Including Utah, Six states allow first cousin marriage with some stipulation. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4266
But, the issue still remains, what harm is done to YOU personally by same sex marriage??
Blindness, wow Todd do some research…driving…in 34 states, you can drive if you can correct your vision to 20/100. If you can correct it to 20/200 in just one eye, there are 3 states that will let you drive! What is your definition of legally blind? Which state are you referring to? Most states require a correction of 20/60 or better with a 100 degree horizontal view for a limited-restricted license. They still allow what other states consider to be legally blind people to drive…so you better stay out of Connecticut, Virginia, and Kentucky. Although I still don’t understand your comparision, because most forms of blindness develop over time…so prior to becoming blind that individual could get a liscense and drive.
Smear only happens when we are talking about your religion? Why is that? You feel free to smear our beliefs about your religion. When we provide facts about falsehoods or questioned practices in your religion, you call it smear…so, I am assuming you don’t want your thoughts, practices or random ideas questioned, researched and proven true or false; we should just accept them as fact, because OMG Todd W believes that way.
That is a joke…totally beyond the reality of anyone that outside of your religious dogma!
We don’t challenge YOUR belief of the teachings of Mormonism…we challenge the teachings! No matter what or how you believe, WE believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is founded upon lies…that it is in fact a caste system designed and produced by man, not God. That the current fundimental teachings are not the same as the original beliefs, and that since God is infallible; there is no room for change over time…if doctorine changes, then Gods love can change…is that the foundation of a church most people would want to belong to? I don’t think so, nor do many of the people that come to read this blog.
YOU scoff at us, we laugh at you…lonely, pathetic believers of a faith that was created for the sole profits of false prophets.
There is a lot of good in the Mormon culture…but the dogma of the religion itself is hysterically funny from the outside…as are those who act as apologists for the actions of that religion.
The simple question that you continually fail to answer, Todd is: HOW DOES SAME SEX MARRIAGE HARM YOU PERSONALLY??? How???? Not what does your religion believe…how does it affect you?
LikeLike
You know Todd, you are a pretty hateful person. At least, that is how you come across in this blog. But I have a hard time believing that is who you really are. Maybe this is just my stubbornness. but I know that there is good in most people, and you are most likely a good person who just doesn’t think outside of the box. If you step outside your box, you will see that I do NOT hate Mormons. I think a lot of the doctrine is silly, but….
LikeLike
Thanks Todd for your response. You were not able to name any harm that would come, and in the end you have shown that you truly believe that gay relationships are less than others. I mean come on; you had to put quotes around the word “ceremony”. You couldn’t call it marriage and the quotes around the word indicate you don’t even believe it will be real.
I wish you would at least be honest with yourself at least and realize you do not “love” your gay friends and do not treat them as you would want to be treated. But I always enjoy the use of a good scare quote from those who insist they love me and believe I am equal. Of course, from you that would be “love” and “equal”.
Again, you are free to hold your beliefs, just be honest about what those are. You are not afraid of some nebulous harm that hasn’t come; you don’t want to see others who you feel are less than to enjoy the same rights and privileges as you. You believe gay relationships, or any relationship outside marriage is sinful and you can believe that, but understand that it is not a belief held by everyone and not a belief that will pass constitutional standards. I would at least respect you if you held that belief fully and worked to pass laws banning divorce or making pre-martial relations a punishable offense. But you are only worried about the gays.
So far, no rational basis has been given by you or your side as to why my relationship should not receive equal standing. But in the end, religious beliefs will not remain enshrined in law, even if the majority of people hold them. Not while we have a constitution in the country that protects all it’s citizens equally.
LikeLike
Natalie,
I also want to thank you and Birdman for your support. I am dealing with this same issue with my own very Mormon family. I know they struggle because they don’t bring up the topic at all. They were comfortable with their beliefs when it was some “other” unknown person who was gay. It is easy to discriminate against those we do not know and can hold strongly to the belief with others that that group is lesser and not deserving. But when it is your own son or brother, it creates dissonance and while they still hold that belief, I think they are not as comfortable with it. I know if Prop 8 were up for vote now, most would still vote Yes, but there might be a few who maybe just didn’t vote on that at all. A small victory perhaps, but honestly, the best I could hope for.
LikeLike
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: in-group-out-group edition! | Main Street Plaza
Natalie,
Your attempts to frame the debate around Old Testament laws won’t work. I’m not bound to believe or adhere to ANYTHING in the bible. How the ancient Israelites chose to govern themselves is irrelevant.
