Did the LDS Church advocate for adoption of legislation

[Mordecai]

mordecai do you think less of your marriage, because ssm is legal in parts of the United States and world? (if you are married)

Do you think less of marriage in general, because ssm is legal in parts of the United States and world?

No, but then again, I don't think Coca Cola is great, just because the commercials say it is. But if Coca Cola commercials don't work, why do they spend so much money on them? I'll tell you why. They influence young people to drink it for the rest of their lives, kind of like the SSM kool-aid you guys are selling, that will influence children. I never said I was a victim here. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully.

[Mordecai]

Marriage is not a commodity, that can be bought, sold, traded or valued.

It can't be valued? Really? Because I'm 100% certain that it can be valued.

The assertion that marriage would lose its value is an assertion that has zero substance.

It's not about substance. It's about language and its connection to free speech, which leads to free thought. You're advocating for New Speak to trick everyone that your way is True and Righteous.

At best, your argument is based an irrational supposition that is gays are allowed to marry, then some people may choose not to marry.

No, I said people would become confused about the value of marriage, and it's importance to family and child rearing and that the cause was the gov't adopting your homodogma. At no point did I suggest that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is based on the obviously false premise that they are currently not allowed. They are allowed. They just are dissuaded from doing so by their own homosexual urges.

I say irrational, because no one has offered a rational explanation as to why a heterosexual couple would choose not to marry, just because gays are permitted to marry.

Strawman argument on two different levels. You can't seem to comprehend what I'm saying here, it seems, or you're being blatantly dishonest. The argument is that marriage will lose its value, because the government, as an authority, will influence people to think differently about what marriage is and what its value is. The argument is not, as the SSM advocates continually claim, that allowing gay people to "marry" will do anything in itself. It's the gov't adopting an obviously false dogma that is the problem.

Another specious argument. Heterosexuals will still marry, and have children.

In reality, no one is stopping them. A marriage is "carrying out of the decision to live as husband and wife,"... at least in non-homogenized dictionaries from a couple of years ago. It's not, "The gov't calls you married, so that means you are." A name doesn't make lead the same as gold, just like a label will not make a gay union into a marriage. Gay people have a biological urge that dissuades them from having a real marriage. Their impostor, the "same sex marriage," is sociologically irrelevant and has had no important roles in any of history. It's like saying that lead is gold. You have to completely ignore the obvious to argue for that.

Again, why do you care SO much about gay people's feelings but not about the rest of society? Our feelings matter, too. Of course, that's kind of a moot point, when the issue is the law. Irrational laws are not just laws. A justice system that is not just is not a real justice system, so get your ridiculous dogma out of our court systems and leave this to democracy instead.

[Pahoran]

do any of you think less of your marriages since ssm became legal?

Frankie,

When are you going to stop making blatantly dishonest arguments?

Prop 8 was over two years ago. Don't you think it's time you and Johnny got over it?

The notion that any married person should think less of their marriage since spineless lawmakers started pretending that there was such a thing as "same sex marriage" is nonsense, and you know it. Not one traditional marriage advocate has ever claimed that such would be the case.

The devaluation of marriage that we rightly foresee applies to the rising generation, and works something like this:

1. John asks Marsha to move in with him.
   
2. Marsha says that she wants to wait until they can get married.
   
3. John asks Marsha what's so great about being married.
   
4. Marsha says, "Because it's traditional, and it's old-fashioned, and we'll be living a fully moral life together."
   
5. John retorts, "You mean just like the two queers down the street?"
   
6. Marsha is flummoxed and has no comeback.
   

And thus is marriage devalued.

Paul said: "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed thereof undefiled." A "same sex marriage" is dishonourable in every way, and the bed thereof thoroughly defiled. It does nothing but give state sanction to gross immorality. For any plausibly faithful Latter-day Saint, this isn't even a question.

Oh yes: and FWIW, the notion that non-proft entities should be gagged in the public square, their silence being the price of their tax exemption, is anti-democratic, spiteful, censorious, punitive, bullying and just plain nasty.

And those are its good points.

