Is Marriage A Civil Right?

[thesometimesaint]

California Boy:

We all have the right to peacibly assembly. We have no right to not be peacible. The dispicable ad not withstanding I didn't see ANY Mormon missionaries invading anyones home and tearing up their marriage certificate.

So do Mormons, or any other group, not have the right to advocate, through the ballot, for their position on a subject of social concern?

[Calm]

Isaiah 5: 20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

LDS are taught that marriage is good, is of God, is even a commandment from him (Gen 2: 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh).

Applying the same label by which a God appointed action is know by to an action/relationship that we are taught is sinful, not of God seems a perfect example in action of the above scripture.

Edited November 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until ajudicated in a court of law for violations of the law.

You do realize calling a right "absolute" is meaningless as you are using it, I hope.

"You have the ABSOLUTE right to X... until a court says otherwise."

"Absolute" is just an adjective you felt cool about putting it before the word 'right' for emphasis but it is useless.

Edited November 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see it as "useless" at all. We are free to do pretty much as we want until we violate the law. Are we not to punish law breakers?

[elguanteloko]

Because, whether you like or not, whether you admit it or not, whether you accept it or not, same-sex "marriage" is a direct assault on The Family. We can take the religious side or the secular side, or both, and the result is always the same: The Family (not a specific, existing, family) will suffer from the implementation of homosexual "marriage". The Family (not necessarily the nuclear family, but it is included in the concept) is the basis for all functioning cultures and societies, destroy (or even seriously weaken) it and the culture and society with that weakened Family is doomed.

Prove it.

Strong families do not need much government, weak ones do.

Prove it.

That is why governments the world around seek to weaken them, but not to the point of insufficiency.

I don't see how you would go around to prove this but you like to throw so many unfounded claims that I'm going to ask you to prove it, also.

and history bears it out, that homosexuality is the most detrimental worm of societies. Whether it is the homosexuality itself, or the moral environment that accepts it remains an open question, but there is a direct and harsh relationship between the two.

Don't just 'believe' this, prove it.

For both reasons I explained above: The Church is focused on the Family because it is God's foundational institution, more important than the Church herself. It is also the basis for all societies. Weaken The Family and society collapses.

wow.

prove it.

Whether homosexuals are more or less moral with or without same-sex "marriage" is immaterial: homosex is immoral, ipso facto. The co-option of the word "marriage" by an inherently immoral subclass leads inexorably to the overthrow of the society that permits it.

Prove it.

And, btw, why is 'homosex' between consenting adults immoral? You have to prove that, too. God could not like it but, why is it immoral? (and answer this question, if you are going to answer anything in this post, AFTER you have proved your previous statements I asked you to prove. I don't want to give you a scapegoat)

You have a lot of explaining to do, LS.

Edited November 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Calm]

The church has a position that gay sex is immoral whether gays are married or not. So why prevent them from getting married? Why ask church members to devote so much of their money and time to a cause that does nothing to make gay relations mor or less moral.

I am only asking why they did it. The stated reason from the church was that gay marriage is a moral issue. I am just trying to figure out how does preventing gay marriage makes anyone more moral.

It does not make anyone more moral simply to change or refuse to change a label or to give someone a license to commit sin. There is no intention on the Church's part to change behaviour by legislating what is and isn't legal. It is intent on ensuring how morality is perceived though as perception does affect one's choices, especially if one is concerned about doing what is morally right and wrong.

Not allowing gay sexual unions to become licensed under the same label as "marriage" might cause someone to reconsider how appropriate engaging in homosexual behaviour is and it may prevent someone thinking that such actions (a homosexual physical relationship) were moral because the relationship was framed or 'contracted' in the identical manner of the moral relationship of marriage (not that all marriages are automatically moral, just that a marriage is a necessary but not sufficient step to place a heterosexual physical relation in a moral context.