This is nothing more than you regurgitating more tired, old, anti-Mormon rhetoric to try and score “gotcha” points. How are changes in the Book of Mormon relevant to this topic? I’m dumbfounded that you are even serious. Totally lame.
Whoops… got my blockquote tags messed up. Sorry….
LikeLike
Natalie – I’ll repost my comment with corrected blockquotes. Please delete the first post. Thanks and sorry about that.
Todd
LikeLike
Natalie,
Your attempts to frame the debate around Old Testament laws won’t work. I’m not bound to believe or adhere to ANYTHING in the bible. How the ancient Israelites chose to govern themselves is irrelevant.
This is nothing more than you regurgitating more tired, old, anti-Mormon rhetoric to try and score “gotcha” points. How are changes in the Book of Mormon relevant to this topic? I’m dumbfounded that you are even serious. Totally lame.
Thanks for watching out for me. The significance of this issue on society completely escaped me.
Let me restate the relevance of this point.
Your logic is that marriage is a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. People should be able to choose who they want to marry. Right? Please, tell me if that isn’t your logic.
Why would you limit marriage to unrelated individuals only? And why frame the argument around brother-sister marriages? Can’t two brothers or two sisters have just as meaningful a relationship as two unrelated men or women? Why is unrelated SSM okay, and related SSM not okay? It is directly relevant, because your own logic makes it relevant. You refuse to acknowledge ANY moral standard upon which to elevate marriage.
I’ll take you at your word that you don’t hate Mormons.
However, your hateful, bigoted rhetoric and baseless assertions about Mormons, Mormonism, and religion in general lead me to question your characterization that you merely “dislike” a few of the doctrines. I’ll let the inquisitive read through your seven years of blogging to decide for themselves how you really feel.
Wow. Brave admission, and totally inconsistent with your previous rhetoric. What if the spouses of perverts like Tom Green and Warren Jeffs consent? Why don’t you support marriage between the closely-related, provided they both consent? If it can be shown that same-sex marriages harm children, would you be against it?
Polygamy doesn’t vitiate marriage.
Same-sex marriage vitiates the institution of marriage and (even if ever so slightly) opens society up to a whole host of even more deplorable types of relationships. It’s a bad idea, and your unwillingness to consider the potentially severe ramifications of the very slippery slope on which you’re willing to jump full force is disconcerting. Marriage needs to be a sacrosanct institution that can withstand the onslaught of pernicious evils that would truly harm society.
Kindest Regards,
Todd W
LikeLike
An excellent response Natalie.
This argument is no different than the proscription of divorce, and if anybody wants to ban gay marriages (or work against their legalization), but they don’t think divorce should be illegal, then they are being hypocritical. Of course, Mormons have among the highest divorce rates in the US, compared to other religions. So I doubt they’ll be fighting to make that illegal, right?
LikeLike
But Todd W. HOW DOES IT HARM YOU???
As far as am concerned, I am not against consenting adults marrying or doing whatever they want, be it two brothers or two sisters marrying…to tell the truth…I don’t care, it doesn’t affect me.
LikeLike
Yep, Birdman, I know.
In less than a day I’ve convinced you that ANY two consenting adults should be able to marry. So you’ve gone from it’s apples and oranges, to you’re okay with allowing incestuous marriages.
You’re holed up in your own little world, caring about nothing except your own little self. One would have thought with all of your military experience to care about the world as a whole, and the implications on people when governments go awry. But, no, not you.
So sad.
Todd W
LikeLike
Whether you want to believe that polygamy does not vitiate marriage and same sex relations do, you have to at least admit that polygamy would be a radical redefinition. Not that I am against polygamy, I just understand that same sex couples fit easily into the existing definition of marriage without need to change the laws other than the sex of the couples getting married. Polygamous relations would need a the creation of a whole new set of rules and regulations to deal with them. Again, i do not see a problem with multiple partner marriages but new laws would need to be created to adapt to the entirely different legal situation involved such as who is married to who in such a relationship. Who has to agree when new parties are added, can one person leave and if so, what child custody or other legal obligations are entailed. And who gets to sleep with whom in such an arrangement? If two wives decide to have a sexual relationship and they are both married to the same man, do you have an issue with that? What if there are multiple husbands and only one wife? Wait, let me guess, when you speak of polygamy, you mean only one man and his many wives who are all subservient to him. You probably never considered any other type of arrangement.
