LDS II: The Mormons

[Slowvehicle]

You misread that statement. Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.

1. I wonder if you have any concept of how far from your claim that "it's about the children" you have strayed.

2. I wonder if you have any intention of providing evidence of your claim that, if "they" have "unnatural sex" "long enough" "serious medical problems" "may develop"?

3. I wonder if you have any idea of how inherently circular your argument is:

Q) what is "unnatural sex"?
A) Sex that causes serious medical problems, if practiced long enough.

Q) How long is "long enough"?
A) Long enough for serious medical problems to develop.

Q) To what "serioous medical problems" are you referring?
A) The effects of "practicing unnatural sex" "long enough"...

4. Not to mention: from long, arduous, enthusiastic, dedicated research, I can assure you that if it hurts, you're doing it wrong. If it is injuring you, you're doing it wrong.

5. "MAY" develop? Will your sect also be spending beaucoup untaxed dollars attempting to deny the rights of marriage to the pregnant (and those who may become pregnant, the overweight (and those who may become overweight, the elderly (and those who may become elderly); not to mention practicioners of a high-meat/high fat/low fiber diet, or CrossFit afficionados, or smokers, or winebiblers, or shydivers, or motorcuycle riders, or urban bicyclists...where does your misplaced concern for what may become a problem stop?

6. Like atheists, gay people (even limiting the discussion to gay men ) are not a homogeneous group. To quote the immortal Mary Callahan, "I can see fingers and a tongue from here...what else do I need?" Is is "unnatural sex" just because you disapprove of the gender mix of the participants?

Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?

Is "marriage", under the law, a right? Are unfounded limitations upon the right to marry unconstitutional? Is discrimination against persons of arbitrary categories legal?

There is no reason to deny the rights, privileges, and protections of civil marriage to couples of which you disapprove. You have yet to demonstrate your premise, that "gay marriage" is "bad for the children".

I really, really hope that you attempt to justify why you think worrying about the possibility of health problems that may happen is "all about the children".

Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.

Which one of the articles you presented without reading do you feel has not been adequately addressed? Seriously: are you reading the responses to your posts with any more care than you are reading the articles you are posting?

 

[Pup]

Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle? The lead paragraph in the article "Health issues for gay men: Prevention first" reads: "All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however. Included in Mayo's recommendations are "Tackle depression," "Seek help for substance abuse," "Be monogamous," and "Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections." Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/health-issues-for-gay-men/MY00738/METHOD=print

Another article entitled "Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle" reads (lead paragraph) "Sexual relationshiips between members of the same sex. . .expose gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to extreme risks [emphasis added] of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders, and even a shortened life span."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/

A third article ("Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals," published by PsychCentral) reads (first two paragraphs) "Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates," according to Dr. Apu Chakraborty, University College, London. "Rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. . .were significantly higher in homosexual respondents." Those disorders included depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527

Being in denial and calling me names won't change the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy.

Sounds like a lot of those problems could be cleared up in gays same as straights, by encouraging people to make a life-long commitment to one partner and by giving them societal support rather than condemning them, so as to decrease their stress and increase their self esteem.

You've made a pretty good argument for gay marriage with those links.

 

[joobz]

Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle? The lead paragraph in the article "Health issues for gay men: Prevention first" reads: "All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however. Included in Mayo's recommendations are "Tackle depression," "Seek help for substance abuse," "Be monogamous," and "Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections." Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/health-issues-for-gay-men/MY00738/METHOD=print

Can you show me anywhere in that link that shows the doctor recommending against being gay?
Or recommending against having anal sex?
Or suggesting a man french kissing/hugging/holding hands/loving a man is hazardous?

Doesn't the article advocate for a monagamous relationship with loving couples?
Doesn't permitting gay marriage result in a healthy lifetyle? Why are you not advocating for gay marriage if your concern is safety?


Also, if you are going to raise the specter of STDs/HIV and homosexuality, what do you have to say about this bit of info from the CDC?

To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication, March 2005). However, case reports of female-to-female transmission of HIV and the well-documented risk of female-to-male transmission [1] indicate that vaginal secretions and menstrual blood are potentially infectious and that mucous membrane (for example, oral, vaginal) exposure to these secretions has the potential to lead to HIV infection

Importantly, women are at greater risk of contracting HIV from heterosexual sex than from homosexual sex. Further, Giving birth is a health risk for Vaginal prolapse.