Now: it has been reasonably well established that the Church was both educating the public about the issues, and advocating for adoption of legislation. That being established, I can't see a single reason for this thread to continue.

And although it is nowise up to me, if I had my way, you'd be told not to start any more of your endless, ad nauseam Prop-8 threads.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

When are you going to stop making blatantly dishonest arguments?

CFR that I have ever created a dishonest thread or argument.

the oft repeated statement marriage will be devalued or something like unto that.

So it is perfectly honest and reasonable to ask a person if they devalue marriage, given that ssm has been legal in the United States for some years now. and it was not until that question was asked that person seemingly stepped back on the statement with a clarification.

Oh yes: and FWIW, the notion that non-proft entities should be gagged in the public square, their silence being the price of their tax exemption, is anti-democratic, spiteful, censorious, punitive, bullying and just plain nasty.

And those are its good points. ...

And although it is nowise up to me, if I had my way, you'd be told not to start any more of your endless, ad nauseam Prop-8 threads.

Regards,

Pahoran

you would censor, bully, punish and be just plain nasty to someone who challenges the your view point. yep Matthew 23 is perfect

[Analytics]

The devaluation of marriage that we rightly foresee applies to the rising generation, and works something like this:

1. John asks Marsha to move in with him.
   
2. Marsha says that she wants to wait until they can get married.
   
3. John asks Marsha what's so great about being married.
   
4. Marsha says, "Because it's traditional, and it's old-fashioned, and we'll be living a fully moral life together."
   
5. John retorts, "You mean just like the two queers down the street?"
   
6. Marsha is flummoxed and has no comeback.
   

And thus is marriage devalued.

If John would be marriage material, he would have said "okay" in response to #2.

If Marsha had half a brain, she could have easily came back with "exactly."

Thanks for clearly illustrating how contrived the

[Analytics]

The devaluation of marriage that we rightly foresee applies to the rising generation, and works something like this:

1. John asks Marsha to move in with him.
   
2. Marsha says that she wants to wait until they can get married.
   
3. John asks Marsha what's so great about being married.
   
4. Marsha says, "Because it's traditional, and it's old-fashioned, and we'll be living a fully moral life together."
   
5. John retorts, "You mean just like the two queers down the street?"
   
6. Marsha is flummoxed and has no comeback.
   

And thus is marriage devalued.

Thinking more about it, what

[Jaybear]

[*]John replies, "Good point

[Mordecai]

...it

[Jaybear]

So gay behavior is now a teacher and a guide for straight people?

You can say what you want about gays, but one thing you can't dispute is that they know how to throw a wedding reception.

Those wedding reception held in a gym, with crepe paper, balloons, punch and jello, ehh, they evoke a duty to attend, not a desire to attend.

[frankenstein]

I would point out that with Pahoron story, morals are relative.

Now, LDS folk will disagree that morals are relative.

For those that believe in God, morals are what God says, and He reserves the right to clarify or seemingly command against what He established (Nephi beheading laban, Jacob's writing about plural marriage, Nathan speaking to David about Bathsheba). And religious folk are just fine and accepting of said complications.

But for a secular society, US Society, that is a Society with no official religion or no state mandated under penalty of punishment religion, morals are relative to society. Hence bestiality is not illegal in some US States. Adultery was illegal in Az till 1995, in one state a woman having an affair with another woman was not adultery *this was with in the last decade or so, I think New Jersey* the use of a four letter word is protected speech if the use is a non-sexual use.

Morals in our the American society are relative to the community; hence the legal test for pornography uses community standards.

[Analytics]

You do realize that "hip" implies that it's trendy, suggesting it's NOT a tradition? LOL You can't have it be hip and traditional at the same time. "Gay marriage" is really hip these days but that would never make real marriage hip, because real marriage is not trendy.

"Trendy" simply means that it's in with the latest trends. Traditional things are in fact subject to trends. For example, a Manhattan is a traditional cocktail, but that doesn

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Oh yes: and FWIW, the notion that non-proft entities should be gagged in the public square, their silence being the price of their tax exemption, is anti-democratic, spiteful, censorious, punitive, bullying and just plain nasty.