It is something similar to a lesser moral issue---that of vulgarity and misuse of the Lord's name. As people introduced such language into all ranges of activities where it was not present before, basically removing any required context of appropriateness, the use of vulgarity and abuse of God's names has become a widespread and socially acceptable phenomenon. In the R rated move thread, the men who actually lived through the war stated the language was portrayed as much worse than it was in real life. I have heard the explanation given for the justification of vulgarity as giving the film a greater "realism". I find it sad that our society not only feels that vulgarity is appropriate, but actually needed to make something real and meaningful when the true reality was something quite the opposite. Now such language has become acceptable in practically every area of life....at least if you believe the media and literature and from just walking down the halls and listening, it certainly is acceptable in schools and among quite young children who are unlikely to lose the habit as they age. Where once using vulgar language was a sign of low education or lack of class (I'm not talking about the caste system, but the quality of), once vulgarity was placed under the label of "acceptable language" (first in limited circumstances that then became ever expanding like a ripples of a rock dropped into a pond) it has pretty much loss its significance of anything except for the currently most extreme (that likely won't be extreme for all that long) by raising the language to a higher quality, but by lowering it to the lowest common denominator.

Socially equating homosexual relationships to married heterosexual relationships rather than premarital or extramarital fornication may make it more difficult to differentiate them in other arenas such a legal, religious, and even in the family. I have personal experience of how children's view of homosexuality as perfectly acceptable, as no different from heterosexual behaviour under any circumstances has been developed by what they have experienced through the media. We have examples in the legal system of those who view homosexuality as immoral not being able to participate fully in their social or civic field, such as the British couple who had been fostering for decades whose permit was pulled not because they stated that they would teach a 5 year old child that homosexuality was wrong, but simply because it was their personal POV. I know of doctors forced to moved due to pressure from their local medical association to make a public statement that they would themselves be willing to perform artificial insemination for gay couples rather than simply directing them to a readily available colleague who specialized in this area, a procedure that had worked for years with no unhappy couples. One may still be allowed to believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral, but public behaviors that may involved this belief are becoming more and more regulated even in the States.

Even if the legal protections go no further, there still remains public perception. One has to only look at the difficulty that our youth have these days in comparison to 50 years or so ago in keeping morally pure, refraining from premarital sex when all around them it is considered normal and healthy to do so and often is presented as uptight, unnatural, mentally and emotionally unhealthy not to engage in physical relationships to realize that the point of working to keep the term "marriage" limited to heterosexual relationships is to a great extent about perception and the ability to teach the gospel and its commandments without having to overcome unnecessary obstacles, both within our families and without. It is easy enough to muddy the waters, to confuse, even to tempt, even to contaminate; much harder to clear them to sparkling pure after the rock has been thrown in.

Edited November 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[elguanteloko]

I don't see it as "useless" at all. We are free to do pretty much as we want until we violate the law. Are we not to punish law breakers?

Bro, the point is that there is no point in calling it "absolute" when pretty much ANY right is an "absolute" under your use of it.

Pretty much all rights are ""absolute"" because you can break a law and have them restricted.

[elguanteloko]

California Boy:

It is still a moral issue. To the Church marriage is defined as between men and women. Since OD 1 it has been defined as between one man and one woman.

Is being a little less immoral like being a little less pregnant?

You are still not getting it, are you? The point is NOT whether God defines marriage as X or whether the Church defines marriage as X. The point is whether or not we have sufficient reason to exclude other types of marriages as "marriage" legally. You keep on confusing very vague religious stuff with legal stuff. It's clear that from God not liking something or him considering something as immoral does NOT follow that it should be illegal. Then, why in the world do you keep bringing this as if this was a valid reason?

Edited November 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

"And, btw, why is 'homosex' between consenting adults immoral? You have to prove that, too. God could not like it but, why is it immoral?"

For two very good reasons.

One: we as a society have decided that homosexual behvior is immoral behavior. That it undermines the institution of marriage. There are quite enough assualts on the institution of marriage without adding another.

Two: Evolutionarily speaking homosexuality is a dead end proposition.

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

"And, btw, why is 'homosex' between consenting adults immoral? You have to prove that, too. God could not like it but, why is it immoral?"

For two very good reasons.

One: we as a society have decided that homosexual behvior is immoral behavior. That it undermines the institution of marriage. There are quite enough assualts on the institution of marriage without adding another.

That's a good reason? The "society" can determine anything (I assume you mean majority here) but that doesn't show something to be immoral. It just says society says they are immoral. Same with the claim that it undermines the institution of marriage and that it is an assault on the institution of marriage.

Darn it, brother, I really thought you had better stuff than this when I saw your posts before. I'm sad because I'm disappointed.