If you are going to use health risks as a argument against gay marriage, shouldn't you also argue against heterosexual marriage for women?



Once again, you are only using arguments to support your own prejudice. You are not looking at the data from a truly unbiased view. Start with the neutral position that there is no difference and THEN interpret the data.

For example, assume that being gay or straight is equal to being attracted blondes or brunettes. Once you take this position, you will see what is completely obvious to everyone here.

 

[joobz]

"ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be female) to enter and even appear nude before females in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Situations like this have already been reported in several states with ENDA like laws such as Maine, Colorado and California.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/warnings-over-new-gay-transgender-rights/#6ieewljI3COV3e0B.99
Tip of the iceberg...

And why is this a problem?

 

[halleyscomet]

"ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be female) to enter and even appear nude before females in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Situations like this have already been reported in several states with ENDA like laws such as Maine, Colorado and California.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/warnings-over-new-gay-transgender-rights/#6ieewljI3COV3e0B.99
Tip of the iceberg...

Speaking of tips, I'd like to hear your and skyrider44's response to this article about how most sane people react with horror to the story of Nephi brutally murdering and decapitating Laban at God's request:

Mormon Missionary Tells Us Why We Should Cut Off the Whole Head

What do you think of the Mormon Missionary's response when asked why God ordered Laban decapitated instead of, say, incapacitated or his throat slit?

Now, Sister Fletcher and I have a saying when we are trying to do the things the Lord asks us to do: “Am I slitting the throat, or cutting off the head?”

As for the World Net Daily article you quoted, I thought you avoided sources that were explicitly and vocally anti-Mormon. The WND softened their stance on Mormons a bit when Romney was the GOP Presidential nominee, but this article is more typical of their caustic attitude towards your faith: Christians the problem, not Mormons. Please, read the whole article, not just the title and first paragraph. There's a discussion of the WND on the Mormon LDS Freedom Forum titled World Net Daily is Anti-Mormon.

 

[RandFan]

Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle?

What do medical experts say are the medical risks of pregnancy? What do medical experts say are the medical risks of pregnancy? What does any of this have to do with anything?

1. Gays and lesbians are going to have children.
2. Gays and lesbians families would be better of in committed relationships and enjoying the benefits of marriage.

Gay marriage won't change any dynamic. Gay marriage won't reduce the number of gay families or children raised by gays and lesbians.

Even if your premise had merit, and it's rather shaky, it changes absolutely nothing.

 

[Slowvehicle]

"ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be female) to enter and even appear nude before females in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Situations like this have already been reported in several states with ENDA like laws such as Maine, Colorado and California.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/warnings-over-new-gay-transgender-rights/#6ieewljI3COV3e0B.99
Tip of the iceberg...

Wait.

World News Daily?

I thought you were opposed to material from "anti-mormon" sites...

As to thereport you quoted, did you even read it? It sounds like the source for your littel fib about the "gaoled" minister. ENDA certainly would be the end of civilization as we know it...despite the WND's mirrepresentation, the 113th Legislature's proposed ENDA applies to private, civilian, non-religious employers of more than 15 people...who frankly, ought not to be able to institutionalize the practice of any kind of discriminatory bigotry WHD's accustations of the things LGTB "could not be prevented from doing", and your uncritical acceptance of that, only demonstrate that neither of you know any actual LGTB individuals (you, in fact, as I recall, deny they exist). Any person behavijng lewdly, or improperly, in any public lavatory, not matter the gender of the facility or the gender of the person, is subject to the law.

Once again, you are willing to distort the truth in favor of your sensationalist agenda. WIth the WND, no less.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle? The lead paragraph in the article "Health issues for gay men: Prevention first" reads: "All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however. Included in Mayo's recommendations are "Tackle depression," "Seek help for substance abuse," "Be monogamous," and "Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections." Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/health-issues-for-gay-men/MY00738/METHOD=print

Once again, do you think that we aren't going to read the sources ourselves?

Let's look at what the Mayo Clinic has to say, in greater detail than you have presented.

Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections

This whole section applies to men who have sex with women as well. At no point does the Mayo Clinic suggest that this is "a special vulnerability for gay men". And lets look at one of those bullet points:

Be monogamous. Another reliable way to avoid sexually transmitted infections is to stay in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who isn't infected.

Seems like same-sex marriage would be a great way to promote that, don't you think?

Tackle depression

Gay men and men who have sex with men might be at higher risk of depression and anxiety. In addition, youth who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender might have a higher risk of depression and attempted suicide. Contributing factors could include social alienation, discrimination, rejection by loved ones, abuse and violence. The problem might be more severe for men who try to hide their sexual orientation and those who lack social support.

Why did you leave out something as significant as your source's own explanation as to why homosexuals face a greater risk of depression? It's clear that they aren't saying that being gay is itself a cause of depression, but rather the hate and bigotry that homosexuals are exposed to.

Another article entitled "Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle" reads (lead paragraph) "Sexual relationshiips between members of the same sex. . .expose gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to extreme risks [emphasis added] of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders, and even a shortened life span."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/

Here you go with another anti-gay source.

A third article ("Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals," published by PsychCentral) reads (first two paragraphs) "Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates," according to Dr. Apu Chakraborty, University College, London. "Rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. . .were significantly higher in homosexual respondents." Those disorders included depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527

You still don't seem to have realized that I'm actually going to read the sources that you cite. The first two paragraphs read, in full:

Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.

His team looked at rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents.

Why did you omit the part in red? Again, we see suggested that the sorts of mental health problems that are more prevalent within the homosexual population are not of internal origin, but rather caused by the appalling way that they are treated other people. Your omission of Dr. Chakraborty's statement is blatantly dishonest. It is more evidence that you are not following the evidence where it may lead, but rather attempting to make evidence that leads where you want to go.

Being in denial and calling me names won't change the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy.

First, in denial of what? You haven't presented any actual science that hasn't been shown to be misrepresented by biased agencies.

Second, if you can show where I've called you names then please feel free to report said posts to the moderation team.

Third, there isn't one "homosexual lifestyle", any more than there is one heterosexual lifestyle. What does the behavior of sexually promiscuous individuals of either gender or sexual orientation have to do with the desire of other individuals to attain equal rights regarding their committed, monogamous relationships?

 

[skyrider44]

You've made a pretty good argument for gay marriage with those links.

You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.

 

[John Jones]

What I would also like to know is where the idea comes from that marriage is an institution that was implemented to create a stable environment for children?

Most cultures for the longest time raised children communally. Marriage had nothing to do with that and everything to do with property....

Where did this idea come from?

 

[skyrider44]

Yes. And you haven't presented anything that actually supports that argument. As such, you currently rely only on bigotry to support the view.

False. I posted the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), conducted by U. of Texas-Austin sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus, which clearly showed that young adults whose parents had been in same-sex relationships fared poorly compared to parents who had not been in such relationships. By "fared poorly" they were more likely to report being sexually victimized, on welfare, or unemployed when the mothers were in a same-sex relationship (175 respondents). When the fathers were in a same-sex relationshiip, young adults were much more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted disease, or to have been sexually abused (73 respondents). You dismiss that study because it isn't congruent with your biased, preconceived perspective. Please note that I have avoided accusing you of bigotry.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggest...

Yet, in your wanton attempt at finding any potentially credible source that supports your anti gay view. . . .

Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.

 

[skyrider44]

1. I wonder if you have any concept of how far from your claim that "it's about the children" you have strayed.

I wonder if you have noticed that comments by my critics have taken the discussion down disparate paths, some of which you "own."

2. I wonder if you have any intention of providing evidence of your claim that, if "they" have "unnatural sex" "long enough" "serious medical problems" "may develop"?

I used the qualifier "may." Nevertheless there is abundant literature that justifies my statement. I'll be pleased to provide it.

3. I wonder if you have any idea of how inherently circular your argument is:

Q) what is "unnatural sex"?
A) Sex that causes serious medical problems, if practiced long enough.

Q) How long is "long enough"?
A) Long enough for serious medical problems to develop.

Q) To what "serioous medical problems" are you referring?
A) The effects of "practicing unnatural sex" "long enough"...

Avail yourself of Madsen Pirie's excellent book, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic.

