Choose The Right

They don't specify sexual orientation

Which is why they don't discriminate based on gender. No matter who, one is required to marry the opposite sex no matter one's gender.

What about the right to remain celibate? All are not REQUIRED to marry, hetero or not.

bcspace wrote:

They don't specify sexual orientation

Which is why they don't discriminate based on gender. No matter who, one is required to marry the opposite sex no matter one's gender.

Of course they discriminate based on gender. They specify that a male cannot marry a male, because he's a male. That's gender discrimination.

White Buffalo wrote:Technically, current marriage laws are discriminatory based on gender. They don't specify sexual orientation, but they do discriminate based on gender, preventing one man from marrying another man, or one woman from marrying another woman. This is, of course, a clear violation of gender-related equal protection laws.

"technically" you are wrong.
The marriage laws of any various states do not violate any of these so-called "gender laws" anymore than designating a men's and women's restroom does.
Arguably, at least by your so-called logic, drivers licenses discriminate against blind people.

Marriage laws of any state are currently NOT in violation of any Federal equal protection laws - as is currently manifest by their existence in various constitutions and by the fact that no serious legal scholar is attempting to make that argument in court.
What you typically see is like in Mass. where the court finds that their constitution does not allow them to "prohibit" a specific type of marriage and thus by default allows same sex...or the citizens amend their constitution to allow for it...which the LGBT is obviously for, except in CA when the citizens dont vote their way, and then it must be a flaw...according to the gay judge who wants to get married.
Another example is in Washington state...years ago they found that marriage discrimination neither targets a "suspect" class (i.e. gay people), nor burdens a fundamental, constitutional right (i.e. the right to marry) - ergo no violation of equal protection. However, just recently they "legally" changed this legislation to permit same sex marriage...it was not a correction, but rather a choice they made.
thanks for playing

White Buffalo wrote:

subgenius wrote:

White Buffalo wrote:An excellent summation of the letter is "stick it to them homos!!"

please, refrain from using "stick it" and "homos" in the same context, it is very unsettling.

Since homophobia is strongly associated with homosexual arrousal, double-entendres are appropriate and necessary.

which explains why you love the missionaries!

subgenius wrote:

Drifting1 wrote:Sub,

From the LDS sponsored website 'Protect Marriage' here is a list of things that they ask you to do. Which ones would you be prepared to do in the fight against allowing your brother all the same marital rights and privileges that you enjoy?

1. Join the campaign team
2. Put up a campaign sign in your garden
3. Sign the petition
4. Tell 5 friends to get involved
5. Donate money to Protect Marriage
6. But campaign marketing materials and use them, such as flyers, badges etc
7. Attend campaign rally's and events
8. Vote

This is what your Church wants you to do to fight to protect marriage as a solely heterosexual institution. Which would you do?

all of them

I confess to being disappointed. But probably not as disappointed as your brother.

Drifting1 wrote:I confess to being disappointed.

cant help but wonder why

But probably not as disappointed as your brother.

actually he is not, he could care less about the issue or the church's involvement in it....thought i mentioned that before.

As for gay marriage, those couples who wish a marriage ceremony can get one in a church that does that, and can get legal partnership papers in many states, including the one where I live. It gives them most of the same rights as a legal marriage. I just don't see it as being a problem.

subgenius wrote:

White Buffalo wrote:Technically, current marriage laws are discriminatory based on gender. They don't specify sexual orientation, but they do discriminate based on gender, preventing one man from marrying another man, or one woman from marrying another woman. This is, of course, a clear violation of gender-related equal protection laws.

"technically" you are wrong.
The marriage laws of any various states do not violate any of these so-called "gender laws" anymore than designating a men's and women's restroom does.
Arguably, at least by your so-called logic, drivers licenses discriminate against blind people.

Marriage laws of any state are currently NOT in violation of any Federal equal protection laws - as is currently manifest by their existence in various constitutions and by the fact that no serious legal scholar is attempting to make that argument in court.
What you typically see is like in Mass. where the court finds that their constitution does not allow them to "prohibit" a specific type of marriage and thus by default allows same sex...or the citizens amend their constitution to allow for it...which the LGBT is obviously for, except in CA when the citizens dont vote their way, and then it must be a flaw...according to the gay judge who wants to get married.
Another example is in Washington state...years ago they found that marriage discrimination neither targets a "suspect" class (i.e. gay people), nor burdens a fundamental, constitutional right (i.e. the right to marry) - ergo no violation of equal protection. However, just recently they "legally" changed this legislation to permit same sex marriage...it was not a correction, but rather a choice they made.
thanks for playing

Do you have an argument? Could you at least address mine?

subgenius wrote:

White Buffalo wrote:

subgenius wrote:

White Buffalo wrote:An excellent summation of the letter is "stick it to them homos!!"

please, refrain from using "stick it" and "homos" in the same context, it is very unsettling.

Since homophobia is strongly associated with homosexual arousal, double-entendres are appropriate and necessary.

which explains why you love the missionaries!