Two: Evolutionarily speaking homosexuality is a dead end proposition.

The fact that so many animals besides humans widely practice homosexuality is a testament against your view (unless you think they are in the process of dying off... but even like this it's impossible to see how you would argue for this without being tautological). Plus, homosexuals help in raising children (if allowed). If you realize, the point of reproduction is NOT to have as many kids as possible but have fewer and raise them well is a better strategy. Homosexuals can help in this.

Arguing with evolutionary reasons is a very weak strategy, anyways, but you can try it.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

it's not "vague" at all. We have explicit commands from God not to do homosexual acts. So it is a moral issue.

The ancient Greeks and Romans is from where the Western World gets it marriage laws. They both were far more tolerant of homosexuality than the Western World is even today. Both neither codified homosexuality into marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

US citizens don't have a right to determine for themselves what constitutes morals, and moral laws?

And people are no better than animal. We ae the only animals that I know of that have a sense of morality. So the next time a male and a male mammal, or a female and a female mammal reproduce let me know.

[elguanteloko]

elguanteloko:

it's not "vague" at all. We have explicit commands from God not to do homosexual acts. So it is a moral issue.

The ancient Greeks and Romans is from where the Western World gets it marriage laws. They both were far more tolerant of homosexuality than the Western World is even today. Both neither codified homosexuality into marriage.

I already told you God not liking something is not morality. Not all God asks you to do or not to do is about morality (not all actions are moral actions). Why is this thing God doesn't like an immoral action?

[elguanteloko]

US citizens don't have a right to determine for themselves what constitutes morals, and moral laws?

Of course not. They have a right to vote on laws about what they think is moral or not but that something is legal or illegal doesn't mean it is moral or immoral. It really disappoints me that you can't even figure this one out. You might not care but I do.

And people are no better than animal. We ae the only animals that I know of that have a sense of morality. So the next time a male and a male mammal, or a female and a female mammal reproduce let me know.

Reproduction isn't the issue, either, with regards to morality and that's clear. A necessary condition of sex being moral is NOT that you can reproduce.

Edited November 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[thesometimesaint]

"The fact that so many animals besides humans widely practice homosexuality is a testament against your view (unless you think they are in the process of dying off... but even like this it's impossible to see how you would argue for this without being tautological). Plus, homosexuals help in raising children (if allowed). If you realize, the point of reproduction is NOT to have as many kids as possible but have fewer and raise them well is a better strategy. Homosexuals can help in this.".

I didn't bring it up you did.

There are two strategies for evolution to succeed. One is to have a many offspring as possible. Most of the animal of the world do this. The other is to limit the total numbers that are produced by helping to insure those that are produced survive to sexual maturation. Modern day humans do this. However there are still parts of the world where having as many children as possible is neessitated by early death of the children, and the need for the aged parents to be taken care of. The octo-mom mom not withstanding. Homosexuality by definition can not produce children. Therefore it is a evolutionary dead end.

Edited November 29, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

California Boy:

We all have the right to peacibly assembly. We have no right to not be peacible. The dispicable ad not withstanding I didn't see ANY Mormon missionaries invading anyones home and tearing up their marriage certificate.

So do Mormons, or any other group, not have the right to advocate, through the ballot, for their position on a subject of social concern?

Ok, let me explain something that seems to have gone over your head. The missionaries invading the home is a METAPHOR for the Mormon church through the political process invading the lives of gay people, ripping up the right they had to marry. The missionaries is a symbol to represent the church sticking its nose into their private lives and private relationships. Hope that helps you understand the concept of the ad. No wonder you find this ad distasteful. Gay citizens found the churches actions distasteful. That doesn't mean that EITHER side doesn't have the right to express their views through the political process. What, did you think the church could enter the political arena and not receive a counter ad to what they were trying to do? Are you saying that the people who made that ad did not have the right to express their distain for the churches involvement into their private lives?

I don't know how many times I need to answer this second question. But once again, YES, Mormons, or any other group, have the right to advocate, through the ballot, for their position on a subject of social concern?

If it isn't clear to you, my question is why is gay marriage a moral issue for the church. That is the reason the church stated for their involvement in prop 8. So what is the moral reason? Who is more moral when gays are not allowed to marry?? How is society more moral when gays are not allowed to marry? How are families more moral when gays are not allowed to marry?