: 4. Not to mention: from long, arduous, enthusiastic, dedicated research, I can assure you that if it hurts, you're doing it wrong. If it is injuring you, you're doing it wrong.

I'll take your word about that.

5. "MAY" develop? Will your sect also be spending beaucoup untaxed dollars attempting to deny the rights of marriage to the pregnant (and those who may become pregnant, the overweight (and those who may become overweight, the elderly (and those who may become elderly); not to mention practicioners of a high-meat/high fat/low fiber diet, or CrossFit afficionados, or smokers, or winebiblers, or shydivers, or motorcuycle riders, or urban bicyclists...where does your misplaced concern for what may become a problem stop?

Sorry, but you run off the rails here.

6. Like atheists, gay people (even limiting the discussion to gay men ) are not a homogeneous group. To quote the immortal Mary Callahan, "I can see fingers and a tongue from here...what else do I need?" Is is "unnatural sex" just because you disapprove of the gender mix of the participants?

No, it's unnatural primarily because of the complications associated with it.

Is "marriage", under the law, a right? Are unfounded limitations upon the right to marry unconstitutional? Is discrimination against persons of arbitrary categories legal?

Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."

There is no reason to deny the rights, privileges, and protections of civil marriage to couples of which you disapprove. You have yet to demonstrate your premise, that "gay marriage" is "bad for the children".

You err. See my earlier post re. the NFSS study--just one study that indicates gay marriage is harmful to children.

I really, really hope that you attempt to justify why you think worrying about the possibility of health problems that may happen is "all about the children".

I will be mocked for this, but I was simply trying to help homosexuals understand that they are not living a healthy lifestyle.

Which one of the articles you presented without reading do you feel has not been adequately addressed? Seriously: are you reading the responses to your posts with any more care than you are reading the articles you are posting?

Your questions are based on false premises; hence, they do not merit a response.

 

[bruto]

Please find in my post the terms "voting bloc" or "voting bloc of same-voting people."

A quantity of people who vote the same way because they share some value that influences their vote is a voting bloc. This is what a group of people who vote the same way for a common reason is. This is true even if they are right, if the reasons they use are the best, even if other people vote the same way for other reasons, and even if others who appear to share the same values find other more compelling reasons to vote otherwise. You do not have to use the term explicitly for it to apply reasonably as a synonym, and denying the term because you did not use it explicitly does not somehow, magically, make all argument irrelevant.

 

[bruto]

You misread that statement. Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.

Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?

Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.

Apologies to the moderators for not bundling my replies. I posted my previous one before reading the rest of the thread.

My response to this is mainly to the first paragraph, but to avoid any suspicion that I am making a complete post less complete by snipping I will leave it complete.

The quoted statement comes from someone who claims not to be "anti-gay." The words "not anatomically fit," and "unnatural" are, it is true, not the same as the words "anti-gay." If anyone making the above statements believes they are not anti-gay in tone if not in content, then he is both tone deaf and content deaf. Words have connotations as well as denotations, and unless you suffer from some affliction that prevents you from using words in the conventional way, you must expect people to read them in the conventional way. The word "unnatural," when applied to homosexual behavior, is pejorative. It is not anything but pejorative. If you do not mean it to be pejorative, you should not use it.

And, I will hasten to point out, not for the first time, that approximately half of the population, both straight and gay, and approximately half of the persons for whom gay marriage is an issue are NOT MEN! In fact, they're not even close! An argument that omits approximately half of the population, and mentions unspecified practices that some men may practice on other men, though they might not, and that may eventually cause problems, though they may not, and that (guessing the practices in question) are not forbidden to heterosexuals (Reread Lady Chatterley if you doubt this) falls way way way short of a convincing argument about the subject at hand.

Of course, gay marriage, under the law, is not a right. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE WANT TO CHANGE THE DAMNED LAWS!

 

[Slowvehicle]

You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.

...and you'll be providing those sources you you claim show this, yes? Will they be sources you have actually read, or will you be performing research-by-title some more?

