Is Marriage A Civil Right?

[Mark Beesley]

I didn't say they deserve special protection. Gay sex is legal and will happen regardless of whether or not gay people are married. Removing the ban on same-sex marriage does not give gay sex any "special protection," or any protection at all.

I guess we need to come to terms with what the legal purpose of marriage is. I see it as a protective device, i.e. recognition by the State of the relationship so that other laws, such as tax laws, can be specially appled. In theory it protects a spouse from disclosure of private matters, i.e. the spousal privilege.

Gotta go.

Anybody changed their mind yet as a result of these SSM threads?

[Cobalt-70]

I guess we need to come to terms with what the legal purpose of marriage is. I see it as a protective device, i.e. recognition by the State of the relationship so that other laws, such as tax laws, can be specially appled. In theory it protects a spouse from disclosure of private matters, i.e. the spousal privilege.

These are protections, yes, but not protections of sex.

[KevinG]

Anybody changed their mind yet as a result of these SSM threads?

Yup. I respond to them a lot less than I used to.

[california boy]

We do not pass laws to increase morality.

lol. If we do not pass laws to increase morality, the why did the church say they were getting involved in prop 8 because it was a MORAL issue???? I think you shot yourself in the foot on that comment.

We pass laws to punish behavior that the laws deems to be wrong.

So was the church pushing to pass prop 8 to punish gay couples for being gay and wanting more stable committed relationships??

We pass laws to protect those who engage in behavior the law deems to right.

And just who is protected by the church pushing to pass prop 8?

A law that permits gay marriage does neither. Thus, such a law is unwise and unnecessary.

A law that permits gay marriage does exactly for gay couples what marriage laws do for straight couples. I don't think you would say that marriage laws for straight couples is unwise and unnecessary.

[Analytics]

I guess we need to come to terms with what the legal purpose of marriage is. I see it as a protective device, i.e. recognition by the State of the relationship so that other laws, such as tax laws, can be specially appled. In theory it protects a spouse from disclosure of private matters, i.e. the spousal privilege.

Gotta go.

Anybody changed their mind yet as a result of these SSM threads?

These are protections, yes, but not protections of sex.

Exactly. People in favor of same-sex marriage frame their arguments in terms of rights and protections for people. People who oppose same-sex marriage frame their arguments in terms of protecting the abstract "institution of marriage."

[california boy]

California Boy:

"So the churches statement that they were getting involved in Prop 8 because it was a moral issue was just the pr reason for getting involved?".

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

I would be glad to explain to you what I ment.We live in a time when it seems to be popular to make statements that make companies, political campaigns and yes even churchs that sound good, and is what people want to hear, but have no actual basis of fact. A politician may say that he is the balanced budget candidate. But when you look at his voting record, he did nothing to indicated he was doing anything to balance the budget. Or a corporation may say they are a green company, but when you ask them exactly how they are green, they can produce no actual evidence. The statements they make are solely for pr value. It makes them look good when in fact there is no support for their statements.

You made the statement

thesometimesaint, on 30 November 2011 - 10:35 AM, said:

California Boy

Because we have Scriptures and instructions from people whom we recognize as prophets of God that have said that homosexual marriage is against Gods will, and immoral. As a church there need be no other reason.

When asked for some kind of proof that the churches involvement was because it was a moral issue, you could not come up with any. So you simply said it was a moral decision because the prophet said it was. That kind of statement is the same thing as a company saying they are a green company because they say it is a green company with no apparent proof that they are.

If the church says prop 8 is a moral issue, they should be able to explain exactly who or what will be more moral if prop 8 is passed. If not, why call it a moral issue? The answer? Because it is good PR statement. Hope that clears things up for you.

[Damien the Leper]

I have to make a judgment between right and wrong, as does everyone else. It is the purpose of life. "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." Abraham 3:25

You are acting as if I am just making things up about morality instead of relying on the inspired counsel of prophets and apostles about purity and morality.

There is a difference between having a right to do something and government sponsorship of immoral things. The government does not give legal celebration to wearing immodest clothes, vulgar language, rated R movies and etc. even though it does allow those things to happen. We are not talking about people having the right to unnatural sexual deviancy but the right to having the government sponsor and approve of it. You have the right to look at pornography. That's not the same as the government saying that pornography is good and has the same standing as uplifting movies. Being able to indulge in homosexual acts is not the same as the government recognizing homosexual marriage as equal to and just as good as moral, traditional families.

