Cofc Now To Marry Same-Sex Couples

[Alan]

This whole gay marriage thing turns my stomach.

What really annoys me is that it is done in the name of equality. There is already equality.

A gay man has just the same right to marry a woman as I have. The fact that he doesn't want to is not the issue.

Equally, just like him, I am not permitted to marry anyone, or thing, other than a woman.

So we already have equality.

[Stone holm]

This whole gay marriage thing turns my stomach.

What really annoys me is that it is done in the name of equality. There is already equality.

A gay man has just the same right to marry a woman as I have. The fact that he doesn't want to is not the issue.

Equally, just like him, I am not permitted to marry anyone, or thing, other than a woman.

So we already have equality.

So you don't believe that a woman has the same rights as you?

[Calm]

What really annoys me is that it is done in the name of equality. There is already equality.

A gay man has just the same right to marry a woman as I have. The fact that he doesn't want to is not the issue.

Equally, just like him, I am not permitted to marry anyone, or thing, other than a woman.

So we already have equality.

Kind of reminds me of sometimes when my dad would take us to Baskin Robbins and would leave us in the car while he went it to pick stuff up (quicker and quieter for him that way). We were allowed to have anything we wanted as long as it was vanilla, rocky road (his favourite) or strawberry...any more and it got too complicated to keep track of. I chose strawberry on a regular cone. I got strawberry on a sugar cone...Dad responding 'you got what everyone else got'...problem was in my eyes, they liked sugar cones and I did not...didn't seem quite fair to me even if equal.

Made a big difference in enjoyment and satisfaction when we could actually go inside and choose our own of all the 31 flavours (usually coconut for me...on a regular cone obviously).

Not saying I support legalizing gay marriage, just saying I find that particular argument very, very weak.

Everyone is equal if they get to play by the same rules....and it doesn't matter that only part of the group is involved in making the rules up. Sounds great until you are in the group that doesn't get to input their views into the rules.

As for me, a man can marry (live in a relationship based on fidelity and mutual companionship and other aspects) a man anytime he wants as there is no longer anything criminal about it. It is something different that is wanted, not just the choice of partnership extended some, but for that partnership to be subsidized and protected on the same level as heterosexual marriage.

[Stone holm]

I also find it weak, and I am not a gay activist. It is one of those glib responses that I find members toss out there on a regular basis. To which I respond that if it means equality exists, then a woman should have the same right as a man to marry a woman, and a man should have the same right as a woman to marry a man.

[Saints Alive]

I also find it weak, and I am not a gay activist. It is one of those glib responses that I find members toss out there on a regular basis. To which I respond that if it means equality exists, then a woman should have the same right as a man to marry a woman, and a man should have the same right as a woman to marry a man.

Not quite, It's better if you phrase it "everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex"

I used to feel really strong about gay marriage. Im at the point now where I feel that it is an inevitability so I'm not really interested in spending any energy on trying to stop it.

[Stone holm]

Not quite, It's better if you phrase it "everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex"

I used to feel really strong about gay marriage. Im at the point now where I feel that it is an inevitability so I'm not really interested in spending any energy on trying to stop it.

There was a time when I also felt strongly anti-homosexual and would have vigorously opposed gay marriage, I still think it would have been better to have just went with civil unions for everyone, but I too believe that gay marriage is an inevitability. After a fair amount of struggle with the concept, I finally realized that my reasons for opposing gay rights was a combination of two things: personal revulsion with homosexuality I suppose due to my cultural upbringing, and two my religious convictions. I realized that it wasn't fair for me to advocate legislation based on either of those concepts. Finally, because of my involvement in economic development over the years, I also had to acknowledge that the real heroes of urband and now rural redevelopment were frequently gay, and the gay community were the premier modern urban pioneers gentrifying rundown areas until they were pushed out by more affluent straights. At that point, I realized that we were probably on the wrong side of this cuture war and that instead of wasting so much time throwing up roadblocks we should have first acknowledged that we have a structural doctrinal issue which prevents us from ever accepting gay marriage, but otherwise tring to figure out how we were going to transition into this altered social world without looking like a bunch of bigots from the old Confederacy. I believe if we had spend more time trying to understand that and less time and resources on legal fights, that maybe we would be in a better place. But, I am not called to a position which would be involved in such questions of policy. I can understand why organizations like the C of C would take the position they have since they don't believe in eternal families in the same way that we do, I find the Catholics to be somewhat ridiculous in their position since they forbid most of their clergy to even marry which has resulted in all kinds of problems for them, so I just wish we could get the strife over with without destroying such iconic organizations as the BSA.