I love the missionaries?

subgenius wrote:

Drifting1 wrote:I confess to being disappointed.

cant help but wonder why

But probably not as disappointed as your brother.

actually he is not, he could care less about the issue or the church's involvement in it....thought i mentioned that before.

My point was his feelings about you being involved.

subgenius wrote:"A true friend will encourage you to be your best self.” (For the Strength of Youth [booklet, 2001], 12).

What if your "best self" is to be homosexual?

It seems to me that is the question being begged here.

And what is the role of a "true friend" in that situation?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

"A true friend will encourage you to be your best self.” (For the Strength of Youth [booklet, 2001], 12).

What if your "best self" is to be homosexual?

It seems to me that is the question being begged here.

And what is the role of a "true friend" in that situation?

To stay a friend obviously, but to not encourage such a lifestyle and even stand one's ground as to the doctrine which happens to be that being homosexual is not the best self one can be.

Drifting1 wrote:

subgenius wrote:

Drifting1 wrote:I confess to being disappointed.

cant help but wonder why

But probably not as disappointed as your brother.

actually he is not, he could care less about the issue or the church's involvement in it....thought i mentioned that before.

My point was his feelings about you being involved.

i also said before...he does not care, just as my feelings would be should he decide to rally on the other side...it really is not that complicated.

consiglieri wrote:What if your "best self" is to be homosexual?

explain how this is possible, please.

Hello, McFly!

If you are a homosexual, that is what your "self" is.

Your best self then cannot be anything other than to be what your self is.

Hope this helps.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

subgenius wrote:I have simply asked what possible virtue or value does LGBT offer to society or to any person who claims to hold virtue/values - regardless of how one defines those virtues/values.

It offers the same as heterosexuality, but then your question was stupid in the extreme.

Specific to the OP, how can the values promoted by the church be illustrated by any LGBT and thus merit them to be "chosen" as a friend?

Who cares. If you want to be an ass and not be friends with others who differ in some way from you, it's your choice, and your loss.

Themis wrote:

Who cares. If you want to be an ass and not be friends with others who differ in some way from you, it's your choice, and your loss.

And in this case, their gain.

consiglieri wrote:If you are a homosexual, that is what your "self" is.

making up facts to support an ill-conceived premise does not suit you well.
Homsexuality as "self"
It is obvious that it is not the "best" self because they made the not-best choice for a sexual lifestyle.

Interesting how you suddenly revise your position,
originally you said

consiglieri wrote:What if your "best self" is to be homosexual?

by your logic, a pedophile's best self is "to be" a pedophile.

Themis wrote:

subgenius wrote:I have simply asked what possible virtue or value does LGBT offer to society or to any person who claims to hold virtue/values - regardless of how one defines those virtues/values.

It offers the same as heterosexuality, but then your question was stupid in the extreme.

no it does not, no proof exists to support your coffee-house pontificating which lacks anything more than a poster board motto being held up at some sad rally where people chant "gay and here to stay!".

Themis wrote:

subgenius wrote:Specific to the OP, how can the values promoted by the church be illustrated by any LGBT and thus merit them to be "chosen" as a friend?

Who cares.

actually, i do...thus the OP...see how that works? are you new to the whole why people ask questions thingy?

Themis wrote:If you want to be an ass and not be friends with others who differ in some way from you, it's your choice, and your loss.

i do feel a great "loss" for not being friends with more violent offenders, pedophiles, and ku klux klan members...if only i wasnt so rigid with my values, these people could have been so uplifting for me and my family...but hey, there is always people like you. You know, people who consider change good just for the sake of change, or that different is good just because its different...nothing else matters...just that you suffer a loss if you dont embrace all things different...well, except for anything "different" from the idea of embracing all things different.

subgenius wrote:
It is obvious that it is not the "best" self because they made the not-best choice for a sexual lifestyle.

Unsupported assumption. Show your work.

subgenius wrote:

by your logic, a pedophile's best self is "to be" a pedophile.

Am I the only one tired of homosexuality being equated with pedophilia?

consiglieri wrote:

subgenius wrote:

by your logic, a pedophile's best self is "to be" a pedophile.

Am I the only one tired of homosexuality being equated with pedophilia?

It's a lazy, brainless and offensive comparison. So naturally, it's the first one Subgenius reaches for.

subgenius wrote:
no it does not, no proof exists to support your coffee-house pontificating which lacks anything more than a poster board motto being held up at some sad rally where people chant "gay and here to stay!".

Your question is still stupid. You never even begin to show what possible virtue or value does heterosexuality offer to society or to any person who claims to hold virtue/values - regardless of how one defines those virtues/values. Most of what you list has nothing to do with either one.

lululu wrote:

subgenius wrote:

lululu wrote:And you wonder why your brother "imposes exile upon himself."

--The lulu

no, i don't really...like his lifestyle, it is by his own choice.

Do you call the brother "the sexual deviant?"

Stop pretending you're bcspace, subgenius. ANSWER the question.