Keep in mind Mr. Goodmansen that there is a big difference between what God actually says and what someone says God said. They are mutually exclusive. While something may be inspirational does not mean that it was divinely dictated nor divinely mandated.

[Damien the Leper]

The fallacy of the question is that even if marriage is a civil right whether homosexuals would be entitled to it. People who live an immoral lifestyle are not entitled to civil rights. While the Bretheren have not opposed extending some rights to homosexual couples, that is a gratuitous privilege. Also, unlike ethnicity, which is just how you are born, homosexuality is at best a choice and at worse a temptation that can be cured.

Thank you Boyd K. Packer of 1978. Thankfully, "God Loveth His Children" provides a more refreshing stance than that of the uninspired counsel given by Packer to the Twelve Stake Fireside titled albeit ignorantly "To The One.""

The Church has grown up since then...perhaps you should grow with it too.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

I am not confusing the two. Approving some right to homosexual marriage is the same as approving the homosexual lifestyle. A poster (I think it was Pahoran but I have to reread) correctly pointed out that there is no law prohibiting homosexual people from getting married at all. It is simply illegal for homosexuals to marry each other.

I think you need to be careful about buying into this philosophy that people are born gay or blaming Heavenly Father for "making" some people be gay. If that is the case then it is hard to explain why two people who are homosexual and "love" each other should not be able to get married like everyone else. But if we stop supposing that Heavenly Father would make people have an inclination to a lifestyle He has condemned then it makes more sense to define marriage in terms of traditional morality.

Perhaps you shouldn't undermine the full capacity of God's omniscience and ability to create that which He wishes. Keep in mind Mr. Goodmansen that scripture, poorly stated at times as 'written revelation', is infact the human response to God and not necessarily dictated by God. You need to educate yourself of this.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Valentinus

[Pahoran]

Keep in mind Mr. Goodmansen that there is a big difference between what God actually says and what someone says God said. They are mutually exclusive. While something may be inspirational does not mean that it was divinely dictated nor divinely mandated.

"Mutually exclusive" means the two things can never be the same. You are telling us that if God says something, nobody will ever say that God said it; and if someone (presumably including you) says that God said something, then God could not possibly have actually said it.

Is that what you meant to say?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Thank you Boyd K. Packer of 1978. Thankfully, "God Loveth His Children" provides a more refreshing stance than that of the uninspired counsel given by Packer to the Twelve Stake Fireside titled albeit ignorantly "To The One.""

The Church has grown up since then...perhaps you should grow with it too.

It is shamelessly dishonest demagoguery for you to lump President Boyd K. Packer's counsel in with Mr Goodmansen's opinions and pretend that they are the same thing.

They are not.

Then-Elder Packer's counsel, whatever its shortcomings may or may not be, was and forever will be infinitely more inspired than the worthless opinings of the immoralists who attempt to foist "same sex marriage" upon the world.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

If marriage does not promote the stability of relationships, then what's it for?

Thank you for asking.

Marriage enables a man and a woman to form a new family together.

And CFR your hypothesis that gay marriages are more "short-lived" and "non-exclusive" than straight marriages.

First point: there is no such thing as a "square circle." That is because the definition of a square and the definition of a circle are mutually exclusive.

Likewise, there is no such thing as a "gay marriage." That's because the definition of a "gay" relationship and the definition of a "marriage" are mutually exclusive.

That doesn't mean that courts (and legislatures) can't create legal fictions like "same sex marriages." But the power to legislate and redefine by fiat is not the power to change the fundamental nature of a thing.

Second point: if you really want me to cite the rather uncontested (because uncontestable) research that demonstrates "gay" relationships to be notoriously short-lived, and that "gay" men who describe themselves as being in "committed relationships" quite conventionally and openly go "cruising" for casual sexual encounters -- often in concert with the supposed "partner" -- and that homosexual men typically have more sexual partners in an average year than any ten "straight" libertines, then I will.

But you might not like it very much.

This happens to be one of the most well-known and non-controversial facts about homosexuality, Co70. Are you really not aware of it? After all, we are talking about the most famously promiscuous bipeds on the planet.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

Marriage enables a man and a woman to form a new family together.

So does that mean that single-parent families are not families? That extended families are not families? You really think that gay-parent families are not families?

First point: there is no such thing as a "square circle." That is because the definition of a square and the definition of a circle are mutually exclusive.

Likewise, there is no such thing as a "gay marriage." That's because the definition of a "gay" relationship and the definition of a "marriage" are mutually exclusive.