[Stargazer]

There was a time when I also felt strongly anti-homosexual and would have vigorously opposed gay marriage, I still think it would have been better to have just went with civil unions for everyone, but I too believe that gay marriage is an inevitability. After a fair amount of struggle with the concept, I finally realized that my reasons for opposing gay rights was a combination of two things: personal revulsion with homosexuality I suppose due to my cultural upbringing, and two my religious convictions. I realized that it wasn't fair for me to advocate legislation based on either of those concepts. Finally, because of my involvement in economic development over the years, I also had to acknowledge that the real heroes of urband and now rural redevelopment were frequently gay, and the gay community were the premier modern urban pioneers gentrifying rundown areas until they were pushed out by more affluent straights. At that point, I realized that we were probably on the wrong side of this cuture war and that instead of wasting so much time throwing up roadblocks we should have first acknowledged that we have a structural doctrinal issue which prevents us from ever accepting gay marriage, but otherwise tring to figure out how we were going to transition into this altered social world without looking like a bunch of bigots from the old Confederacy. I believe if we had spend more time trying to understand that and less time and resources on legal fights, that maybe we would be in a better place. But, I am not called to a position which would be involved in such questions of policy. I can understand why organizations like the C of C would take the position they have since they don't believe in eternal families in the same way that we do, I find the Catholics to be somewhat ridiculous in their position since they forbid most of their clergy to even marry which has resulted in all kinds of problems for them, so I just wish we could get the strife over with without destroying such iconic organizations as the BSA.

And I remember when slippery slope arguments were attempted -- that if we decriminalize homosexual behavior, ultimately they will demand that they be allowed to marry their partners -- that the argument was attacked as absurb. "That can never happen!"

Seems that the slippery slope argument was valid after all.

Next up on the docket will be polygamy, and probably polyandry and group marriages.

And who cares? As you point out, increasingly fewer and fewer.

[Stone holm]

And I remember when slippery slope arguments were attempted -- that if we decriminalize homosexual behavior, ultimately they will demand that they be allowed to marry their partners -- that the argument was attacked as absurb. "That can never happen!"

Seems that the slippery slope argument was valid after all.

Next up on the docket will be polygamy, and probably polyandry and group marriages.

And who cares? As you point out, increasingly fewer and fewer.

And if a group of consenting adults wants to enter into such relationships, I will probably defend their right to do so as well.

[Daniel2]

And I remember when slippery slope arguments were attempted -- that if we decriminalize homosexual behavior, ultimately they will demand that they be allowed to marry their partners -- that the argument was attacked as absurb. "That can never happen!"

CFR that gay supporters ever "attacked as absurd" the "arguement" that gays and lesbians would "ultimately demand to marry their same-sex partners," or denied that same-sex couples wouldn't want to marry once homosexuality was de-criminalized, or argued that fighting for same-sex marriage "can never happen!"

I believe you are unwittingly conflating two separate arguments--a) that homosexuality should be decriminalized, and b) that there would be no slippery slope toward marrying inanimate objects, children, or animals. I do not believe that gay advocates ever suggested that gay and lesbian individuals, themselves, would not want the right to legally and consensually marry their partner of the same gender. In fact, the opposite was true – many saw and acknowledge even today that the decriminalization of homosexuality was a major step towards marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Daniel2

[Damien the Leper]

This whole gay marriage thing turns my stomach.