[elguanteloko]

"The fact that so many animals besides humans widely practice homosexuality is a testament against your view (unless you think they are in the process of dying off... but even like this it's impossible to see how you would argue for this without being tautological). Plus, homosexuals help in raising children (if allowed). If you realize, the point of reproduction is NOT to have as many kids as possible but have fewer and raise them well is a better strategy. Homosexuals can help in this.".

I didn't bring it up you did.

There are two strategies for evolution to succeed. One is to have a many offspring as possible. Most of the animal of the world do this. The other is to limit the total numbers that are produced by helping to insure those that are produced survive to sexual maturation. Modern day humans do this. However there are still parts of the world where having as many children as possible is neessitated by early death of the children, and the need for the aged parents to be taken care of. The octo-mom mom not withstanding. Homosexuality by definition can not produce children. Therefore it is a evolutionary dead end.

Again, if homosexuality is a 'evolutionary dead end', why so many animals do it? Why did it survive? How come species survive with homosexual members? Facts go directly against your statement.

Even if you change "evolutionary dead-end" to apply only to specific groups it won't work. Try it by answering the question, "Evolutionary dead-end for what groups?"

Edited November 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[california boy]

It does not make anyone more moral simply to change or refuse to change a label or to give someone a license to commit sin. There is no intention on the Church's part to change behaviour by legislating what is and isn't legal. It is intent on ensuring how morality is perceived though as perception does affect one's choices, especially if one is concerned about doing what is morally right and wrong.

Not allowing gay sexual unions to become licensed under the same label as "marriage" might cause someone to reconsider how appropriate engaging in homosexual behaviour is and it may prevent someone thinking that such actions (a homosexual physical relationship) were moral because the relationship was framed or 'contracted' in the identical manner of the moral relationship of marriage (not that all marriages are automatically moral, just that a marriage is a necessary but not sufficient step to place a heterosexual physical relation in a moral context.

It is something similar to a lesser moral issue---that of vulgarity and misuse of the Lord's name. As people introduced such language into all ranges of activities where it was not present before, basically removing any required context of appropriateness, the use of vulgarity and abuse of God's names has become a widespread and socially acceptable phenomenon. In the R rated move thread, the men who actually lived through the war stated the language was portrayed as much worse than it was in real life. I have heard the explanation given for the justification of vulgarity as giving the film a greater "realism". I find it sad that our society not only feels that vulgarity is appropriate, but actually needed to make something real and meaningful when the true reality was something quite the opposite. Now such language has become acceptable in practically every area of life....at least if you believe the media and literature and from just walking down the halls and listening, it certainly is acceptable in schools and among quite young children who are unlikely to lose the habit as they age. Where once using vulgar language was a sign of low education or lack of class (I'm not talking about the caste system, but the quality of), once vulgarity was placed under the label of "acceptable language" (first in limited circumstances that then became ever expanding like a ripples of a rock dropped into a pond) it has pretty much loss its significance of anything except for the currently most extreme (that likely won't be extreme for all that long) by raising the language to a higher quality, but by lowering it to the lowest common denominator.

Socially equating homosexual relationships to married heterosexual relationships rather than premarital or extramarital fornication may make it more difficult to differentiate them in other arenas such a legal, religious, and even in the family. I have personal experience of how children's view of homosexuality as perfectly acceptable, as no different from heterosexual behaviour under any circumstances has been developed by what they have experienced through the media. We have examples in the legal system of those who view homosexuality as immoral not being able to participate fully in their social or civic field, such as the British couple who had been fostering for decades whose permit was pulled not because they stated that they would teach a 5 year old child that homosexuality was wrong, but simply because it was their personal POV. I know of doctors forced to moved due to pressure from their local medical association to make a public statement that they would themselves be willing to perform artificial insemination for gay couples rather than simply directing them to a readily available colleague who specialized in this area, a procedure that had worked for years with no unhappy couples. One may still be allowed to believe that homosexual behaviour is immoral, but public behaviors that may involved this belief are becoming more and more regulated even in the States.