Your argument, Todd, that if we allow same-sex couples to wed it opens the door to all other loving couples was the same one used in Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is a legal arrangement between two individuals, more would require new laws and new definitions. So you can toss out the argument because you think Natalie has an issue with it, but with the correct legal protections and insurance against coercions, I would not have a problem with it. Honestly, I don’t think most people outside some religious organizations would want that, but if some do, they have every right to make that argument.
As to your criticism of the study, while I realize BTB is a gay friendly site, what I hoped you would understand is that this was not a study at all, or even a meta-analysis of other studies. They didn’t take different studies and crunch the data, a problematic approach which can work if the studies were similar enough and used the correct sampling techniques, no, the data was taken from 10 BOOKS, not studies at all. The stories are what they are and case studies at best. But no credible researcher would say the individual stories from 10 books were therefore applicable to the population as a whole. Apparently you could not see past the apparent bias and understand the fundamental study flaws outlined. I may have received my degree in Psych a while back, but I did participated in several research projects as that was what interested me and I understand what makes a good study and what makes a bad one. I read the article you reference which failed to note at all how the study was conducted, but rather focused on the supposed fact that pro-LGBT forces where working hard to conceal the data. I have not seen any concealment from my side, just light shown on the shoddy work of those working towards a pre-determined conclusion.
I think Birdman did a good response to the incest argument you raise. I too don’t see an issue when there is not coercion or a clear unequal and non-consenting participants. If two brothers chose to be married, I really don’t see a problem with that. Mostly because it would not affect me in any way and I can’t imagine there are many people who would want such a relationship.
LikeLike
Todd D,
Yep, I know, it’s trivial to extend your logic to any number of intrinsically perverse relationships.
That’s two who’ve signed on for incestuous marriages. Anyone else for it?
Un-be-lieve-able… And it didn’t take any effort at all to get you guys there.
Todd W
LikeLike
Wow Todd W…
You have never and will never convince ME of anything…as long as it doesn’t affect me and no one is harmed or something done against their will…
I’ve always been okay with it. Why wouldn’t I be…I’m okay with people having sexual relations that aren’t married…so what…they are the ones that are doing it, they have to worry about any consequence…not me…why would I care???
You and all apologists amuse me and nothing more.
Oh, and you still didn’t answer the question ….lololol
LikeLike
Birdman,
I just convinced you that an orange was an apple. You’ve convinced yourself that it doesn’t matter, because you think it doesn’t affect you.
I agree that you don’t care.
Todd W
LikeLike
hahahaha
you are so funny Todd…
lol
why do you insist on avoiding the simplist questions…you crack me up.
Do you really believe that anyone out there that hears your nonsense would ever consider joining a religion that has followers filled with so much judgemental self-rightiousness and hatred…I mean really…can’t you see yourself the way others do???
At times I almost feel pity for you, then I am reminded that bullies like you look for such signs and take empathy or sympathy for weakness…
So, I’ll just forgive you…something you can’t do for anyone outside of your dogmatic religious circle that is creeping in on you.
LikeLike
Oh, and I still believe that same sex marriage and incest are apples and oranges…
I just don’t care if they are concenting adults what they do…and I don’t care if they marry or just have sex in the backyard…why should I care?
LikeLike
Besides, outdoor sex is always a rush…=D
More wine, please…lol
LikeLike
1. Mormon doctrine is not antithetical to same sex marriage. Joseph Smith and the early doctrine of sealing before it evolved into a 1950s Leave it To Beaver Family is Forever format was an act of combining the entire religious culture into one family — all that one heart, one mind stuff of Zion. This is why men and women were all sealed to various leaders in the church early on. One big, happy eternal commune family. If that is the case, throwing in a couple of guys or gals who like each other really shouldn’t be that big of a deal, particularly when all it takes is one geriatric to have a revelation and all is cool. Continuing revelation is awesome, because you can never be wrong. And if you are wrong, just wait, it will change.
It does raise the rather problematic issue of do you fight for change when the current establishment says you shouldn’t? Do what is right and let the consequences follow, I say. Eliminating suffering, compassion and love for your fellow folks would dictate encouraging a philosophy that doesn’t hurt so many people as the current myopic view of the religion. Marlin Jensen v. Boyd K. Packer. Give me a Marlin Jensen Mormon any day of the week. Who is right? Study it, pray about it and God will answer you.
2. The incest prohibition is neither apples or oranges, but a red herring. Incest is all about lack of consent. Close familial relationships make consent highly problematic. Secondly, you cannot consent your way out of genetically deformed offspring. Swimming in the gene pool is fine, but it can’t be too shallow.