What really annoys me is that it is done in the name of equality. There is already equality.

A gay man has just the same right to marry a woman as I have. The fact that he doesn't want to is not the issue.

Equally, just like him, I am not permitted to marry anyone, or thing, other than a woman.

So we already have equality.

So a gay man, like myself, is allowed to marry a woman he doesn't love romantically but not allowed to marry a man he romantically loves? Got it...that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever and is part of the anti propaganda.

[cdowis]

So a gay man, like myself, is allowed to marry a woman he doesn't love romantically

It happens all the time that men and women marry each other, even though they do not love each other.

but not allowed to marry a man he romantically loves.

You are correct. You can have a romanitic relationship with anyone, including your father, your mother, your brother or sister, but it is not marriage.

Got it...that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever and is part of the anti propaganda.

Makes perfect sense to me, and has been the case for thousands of years among every culture, even those who accept homosexuality, such as the ancient Greeks.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[Damien the Leper]

What nonsense. Homosexuality is not comparatively congruent with incest. Such an assertion says more about the persons making the assertion. It is uneducated and assumes a more uneducated bias. Homosexuality and loving homosexual relationships predate written scripture and oral tradition. My guess is that it has been around for more than 50,000 years.

[Stone holm]

What nonsense. Homosexuality is not comparatively congruent with incest. Such an assertion says more about the persons making the assertion. It is uneducated and assumes a more uneducated bias. Homosexuality and loving homosexual relationships predate written scripture and oral tradition. My guess is that it has been around for more than 50,000 years.

True. However, it is structurally incompatible with Mormon doctrine as to how life is organized after the resurrection. Our beliefs, however, do not justify persecution of gays or denying gays equal rights to marry (outside the jurisdicition of the church). With regards to the C of C, I can understand why they would be in a position to embrace SSM since their beliefs as to how life is organized after the resurrection are not incompatible with SSM in this life -- their doctrine was merely God said don't do it, ours was not only God saying don't do it but God explaining what He is like and that we have a Heavenly Mother and that they spiritually created us in the same way that our earthly parents created our earthly tabernacles. So for us it counters our whole concept of the universe, for them it is just another Biblical taboo biting the dust.

[Damien the Leper]

True. However, it is structurally incompatible with Mormon doctrine as to how life is organized after the resurrection. Our beliefs, however, do not justify persecution of gays or denying gays equal rights to marry (outside the jurisdicition of the church). With regards to the C of C, I can understand why they would be in a position to embrace SSM since their beliefs as to how life is organized after the resurrection are not incompatible with SSM in this life -- their doctrine was merely God said don't do it, ours was not only God saying don't do it but God explaining what He is like and that we have a Heavenly Mother and that they spiritually created us in the same way that our earthly parents created our earthly tabernacles. So for us it counters our whole concept of the universe, for them it is just another Biblical taboo biting the dust.

As per Section 163 of the D&C, I believe you are oversimplifying their position:

7 a. Scripture is an indispensable witness to the Eternal Source of light and truth, which cannot be fully contained in any finite vessel or language. Scripture has been written and shaped by human authors through experiences of revelation and ongoing inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the midst of time and culture.

b. Scripture is not to be worshiped or idolized. Only God, the Eternal One of whom scripture testifies, is worthy of worship. God’s nature, as revealed in Jesus Christ and affirmed by the Holy Spirit, provides the ultimate standard by which any portion of scripture should be interpreted and applied.

c. It is not pleasing to God when any passage of scripture is used to diminish or oppress races, genders, or classes of human beings. Much physical and emotional violence has been done to some of God’s beloved children through the misuse of scripture. The church is called to confess and repent of such attitudes and practices.

d. Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge, and discernment in the faith community must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God. Follow this pathway, which is the way of the Living Christ, and you will discover more than sufficient light for the journey ahead.