And those are its good points. ...

And although it is nowise up to me, if I had my way, you'd be told not to start any more of your endless, ad nauseam Prop-8 threads.

Regards,

Pahoran

you would censor, bully, punish and be just plain nasty to someone who challenges the your view point. yep Matthew 23 is perfect

You just described the pro ssm group to a tee frankenstein, they did exactly that, bully, punish, drove people from their jobs. Those who sought to preserve marriage and not devalue it were not the ones acting like a lynch mob, they were respectful. My you people have short term memories.

[frankenstein]

You just described the pro ssm group to a tee frankenstein, they did exactly that, bully, punish, drove people from their jobs. Those who sought to preserve marriage and not devalue it were not the ones acting like a lynch mob, they were respectful. My you people have short term memories.

No, I described exactly what pahoron rails against; yet at the same time he would seeks to commit those acts he finds so despicable. hence Matthew 23.

[Jeff K.]

You described the pro ssm group, not paharon who as far as anyone knows has not intimidated anyone. Or is the sauce of the gander too hot for the goose?

[Mordecai]

You can say what you want about gays, but one thing you can't dispute is that they know how to throw a wedding reception.

Those wedding reception held in a gym, with crepe paper, balloons, punch and jello, ehh, they evoke a duty to attend, not a desire to attend.

Never been... maybe my gay buddy will have a reception with some dude. I might feel a little weird going, but I'm betting it would be a dang good reception. lol

[Pahoran]

CFR that I have ever created a dishonest thread or argument.

the oft repeated statement marriage will be devalued or something like unto that.

So it is perfectly honest and reasonable to ask a person if they devalue marriage, given that ssm has been legal in the United States for some years now. and it was not until that question was asked that person seemingly stepped back on the statement with a clarification.

No, it is not "perfectly honest and reasonable" to ask a question that has nothing to do with the problem at hand and pretend that it does. The straw man fallacy, as exemplified by your question, "do you think less of your marriage, because ssm is legal in parts of the United States and world?" relies upon an intentional misrepresentation of your opponents' argument. No marriage defender has ever claimed such a thing, either in your hearing or otherwise.

you would censor, bully, punish and be just plain nasty to someone who challenges the your view point. yep Matthew 23 is perfect

I would do no such thing; you made that up, of course.

The fact is that I cannot remember a five-minute period, in the last year or so, wherein there has not been at least one thread on the first page that was started by you, and which attempted to relitigate the Church's involvement in Prop. 8. Sometimes, as in this thread, you have been open about what you were trying to achieve; on other occasions you've been less so, and it has been necessary to confront you about your real agenda in order to get you to admit it. All I'm saying is that sooner or later, enough will have to be enough. Luckily for you, it's not up to me to say when that will be, so for the present, you are free to keep on starting thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread after thread to keep sawing away on your one-string fiddle.

Yay. Or something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Pahoran seems to think that as more people get married, it becomes less valuable.

Pahoran thinks no such thing; which of course is entirely sufficient to explain why you would assert that.

As you perfectly well know, Jaybear, Pahoran is alarmed by the decline of marriage -- real marriage, just so we're clear -- in many or most first-world countries. Pahoran is in favour of society abandoning the practice of "living together," and returning to the practice of getting married and staying married. And that you may have no further occasion to misrepresent my position (although, of course, you will) Pahoran thinks everyone should do it.

What I am opposed to is attaching the label of "marriage" to relationships that are not. The solution to a decline in marriage is not to extend the definition of marriage to include other relationships; that will merely hasten the decline. If a government was alarmed by the decline in its economy, and sought to create more wealth by declaring that the definition of a dollar would be expanded to include paper napkins, then very soon a dollar would only be worth as much as a paper napkin.

Now it happens that marriage -- unlike fiat currency -- has real, intrinsic value. However, it is not its real value that causes people to want to enter into it, but its perceived value. And as the boundaries collapse, it becomes increasingly unclear just what a marriage is; and so the reasons for getting married become correspondingly fuzzy.