3. I find it absolutely hilarious that the concepts of marriage that have to be preserved or all of humanity will come crashing down is a relatively recent historical development. Marriage in its current incarnation should be reduced to nothing more than a license from the government. Unlike the senate candidate from Delaware, church and state separation does appear in the Constitution. Just make sure government sanctioned marriage is applied equally, ie neither gays or straights can commit incest, but both can have government sanctioned marriage, and this problem is solved. Let the religions do their own things.
LikeLike
Kent,
I take it you don’t think these scriptures and the proclamation form an authoritative basis for man-woman only doctrine?
Cor. 11: 11
Gen. 2: 18-25
The Family: A Proclamation to the World
Secondly, the incest argument isn’t a Red Herring at all. It’s a valid slippery slope (potential) consequence of redefining marriage. Problematic consent, is still consent. While offspring are an issue for opposite-sex incestuous unions, they’re not an issue with same-sex incestuous unions. As I demonstrated so ably with Birdman and Todd D, it’s easy to get people to agree with at least limited incestuous marriages.
Thirdly, the argument against same-sex marriage is strong on secular principles. Separation of church and state is irrelevant in that context. When marriage is reduced to a mere license from the government, there should still be a man-woman condition attached.
I agree with you, do what is right let the consequence follow.
Todd
LikeLike
Just curious here, but did they not find that one of the flds members read a book on cow breeding and decided that he could magically become a master of human breeding? Pretty sure it was in texas. Now if they are having sex with their own family members, would stand to reason that if they are studying the breeding of cows, then that probably isn’t the only things they are doing with cows.
Inbreeding as quoted from wikipedia:
Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[1] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
* Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
* Increased genetic disorders
* Fluctuating facial asymmetry
* Lower birth rate
* Higher infant mortality
* Slower growth rate
* Smaller adult size
* Loss of immune system function
Natural selection works to remove individuals who acquire the above types of traits from the gene pool. Therefore, many more individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. Over time, with isolation such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental stresses, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.
here’s info from a study I found:
http://blisstree.com/geneticsandhealth/inbreeding-and-genetic-disease/
Me thinks this Inbreeding could have been brought about by the “Flowers In the Attic” syndrome.
There is nothing exciting about having sex with a family member, nor is it condoned by God. It seems that taking the Bible out of context seems to be an issue with Mormons. I believe in the new testament that Jesus cleared up quite a few things. The internet now allows you to peruse the Bible online and will give exact locations in the bible for which you are looking for and you can read them in order. No where in the Bible does it say that you may pick out a line and use that for a law, religious or otherwise.
Also, Todd, could you please check out the dictionary for the word INBREEDING???? Then look up genetic defects online. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOUR OWN KINFOLK!!!
By the way, no where that I have read says that you can mate a calf with a bull, you would find it extremely difficult to mate a full grown bull with a small calf. I thought I would explain that since it would probably make more sense to these weirdos than to explain that you shouldn’t have sex with children. Not having sex with children should be obvious even to dipsticks that can understand the bull/calf theory.
YOU DON’T SCREW ANIMALS, SO DON’T SCREW CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DDDUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Sorry that didn’t really sound intelligent, however I have learned that you sometimes have to come down to others levels in order to reach them.
I have an idea, let’s explain it in hillbilly talk….
LikeLike
Anne,
Good points all! Mind if I ask a few questions to get some clarification?
So you would be okay with incestuous marriages, as long as there wasn’t any “breeding” going on (e.g. brother-brother, sister-sister, etc.)?
You don’t think that the 10 commandments, each one-liners from the Bible, could serve as the basis for a law?
Where does it say, in the Bible, that you may NOT pick out a line and use that for a law? Is the Bible ultimately the final say on such matters, for or against?
Please define “screw”. Can two women “screw” each other? Two men? Is the ability to “screw” a rational basis for defining marriage?
What exactly is “hillbilly talk?”
Kindest Regards,
Todd
LikeLike
Todd,
Get off the “incest.” Nobody thinks you’ve made a valid point BUT YOU!! Read the comments. It just ain’t cutting it.
All my love from Hawaii,
Natalie
LikeLike
World: Please explain to me why you consider same-sex marriages involving adults wrong or harmful?
Mormons: If consenting adults is your basis for criteria, why can’t brothers and sisters marry? What would prevent a mother from marrying her son, or even worse her daughter? What would stop an adult man from marrying a goat?