[Damien the Leper]

From the Community of Christ website:

The 2013 USA National Conference recommends the sacrament of marriage be extended, where legal in the USA, to persons of the same sex/gender. Thus the 2013 USA National Conference recommends a change to the current policy for the USA on the sacrament of marriage; and

The 2013 USA National Conference recommends that a church-recognized way for two persons of the same sex/gender to publicly express their covenant to each other be made available in places in the USA where marriage is not legal. Thus, the 2013 USA National Conference recommends a change to the current policy for the USA regarding same-sex/gender covenant commitment services where marriage is not legal; and

The 2013 USA National Conference recommends allowing a priesthood call to be processed according to established procedures regardless of sexual orientation, including a person in a monogamous, committed, same-sex/gender relationship (e.g., legal marriage, civil partnership, covenant relationship) in the USA. Thus, the 2013 USA National Conference recommends a change to the current policy on ordination for the USA.

[Stone holm]

As per Section 163 of the D&C, I believe you are oversimplifying their position:

Like I said for them it's just another OT taboo biting the dust, I personally don't know why the Protestant Evangelicals and the Catholics are kicking up such a fuss. From what I have been able to figure out only us Mormons and a few break away groups who retain the same beliefs as we do have very strong reasons not to follow that path.

[Stargazer]

CFR that gay supporters ever "attacked as absurd" the "arguement" that gays and lesbians would "ultimately demand to marry their same-sex partners," or denied that same-sex couples wouldn't want to marry once homosexuality was de-criminalized, or argued that fighting for same-sex marriage "can never happen!"

Can't fulfil your CFR, D. Sorry! It was a discussion or set of discussions I heard many years ago, and the argument for absurdity was used by the pro-gay rights side when the side taking the contrary side of the argument advanced it. I can't document it because I heard it; I think on a radio broadcast, but I'm not even sure of that any more. A memory is a terrible thing to waste.

I believe you are unwittingly conflating two separate arguments--a) that homosexuality should be decriminalized, and b) that there would be no slippery slope toward marrying inanimate objects, children, or animals. I do not believe that gay advocates ever suggested that gay and lesbian individuals, themselves, would not want the right to legally and consensually marry their partner of the same gender. In fact, the opposite was true – many saw and acknowledge even today that the decriminalization of homosexuality was a major step towards marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Daniel2

Maybe. I don't think what I recall hearing was any conflation on my part. I still think slippery slope is a valid pathway, though. After all, I have slid down slippery slopes in my own personal life, at times. I know the pathway well.

It's like taxation. Once you allow that an very small income tax is acceptable, well, then a confiscatory income tax is surely down the road at some point. Give an inch and a mile will eventually be taken.

If you don't see it, then I don't know how to acquaint you with it. I remember the bad old days when undercover vice cops would visit public rest rooms solely for the purpose of entrapping men in deviant sexual behavior. Once that was done away with, well, then open homosexual partnerships were next on the journey, even if the laws against homosexual activities were still on the books, and now here we are. Those of us who were disgusted by the blatant disregard of privacy that anti-homosexual laws engendered, and who were relieved when they were done away with, would have preferred to stop right there. But no, the slope was greased, as should have been obvious.

When we get to the bottom of the slope then we will be there, I guess.

I still can't make myself call it marriage, however, because it isn't. Sorry.

[Stargazer]

And if a group of consenting adults wants to enter into such relationships, I will probably defend their right to do so as well.

So will I, probably.

[Stargazer]

So a gay man, like myself, is allowed to marry a woman he doesn't love romantically but not allowed to marry a man he romantically loves? Got it...that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever and is part of the anti propaganda.

I say this at every opportunity, but nobody cares. Nevertheless, here I go again.