Faithful Latter-day Saints are unanimous in not wanting to see a post-marriage society emerge; but that is the clear consequence of destroying the definition of marriage. If there's nothing that isn't a marriage, then what's the point?

Rather like a lot of Americans wonder what's the point of even having a border between the US and Mexico...

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

Pahoran thinks no such thing; which of course is entirely sufficient to explain why you would assert that.

I made the assertion because by doing so, I created to opportunity to bring some humor into the discussion. And its funny because its true.

As you perfectly well know, Jaybear, Pahoran is alarmed by the decline of marriage -- real marriage, just so we're clear -- in many or most first-world countries. Pahoran is in favour of society abandoning the practice of "living together," and returning to the practice of getting married and staying married. And that you may have no further occasion to misrepresent my position (although, of course, you will) Pahoran thinks everyone should do it.

Are you also in favor of rainbows and lolipops?

Your stated preference that people marry, and stay married, is rather meaningless unless you are also in favor of passing laws which penalize premarital sex, or make it difficult to divorce.

I also am also in favor of marriage, but I also recognize that intimacy, marriage and divorce are a personal matters between consenting adults. Premarital sex, and divorce happen in a society when people are allowed to make their own choices.

The solution to a decline in marriage is not to extend the definition of marriage to include other relationships; that will merely hasten the decline.

Here is the truth of the statement emerges.

In CA, it was estimated that some 15,000 gay couples took advantage of the opportunity to marry before Prop 8 took away their right.

Your groundless, specious argument is that because all these extra couples took the opportunity to marry, marriage became less valuable.

Do you know how they derived that commonly accepted figure? A: That was the number of additional wedding licenses that were issued, beyond what would have been normally anticipated.

When gays were permitted to marry, 30,000 more people in california got married.

Hence I attributed to you the assertion that "marriage becomes less valuable," as more people marry.

Now it happens that marriage -- unlike fiat currency -- has real, intrinsic value. However, it is not its real value that causes people to want to enter into it, but its perceived value. And as the boundaries collapse, it becomes increasingly unclear just what a marriage is; and so the reasons for getting married become correspondingly fuzzy.

Meaningless empty hyperbolic rhetoric.

The only people that would perceive marriage to have less "value" whatever that means, if gays are allowed to marry, are those people who are opposed to the concept of gay marriage.

Of course these are the same people have their own narrow definition of marriage. They won't change their perception of marriage. These people will just consider gay marriage to be a "lesser" form of marriage.

Faithful Latter-day Saints are unanimous in not wanting to see a post-marriage society emerge; but that is the clear consequence of destroying the definition of marriage. If there's nothing that isn't a marriage, then what's the point?

Yeah, right. In the LDS community there are marriages, and then there are celestial marriages. They are not viewed the same. Broadening the scope of those who can marry civilly, will not impact the LDS desire to enter into a celestial marriage.

Rather like a lot of Americans wonder what's the point of even having a border between the US and Mexico...

In a world where hyperbole is reality, that a very good point.

[Jeff K.]

Pahoran, on 13 February 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Pahoran thinks no such thing; which of course is entirely sufficient to explain why you would assert that.

I made the assertion because by doing so, I created to opportunity to bring some humor into the discussion. And its funny because its true.

The one thing you don't bring to the table is humor, at least not the good kind. Derisive ridicule is not humor, angry screeds against everyone is not humor. A lack of facts to bolster your opinions, now that is humorous but you don't intentionally bring it. The last sentence pretty much displays your anger not your humor.

Quote

As you perfectly well know, Jaybear, Pahoran is alarmed by the decline of marriage -- real marriage, just so we're clear -- in many or most first-world countries. Pahoran is in favour of society abandoning the practice of "living together," and returning to the practice of getting married and staying married. And that you may have no further occasion to misrepresent my position (although, of course, you will) Pahoran thinks everyone should do it.

Are you also in favor of rainbows and lolipops?

Your stated preference that people marry, and stay married, is rather meaningless unless you are also in favor of passing laws which penalize premarital sex, or make it difficult to divorce.

I also am also in favor of marriage, but I also recognize that intimacy, marriage and divorce are a personal matters between consenting adults. Premarital sex, and divorce happen in a society when people are allowed to make their own choices.