Even if the legal protections go no further, there still remains public perception. One has to only look at the difficulty that our youth have these days in comparison to 50 years or so ago in keeping morally pure, refraining from premarital sex when all around them it is considered normal and healthy to do so and often is presented as uptight, unnatural, mentally and emotionally unhealthy not to engage in physical relationships to realize that the point of working to keep the term "marriage" limited to heterosexual relationships is to a great extent about perception and the ability to teach the gospel and its commandments without having to overcome unnecessary obstacles, both within our families and without. It is easy enough to muddy the waters, to confuse, even to tempt, even to contaminate; much harder to clear them to sparkling pure after the rock has been thrown in.

Thanks for your answer. Here is the problems I see with your logic. I understand your reluctance to not go to R-rated movies because the language offends you. You simply make a choice to not attend R-rated movies. Do you think the church should go further than telling its members to not go to R-rated movies? I doubt you feel the church should try and pass some kind of moral legislation that prevents profanity from being spoken in the movies.

In the same way, no one is asking the church or its members to attend endorse, participate or accept gay marriage. If you as a Mormon do not agree with gay marriage, then simply don't have one. Isn't how you handle R-rated movies?

Moral views in the country have changed over the past 50 years. There is no doubt about that. But let's be honest here, moral views changing has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is legal or not. It has more to do with the fact that people outside the Mormon faith feel that gay relationships are just as valid as straight relationships. A gay man can fall in love with a gay man and they can make a meaningful life together. Just because they are not allowed to marry does not. in their view. make their relationship less valid. Do you understand why the majority of people in this country disagree with your Mormon view of gay relationships? So like the R-rated movies don't participate in gay marriage. Keep to your beliefs that gay relationships is an abomination. No one is asking you to give up your personal beliefs.

[Mark Beesley]

If it isn't clear to you, my question is why is gay marriage a moral issue for the church. That is the reason the church stated for their involvement in prop 8. So what is the moral reason? Who is more moral when gays are not allowed to marry?? How is society more moral when gays are not allowed to marry? How are families more moral when gays are not allowed to marry?

Four hours ago I suggested you read certain passages from the Book of Mormon to help you understand why members of the Church feel compelled to oppose the legitimizing of sin. Have you done so?

[california boy]

You are still not getting it, are you? The point is NOT whether God defines marriage as X or whether the Church defines marriage as X. The point is whether or not we have sufficient reason to exclude other types of marriages as "marriage" legally. You keep on confusing very vague religious stuff with legal stuff. It's clear that from God not liking something or him considering something as immoral does NOT follow that it should be illegal. Then, why in the world do you keep bringing this as if this was a valid reason?

And you are still not getting my point. I am not talking about the legal right to vote to exclude someone from marriage. That issue will be decided by the legal courts in this country. I am certainly glad that you realize that Gods view of morality has noting to do with what should or should not be legal.

(ATTENTION TO THIS LINE IN PARTICULAR)

I am simply asking why the Mormon church feels gay marriage is a moral issue. How does not allowing gays to marry make anyone more moral?

[california boy]

Four hours ago I suggested you read certain passages from the Book of Mormon to help you understand why members of the Church feel compelled to oppose the legitimizing of sin. Have you done so?

yes

[Mark Beesley]

yes

And what did you learn from those passages?

[elguanteloko]

And you are still not getting my point. I am not talking about the legal right to vote to exclude someone from marriage. That issue will be decided by the legal courts in this country. I am certainly glad that you realize that Gods view of morality has noting to do with what should or should not be legal.

(ATTENTION TO THIS LINE IN PARTICULAR)

I am simply asking why the Mormon church feels gay marriage is a moral issue. How does not allowing gays to marry make anyone more moral?

I don't know what you are talking about because I haven't even read your posts, brother. I was responding to TSS there.

[altersteve]

Yeah I get that the church is trying to say everyone. But you still have to explain how passing laws to prevent gays from marrying saves anyone. What difference does not allowing gays to marry make?

Apparently you don't understand the LDS view on marriage very well.

[elguanteloko]

Since you want to read what you want into what people actually say, and don't really seek to understand, I see no point in sharing thoughts with you on this topic. Consider Mosiah 29:26-27. Maybe it will help you understand why we oppose the legitimization of sin.

OK, let's bring those verses out:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

...so? If you behave bad God will punish you... how is that a statement for making 'sin' illegal? Do you think we should make ALL sin illegal or just some and in some degrees?

altersteve: exhibit B

Edited November 29, 2011 by elguanteloko