Yes, you are allowed to marry a woman you don't love, just as I am allowed to marry a woman I don't love (although my wife and the State of Washington might take issue with it, since that particular docking slot is filled). But you can't marry a man you romantically love, because it is not marriage. It makes perfect sense, and it isn't anti anything.

Two men cannot marry each other, and neither can two women. It is not marriage. Marriage has always been, and always will be between opposite sexes. If you want to call a sexual partnership/relationship between two persons of the same sex a marriage, I cannot stop you, but whatever you want to call it, it is not marriage.

You want to be offended by this? Go ahead, it's a free country. I'm not anti-you, anti-your-partner, or anti-anything. I am pro calling things what they are.

Some might look at a Ford Shelby Mustang and refer to it as a Dodge Viper. But, calling it what it is not, does not change what it is.

[california boy]

Two men cannot marry each other, and neither can two women. It is not marriage.

I think this is why gay marriage is before the Supreme Court. Two men want the right to marry. I am not sure why this is completely lost on you when you pretend that it is about the right for a gay man to marry a woman.

[cdowis]

Yes, you are allowed to marry a woman you don't love, just as I am allowed to marry a woman I don't love

Good point.

AND you cannot marry a woman that you love if she is already married. The institution of marriage has rules and boundaries, even if you don't like them.

On the other hand, you are free to live with anyone that you want to, and find your "happiness" outside the boundaries of marriage.

[Stargazer]

I think this is why gay marriage is before the Supreme Court. Two men want the right to marry. I am not sure why this is completely lost on you when you pretend that it is about the right for a gay man to marry a woman.

It's not lost on me. It's completely lost on you. I am not "pretending" anything of the kind. I am stating the bald fact that marriage is a matter between opposite-sexed individuals, not between same-sexed individuals. You can try to stuff YOUR words into my mouth all you want, and it won't make the slightest difference. Maybe it makes you feel better, but if so that's all it's worth.

"Two men want the right to marry" you say. Fine, no problem, they have that right already. Either or both of them can marry a woman, whether they are gay or straight. They can't marry each other, it is not possible. If they want to live together in a sexual partnership with each other, great, go for it, it's not my lookout, don't bother me with it, it's their problem/joy/millstone/happiness/sadness/comfort. They can even CALL it marriage if they want.

But just as I wrote earlier that calling a Shelby Mustang a Dodge Viper does not MAKE it a Dodge Viper, calling the relationship of two same-sexed individuals a marriage does not MAKE it a marriage. I don't care how many state or federal laws say so, or how many supreme courts affirm it or deny it, it is what it is, and it is not marriage.

Do you get it now? If you want to call such a relationship a marriage, go for it, I'm not going to knock on your door, locate your wedding certificate and tear it up, and I am going to treat your relationship with respect, but I will absolutely not call it is a marriage, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A MARRIAGE. It's something else. Find a word. A nice word! I don't care. The word which formerly meant "happy and cheerful" has been co-opted to mean something completely different, so maybe you can use that instead to coin an analog to the word "marriage". Perhaps "gayaige" if that doesn't sound too grotesque. Hell, call it "transcendaige", "wonderfulaige", "gloriousaige". Or CALL it marriage, but don't expect me to agree with you that it's marriage.

Because it is not.

[Stone holm]

It's not lost on me. It's completely lost on you. I am not "pretending" anything of the kind. I am stating the bald fact that marriage is a matter between opposite-sexed individuals, not between same-sexed individuals. You can try to stuff YOUR words into my mouth all you want, and it won't make the slightest difference. Maybe it makes you feel better, but if so that's all it's worth.

"Two men want the right to marry" you say. Fine, no problem, they have that right already. Either or both of them can marry a woman, whether they are gay or straight. They can't marry each other, it is not possible. If they want to live together in a sexual partnership with each other, great, go for it, it's not my lookout, don't bother me with it, it's their problem/joy/millstone/happiness/sadness/comfort. They can even CALL it marriage if they want.