Are you also in favor of rainbows and lolipops?

I take it this passes for humor?

The marriage you are in favor of is a marriage that most would not recognize as real. More like a much cheaper artificial shadow of what it should be. And of course you favor making it an even greater mockery. Intimates acts are personal matters between consenting adults, marriage is much more than that.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

The solution to a decline in marriage is not to extend the definition of marriage to include other relationships; that will merely hasten the decline.

Here is the truth of the statement emerges.

In CA, it was estimated that some 15,000 gay couples took advantage of the opportunity to marry before Prop 8 took away their right.

Your groundless, specious argument is that because all these extra couples took the opportunity to marry, marriage became less valuable.

Do you know how they derived that commonly accepted figure? A: That was the number of additional wedding licenses that were issued, beyond what would have been normally anticipated.

When gays were permitted to marry, 30,000 more people in california got married.

Hence I attributed to you the assertion that "marriage becomes less valuable," as more people marry.

And of course you will increase your ardor to help pederasts marry their legally viable partners (after all the consent age is 16 I believe) thus strengthening the institute of marriage even more with greater volume.

Volume has never ever matched the quality of what marriage should be. Most people know that, others do not. I will give you a hundred cubic zirconiums and you will say that increases the value of those trinkets to the level of diamonds. But only a fool would believe you.

[frankenstein]

No, it is not "perfectly honest and reasonable" to ask a question that has nothing to do with the problem at hand and pretend that it does.

Regards,

Pahoran

you can either honor the CFR, ie. you accuse me of creating dishonest thread. Or you can retract. Those are the board rules as I understand the board rules to be.

So, once again, CFR, that I have created dishonest threads. Please reference the "blatantly dishonest" thread(s).

No marriage defender has ever claimed such a thing, either in your hearing or otherwise.

When someone says "ssm devalues marriage" and the speaker is married, then, and ONLY IF, the speaker makes a clarifying statement, a reasonable assumption to make is that the speaker thinks less of their marriage or that their marriage has been devalued; because marriage would include a coupling other than one man and one woman.

----------------------------

and to address your example

The devaluation of marriage that we rightly foresee applies to the rising generation, and works something like this:

• John asks Marsha to move in with him.
• Marsha says that she wants to wait until they can get married.
• John asks Marsha what's so great about being married.
• Marsha says, "Because it's traditional, and it's old-fashioned, and we'll be living a fully moral life together."
• John retorts, "You mean just like the two queers down the street?"
• Marsha is flummoxed and has no comeback.

And thus is marriage devalued.

firstly, I appreciate that you are the first to directly to make the distinction as to "rising generation" rather than the implication that immediate devaluation occurs.

secondly, it would appear Marsha sees no more value in marriage than tradition. She does mention moral life, but she becomes "flummoxed" and has no response. Also, Marsha would seemingly have grown up knowing about ssm, yet Marsha still mentions "tradition", so how much is marriage devalued to Marsha, when rather than shaking up and most likely having premarital sex, she would have marriage so she could have sex without guilt.

If you were to speak for Marsha what would be your response? Surely there is more to marriage than tradition or moral life?

[Pahoran]

I made the assertion because by doing so, I created to opportunity to bring some humor into the discussion. And its funny because its true.

Evidently it's funny to you because it's false. After all, it's a fact that it is false, and you evidently find it funny.

Your stated preference that people marry, and stay married, is rather meaningless unless you are also in favor of passing laws which penalize premarital sex, or make it difficult to divorce.

Another falsehood, which explains why you make it. You undoubtedly prefer a great many things that you have no expectation of seeing enshrined in law; as do I.

Here is the truth of the statement emerges.

In CA, it was estimated that some 15,000 gay couples took advantage of the opportunity to marry before Prop 8 took away their right.

Your groundless, specious argument is that because all these extra couples took the opportunity to marry, marriage became less valuable.

Do you know how they derived that commonly accepted figure? A: That was the number of additional wedding licenses that were issued, beyond what would have been normally anticipated.