Holy shit people, are we dealing with morons here?? I have literally heard these very same arguments from LDS people so many times, it is making me sick.
Get the hell off the incest, bestiality discussion. Not related!! Period! Sorry to rant , but this bullshit has to stop.
And Todd, go screw a goat, or your sister since you seem to have a fascination with incest. Just don’t smear us with your bullshit any longer.
Holy freakin shit!!!!!
LikeLike
Interesting read:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/atheist-ministers-leading-faithful/story?id=12004359
Side note: Todd – your incest fascination discusts us. If you honestly believe that this is a valid point, get medicated.
Carl
LikeLike
Natalie – I certainly understand why you’d want me to drop the incest (or what is better described as the “slippery slope”) argument, since your hubby was the first to actually sanction incest.
Ben – LDS people aren’t the only ones making the “slippery slope” argument. It is trivial to extend YOUR logic and convince people that incest would be okay. Holy freakin shit!!! It took all of, what, a few hours before Birdman was on the incest-is-okay wagon?
Carl – Incest IS disgusting and SHOULD disgust you. That’s the whole point. To deny that the “slippery slope” argument isn’t a valid argument is to deny the obvious. You’re the one who needs medication, to help you stay in your state of ignorant stupor.
To quote part of Alexander Pope’s Famous Philosophical Poem (ref:
Kindest Regards,
Todd
LikeLike
Todd,
Your elevator doesn’t go quite to the top, does it?
LikeLike
This topic of SSM, once all the many aspects of relationships are considered, can be a very emotional topic – as we are all aware. And, I must add here that I have learned quite a bit about attitudes, emotions and religious fears while reading this site.
The point is too important for trite little “gotcha” argument points. We seem to get lost in the “I stated that, knowing that your next comment would be ………..”.
At the end of the day here folks, it all comes down to love and respect, caring and understanding.
I have one request here, realizing that I am fairly insignificant, both on this web site and in life. But I must make this request: Can we please get off the subject of incest? I see nowhere in these discussions where anyone has condoned incest, and the subject is so offensive and absolutely brutal, I find it intolerable to discuss as any byproduct subject of any rational discussion.
Realizing that this request will probably fall on deaf ears, I make it anyway.
Carl
LikeLike
Carl,
Your impassioned plea against discussing “offensive and absolutely brutal” subjects hasn’t fallen on deaf ears (maybe skeptical, but not deaf).
Your apparent distaste for addressing some of the “slippery slope” issues (or your willful attempt to marginalize them) seems weak and/or naive (or derived from ulterior motives).
So I’m curious, what exactly is your position regarding the “equal protection” arguments propounded by those keen on redefining marriage?
And, if you exclude closely related individuals from these protections, what is your rationale?
In your view, which groups deserve “equal” protection and which do not?
How far are you willing to go to ensure “equal” protection?
Kindest Regards,
Todd
LikeLike
My rationale Todd, is that I think adults fucking kids should be punishable by death. And, I believe that closely related family members fucking each other is almost as despicable. No false motives here Todd. No “behind the scene” agenda.
To somehow jump on certain “use of language” terms, like “consenting adults” and try to apply the slippery slope argument as somehow condoning incest is just plain, beyond idiotic.
Answer your question Todd?
LikeLike
Carl,
Wow. Your position seems pretty clear; and yep, you answered my question. But because I think we are in violent agreement, let me make sure I’ve got this straight.
In your view, the “consenting adults” logic alone isn’t sufficient justification for redefining marriage? And, just to be clear, we’re not talking about adults and kids, nor are we talking about situations that could produce genetically damaged offspring. I think everyone is in agreement there. However, your rationale excludes even same-sex relationships between closely related individuals. That’s what I’m getting from your post.
If that’s really your view, then you don’t buy in to the “equal protection” argument, do you? You agree that there are inherently “despicable” relationships that vitiate important societal institutions and from which society should be protected?
I find your rejection of “use of language” terms amusing, because SSM proponents have made an art form out of using language that plays on America’s sensibilities. After all, why shouldn’t I be able to choose the person I want to marry? Why shouldn’t I have the same rights as you? Equal protection, is equal protection, no?
Also, I didn’t just try to apply slippery slope logic, I succeeded. Both of my antagonists, Birdman and Todd D., explicitly sanctioned at least limited incestuous marriages. They are okay with “closely related family members fucking each other.” I was flabbergasted! They had to know I was baiting them. “Beyond idiotic” is an apt description.
Kindest Regards,
Todd
LikeLike