But just as I wrote earlier that calling a Shelby Mustang a Dodge Viper does not MAKE it a Dodge Viper, calling the relationship of two same-sexed individuals a marriage does not MAKE it a marriage. I don't care how many state or federal laws say so, or how many supreme courts affirm it or deny it, it is what it is, and it is not marriage.

Do you get it now? If you want to call such a relationship a marriage, go for it, I'm not going to knock on your door, locate your wedding certificate and tear it up, and I am going to treat your relationship with respect, but I will absolutely not call it is a marriage, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A MARRIAGE. It's something else. Find a word. A nice word! I don't care. The word which formerly meant "happy and cheerful" has been co-opted to mean something completely different, so maybe you can use that instead to coin an analog to the word "marriage". Perhaps "gayaige" if that doesn't sound too grotesque. Hell, call it "transcendaige", "wonderfulaige", "gloriousaige". Or CALL it marriage, but don't expect me to agree with you that it's marriage.

Because it is not.

Well we may not consider it a marriage according to our religion, but "marriage" in a legal sense is whatever the law defines it to be. The question as to whether it is the same if call by another name is the question that Massachusetts certified to its Supreme Court when Mitt Romney was governor down there since they wanted to make the status exactly the same except not call it marriage, the Massachusetts Court said no that wouldn't do. That is the exact question that Prop 8 is all about and the litigation over Prop 8. The old saying that a rose, by any other name is still a rose -- apparently does not apply to reltionships, the term "married" carries with it a certain undefined especial respect. So this comes down to what Wade Wenglund refers to as pragmatic stigma. It is felt that naming the relationship something other than marriage, so your adopted children can't say that their parents are married carries with it a social stigma. And that is what the battle is over, will we tolerate stigma being placed on a class of people because of religious differences as to a secular status that carries with it legal rights and is a status created by the government.

[Stargazer]

Well we may not consider it a marriage according to our religion, but "marriage" in a legal sense is whatever the law defines it to be. The question as to whether it is the same if call by another name is the question that Massachusetts certified to its Supreme Court when Mitt Romney was governor down there since they wanted to make the status exactly the same except not call it marriage, the Massachusetts Court said no that wouldn't do. That is the exact question that Prop 8 is all about and the litigation over Prop 8. The old saying that a rose, by any other name is still a rose -- apparently does not apply to reltionships, the term "married" carries with it a certain undefined especial respect. So this comes down to what Wade Wenglund refers to as pragmatic stigma. It is felt that naming the relationship something other than marriage, so your adopted children can't say that their parents are married carries with it a social stigma. And that is what the battle is over, will we tolerate stigma being placed on a class of people because of religious differences as to a secular status that carries with it legal rights and is a status created by the government.

If the Congress should pass a law tomorrow, and it were subsequently signed by the President into law, that henceforth all Roses should be called Hyacinths and vice-versa, it would not change the fact that Roses are Roses, Hyacinths are Hyachinths, and humans foolishly think that calling something by a different name changes it in some way.

We are long past the point (in this country at least) where a stigma exists on you because your parent aren't married to each other. I don't know what you're talking about, otherwise.

[Stone holm]

If the Congress should pass a law tomorrow, and it were subsequently signed by the President into law, that henceforth all Roses should be called Hyacinths and vice-versa, it would not change the fact that Roses are Roses, Hyacinths are Hyachinths, and humans foolishly think that calling something by a different name changes it in some way.

We are long past the point (in this country at least) where a stigma exists on you because your parent aren't married to each other. I don't know what you're talking about, otherwise.

Yeah, that logic doesn't work when we are talking about a relationship which exists under the law because of a legal definition. We can for example say an adopted child is not the adoptive parents child, but the law defines the relationship and says the child is the parents child. There is no difference here. We are talking about words not physical objects. I understand your feelings and admire your religious loyalty to the concept, unfortunately that doesn't make the argument have traction.