 

[Cat Tale]

Another article entitled "Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle" reads (lead paragraph) "Sexual relationshiips between members of the same sex. . .expose gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to extreme risks [emphasis added] of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders, and even a shortened life span."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/health-risks-of-the-homosexual-lifestyle/

I know that I should probably stay out of this, but... it would seem to me that if two people were committed to each other via marriage it would keep them healthier and less apt to contract an STD. The risk would seem to be the same as a "traditional married couple." Exposure to disease comes from fooling around, not being committed.

Is a child better off remaining in an orphanage and growing up being passed around from foster home to foster home? Or being adopted by a happy, healthy, financially sound, loving gay couple? I can imagine what those 7 (was it?) children on the Today show must have felt to be adopted into the same home, and have a stay at home parent.

I may differ from the Church on this matter, I don't know what the Church's actual stance is on adoption by gay couples, but if I differ, so be it.

 

[joobz]

False. I posted the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), conducted by U. of Texas-Austin sociologist Dr. Mark Regnerus, which clearly showed that young adults whose parents had been in same-sex relationships fared poorly compared to parents who had not been in such relationships. By "fared poorly" they were more likely to report being sexually victimized, on welfare, or unemployed when the mothers were in a same-sex relationship (175 respondents). When the fathers were in a same-sex relationshiip, young adults were much more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted disease, or to have been sexually abused (73 respondents). You dismiss that study because it isn't congruent with your biased, preconceived perspective. Please note that I have avoided accusing you of bigotry.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/11/new-research-on-children-of-same-sex-parents-suggest...

I have already shown the problem with the statistics in that paper. In particular, the fact they use simply t-tests with multiple comparisons as a first screen. This is a great way to create many false positives. It is why people in bioinformatics will often use corrections to avoid this type of error (for example, a bonferoni correction).
This is based upon the fact that I have actually read the regenerus paper. You still haven't read the original paper and only cite biased sources.

Kindly note that I am not anti-gay.

This is not supported by your evidence.
If you were not anti-gay, than you would advocate for gay marriage as it would clearly be a health benefit for the couples AND their children.
If you were not anti-gay, then you would not rely soley on biased/bigoted sources to find anti-gay propaganda and completely avoid reading the actual research sources.
If you were not anti-gay, you wouldn't selectively use arguments to argue against gay marriage that could equally (and even more appropriately) be applied to other groups (E.g., poor)

Perhaps you believe you aren't anti-gay. I would not be surprised by this. In the 50s, people who supported segregation often didn't believe they were racist. They simply thought that blacks were better off having their own "separate but equal" resources.

 

[joobz]

I used the qualifier "may." Nevertheless there is abundant literature that justifies my statement. I'll be pleased to provide it.

you have yet to actually read this literature and are therefore unqualified to make this claim.

I'll take your word about that.

Are you uncomfortable knowing that you are speaking to someone who has participated in anal sex with a man? Does that image disgust you, or titillate you?

No, it's unnatural primarily because of the complications associated with it.

your argument would also mean that child birth is unnatural. I mean, given the countless complications that are a part of pregnancy and birth.

Marriage is defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. There isn't such a thing as "gay marriage."

nope.

You err. See my earlier post re. the NFSS study--just one study that indicates gay marriage is harmful to children.

that study doesn't show that at all.
If you believe it does, please quote it directly.

I will be mocked for this, but I was simply trying to help homosexuals understand that they are not living a healthy lifestyle.

Please, tell me more about this. What do you think homosexuals should do?



Your questions are based on false premises; hence, they do not merit a response.[/QUOTE]

 

[Foster Zygote]

You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that several studies show promiscuity is a problem among homosexuals.

Please point us to these studies.

 

[skyrider44]

A quantity of people who vote the same way because they share some value that influences their vote is a voting bloc. This is what a group of people who vote the same way for a common reason is. This is true even if they are right, if the reasons they use are the best, even if other people vote the same way for other reasons, and even if others who appear to share the same values find other more compelling reasons to vote otherwise. You do not have to use the term explicitly for it to apply reasonably as a synonym, and denying the term because you did not use it explicitly does not somehow, magically, make all argument irrelevant.

You make a valid point; however, in argumentation, a debater can call out his/her opponent for using emotionally loaded terms. Furthermore, I noted that you don't know that all the Mormons who voted supported Prop 8. Technically, to describe the Mormons who voted as a "bloc," 100% of them would have had to vote for Prop 8.