It depends on which dictionary you are using. Show me a dictionary of the English language that was written by God.

Second point: if you really want me to cite the rather uncontested (because uncontestable) research that demonstrates "gay" relationships to be notoriously short-lived, and that "gay" men who describe themselves as being in "committed relationships" quite conventionally and openly go "cruising" for casual sexual encounters -- often in concert with the supposed "partner" -- and that homosexual men typically have more sexual partners in an average year than any ten "straight" libertines, then I will.

I said evidence that same-sex marriages are more short-lived or less committed than straight marriages. In a marriage, the parties make a commitment to each other. Perhaps if straight people were banned from marriage, their relationships would be more short-lived, and less committed as well.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Without getting religious marriage provides three main functions to any society.

1. It is the community's recognition of sex.

2. It provides the definition of exclusivity.

3. The provides for the production of and rearing of children.

SSM can only theorectically provide the first two, and physically can only provide part of the third.

[california boy]

Cobalt-70:

Without getting religious marriage provides three main functions to any society.

1. It is the community's recognition of sex.

2. It provides the definition of exclusivity.

3. The provides for the production of and rearing of children.

SSM can only theorectically provide the first two, and physically can only provide part of the third.

Just curious. How do you deal with my brothers family. HIm and his wife were also physically unable to have children. How do you deal with older couples who can no longer bare children. Since they are in the exact same position as gay couples who can not physically have children, and since they do not fit YOUR definition of marriage, should we pass laws to also not allow them to marry? Should we also force them to just live together without the benefits of marriage? And should the church demand of them that they also live lives alone without any companionship. If you are sterile should you not be able to even date because that might lead to a marriage that can never happen?

You already knew this answer was coming. So more importantly why did you even bring up this argument of who should or should not be allowed to marry. There is no rational reason for not allowing gay couples to marry except religious dogma. The only reason people bring up these indefensible arguments is because they know that the laws of this country can not be based solely on religious dogma. And quite frankly it is why more and more people see no legal reason why gay couples should not be allowed to marry. It is not a moral issue. It is not a defensible legal issue. It has come to the point where in fact the MAJORITY of Americans feel that denying gay couples the right to marry is WRONG. And it is why some day in the not too distant furture, gay marriage will be allowed in American.

[Jaybear]

Cobalt-70:

Without getting religious marriage provides three main functions to any society.

1. It is the community's recognition of sex.

2. It provides the definition of exclusivity.

3. The provides for the production of and rearing of children.

SSM can only theorectically provide the first two, and physically can only provide part of the third.

Not accurate. Those are merely incidental functions.

1. Married couples are not required to have sex, and unmarried individuals are not required to abstain.

2. Exclusivity is a private matter, something the state has no interest/right/obligation to enforce.

3. Children can be created and raised in or out of a marriage. Parental legal obligations arise regardless of marital status of parents.

The actual societal function that you overlooked is that spouses are legally obligated to provide for needs of the other. Parental responsibility ends at age 18. Spouses at death or divorce.

Thus a single adult has a greater chance of becoming a financial burden on society.

Likewise there are other incidental societal benefits from marriage that you overlooked, which have nothing to do with the sex of the couple.

Such as:

1. People who are married are generally happier, healther and live longer.

2. People who are married are less likely to engage in riskier behavior, such as promiscous sex, and illegal drug use.

3. Marriage serve to unite families.

There are about 130,000 gay couples who are opted to marry in this country.

Please answer this question:

If you had the ability, would you waive your hand and dissolve all those marriage. And if you did, do you think those individuals and their children would be better off because of your action?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Jaybear

[Mark Beesley]

lol. If we do not pass laws to increase morality, the why did the church say they were getting involved in prop 8 because it was a MORAL issue???? I think you shot yourself in the foot on that comment.

My foot feels just fine, thank you very much. But I'm thinking you must be dizzy from all the spinning.

Take care.

[california boy]

My foot feels just fine, thank you very much. But I'm thinking you must be dizzy from all the spinning.

Take care.

Glad your foot is feeling better. Cheers

[Mark Beesley]

These are protections, yes, but not protections of sex.

I thought the issue was gay marrige, not gay sex. My bad.

[california boy]

This is the reality of how gay relationships are. It is not the sinister sex craved life that so many in the Mormon church espouse or want t to believe. This YouTube video has have over 2.5 million hits. Perhaps this will help you realize what you are fighting against.

[Ares]

This has gone from a discussion on civil rights to preaching for/against gay marraige. We've done that enough on these boards.

Thread closed.