When gays were permitted to marry, 30,000 more people in california got married.

Hence I attributed to you the assertion that "marriage becomes less valuable," as more people marry.

And you undoubtedly knew your attribution to be false. Hey, that's okay; I know you prefer them that way.

Had those been 15,000 new real marriages -- i.e. each one of them being a real man marrying a real woman -- they would have tended to strengthen the institution of marriage. And thus, I would have been delighted.

However, they were not. If your figures are to be believed, they were 15,000 pseudo marriages -- i.e. non-marital relationships that were counterfactually declared to be marriages by judicial fiat -- and therefore they tended to weaken the institution of marriage.

(In which case, you are, of course, delighted. But I digress.)

Meaningless empty hyperbolic rhetoric.

That's what you post, all right.

The only people that would perceive marriage to have less "value" whatever that means, if gays are allowed to marry, are those people who are opposed to the concept of gay marriage.

You mean, "those people" who value real marriage, and do not wish to see it dragged down into the gutter.

Real marriage is an entirely honourable institution; the mere name of marriage, however, does not have the power to sanctify something that is inherently filthy.

However, something that is inherently filthy does have the power to sully something pure. Which is jsut one of many reasons why homosexuality and marriage are fundamentally incompatible with each other.

The fact that "weddings," in which the principals wear matching lavender suits, are the fad du jour down in the village does not mean that there is, or ever could be, anything meaningful in the oxymoronic expression "same sex marriage."

Of course these are the same people have their own narrow definition of marriage. They won't change their perception of marriage. These people will just consider gay marriage to be a "lesser" form of marriage.

Actually it is the true definition of marriage. The same one the SCOTUS relied upon in Loving v. Virginia, i.e. the union of a man and a woman.

Yeah, right. In the LDS community there are marriages, and then there are celestial marriages. They are not viewed the same. Broadening the scope of those who can marry civilly, will not impact the LDS desire to enter into a celestial marriage.

Of course not; John and Marsha were never imagined to be an LDS couple. But knowing the truth, as we do, we have a responsibility to the larger community; the one in which we have to live and our children have to grow up; the one that becomes more unstable every year, as more and more children are born out of wedlock and raised by a single parent.

In a world where hyperbole is reality, that a very good point.

Thank you for resorting to mere ridicule. If the collapse of one kind of boundary is meaningfully analogous to the collapse of another, then there is no hyperbole in view, and you know it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

So why is it that an Amerindian child's adoption outside the tribe is void no matter what intervening judicial adventurism occurs, yet nobody had the testicular fortitude to declare those alleged 15K "marriages" to be void upon the CA Supreme Court's striking down the attacks on Prop 8?

[frankenstein]

yet nobody had the testicular fortitude to declare those alleged 15K "marriages" to be void upon the CA Supreme Court's striking down the attacks on Prop 8?

wouldn't negating those 18k marriage violate the US Constitution in a different way, that is the prohibition on retro active laws?

the lack of "testicular fortitude" could just as easily be sound lawyering on the side of the proponents of prop 8. fight a EPC fight rather than a fight on retro actively enforcing laws. thought I do believe the the California Supreme Court did ask in oral argument if those 18k marriages should be affected by the prop 8 definition of marriage.

[USU78]

wouldn't negating those 18k marriage violate the US Constitution in a different way, that is the prohibition on retro active laws?

the lack of "testicular fortitude" could just as easily be sound lawyering on the side of the proponents of prop 8. fight a EPC fight rather than a fight on retro actively enforcing laws. thought I do believe the the California Supreme Court did ask in oral argument if those 18k marriages should be affected by the prop 8 definition of marriage.

You're quite missing the point. Nobody either has a problem with the fundamental racism of the laws prohibiting adoption of children with a certain percentage of "da blood," and nobody has a problem with subsequent courts striking down judicially blessed adoptions as void because of the presence of "da blood." Nobody has a problem with "retro active laws" in that context. It is only when a darling of judicial activism and liberal theology, SSM, is involved that somebody suddenly has a problem with voiding plainly void/voidable "marriages."

If you don't understand the argument, sit and look out the window.