Is Marriage A Civil Right?

[Sky]

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?

Maybe this very blunt statement from Spencer W. Kimball will help answer your question:

The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it. … This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it.

[california boy]

And what did you learn from those passages?

Personally I didn't see the relivence. Perhaps you could explain why you gave me that passage.

[california boy]

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

I understand the Mormon churches position very well. They view homosexual relationships as an abomination whether inside or outside of marriage. The question you are not answering is why would preventing gay marriage be more moral. It seems to me that it doesn't make one bit if difference if a gay couple is married or not. Church belief is that it is the exact same sin either way. So why has the church spent so much time, money, energy in preventing gay couples from marrying.

[california boy]

Maybe this very blunt statement from Spencer W. Kimball will help answer your question:

The fact that some governments and some churches and numerous corrupted individuals have tried to reduce such behavior from criminal offense to personal privilege does not change the nature nor the seriousness of the practice. Good men, wise men, God-fearing men everywhere still denounce the practice as being unworthy of sons and daughters of God; and Christ’s church denounces it and condemns it. … This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it.

How does this statement by President Kimball clarify anything. I have already stated repeatedly the Mormon view on homosexual behavior as being a horrible sin. The statement does not address the issue.

[seriously honestly]

I understand the Mormon churches position very well. They view homosexual relationships as an abomination whether inside or outside of marriage. The question you are not answering is why would preventing gay marriage be more moral. It seems to me that it doesn't make one bit if difference if a gay couple is married or not. Church belief is that it is the exact same sin either way. So why has the church spent so much time, money, energy in preventing gay couples from marrying.

I can't speak for the LDS church, but I don't think preventing gay marriage is matter of making somone "more moral", but as a way of preventing an already immoral situation from escalating to a more complicated immoral situation.

[Pahoran]

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.

Then permit me to explain something that seems to have gone over your head: either the swine who produced that notorious lie just don't care about the potential for their hate propaganda to endanger the missionaries, or they actually wanted to endanger them with their deliberate falsehoods.

Either way, it is the very ultimate expression of hypocrisy to justify that tissue of brazen falsehoods and at the same time whine about the pro-8 ads being "dishonest."

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?

But the Church wasn't getting involved in "their private lives." The Church was advocating for public policy. There's a difference.

And besides, people who dress in drag and mince down the main street to "celebrate" their immorality have little or no grounds to turn around and complain that their arrangements are "their private lives" and therefore nobody else's business.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

I frankly don't see marriage as a social right, but it is a cultural norm. I don't see two people of the same sex marrying for the same reason I don't see a man and dog being able to marry. It makes no sense.

What is problably more of a problem for me is the rights that are denied people. Participating in insurance plans, visiting in the hosptial, being designated as a inheritor, etc. These are benefits that should not pertain to marriage, but to all humans in general.

There should not be legal rights afforded married couples simply because they are married; social benefits belong to all people regardless of their marital state.

On the first point, it is not apt to compare man-dog marriages to man-man marriages, because dogs have no civil rights, and would have none of the civil and proprietary rights that would accompany marriage. So man-dog marriages help neither the dog nor the man.

On the second point, I agree that many of the rights we typically link to marriage ought to be distributed more broadly than that. For example, maybe a couple of sisters might want to live together, file their taxes jointly, and even adopt a child together. You could call that a "civil union," even though it has nothing to do with sex or romantic love. But there has to be some governmental recognition of the union. You can't do it all by contract. For example, if you die intestate, the probate court needs to know who to distribute your wealth to, and who gets custody of the kids.

I think, in an ideal world, marriage would be a purely religious institution, and the only thing that the government would recognize is a civil union. A church could marry whomever it wants to, with no restriction. Man-dog, dog-robot, whatever. That's called religious freedom. But civil unions would be distributed on a gender-neutral basis, and any number of people could participate in such a union, and it would have nothing, necessarily, to do with marriage--although as a practical matter, most people who get married would also want to enter a civil union.

[Cobalt-70]

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?"

There are a couple of theories as to how homosexuality genes can confer a slight genetic advantage. One is the "gay uncle effect." Because gay men don't have children themselves, they can focus their energies on their nephews and nieces, and provide a genetic advantage to the entire extended family. Another theory is that a bisexual man is genetically advantaged because he has children, yet he also may form close bonds to powerful males, thus raising the social status of his family within the clan. For homosexuality in women, the explanation is probably even easier: In pre-modern societies, even lesbian women were assigned husbands and had children. But lesbian or bisexual women were able to form close bonds to other women and thereby add an additional source of protection and resources for their children.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[wenglund]

I understand the Mormon churches position very well. They view homosexual relationships as an abomination whether inside or outside of marriage. The question you are not answering is why would preventing gay marriage be more moral. It seems to me that it doesn't make one bit if difference if a gay couple is married or not. Church belief is that it is the exact same sin either way. So why has the church spent so much time, money, energy in preventing gay couples from marrying.

I think this has been asked and answer on several threads in the past. Does the term "institution of marriage" ring a bell?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 30, 2011 by wenglund

[california boy]

I can't speak for the LDS church, but I don't think preventing gay marriage is matter of making somone "more moral", but as a way of preventing an already immoral situation from escalating to a more complicated immoral situation.

So you think when gay marriage becomes legal, then it will turn straight people gay huh. And the only thing that is preventing straight people from turning gay is if they could only marry??? Are you serious?

[california boy]

Then permit me to explain something that seems to have gone over your head: either the swine who produced that notorious lie just don't care about the potential for their hate propaganda to endanger the missionaries, or they actually wanted to endanger them with their deliberate falsehoods.

Either way, it is the very ultimate expression of hypocrisy to justify that tissue of brazen falsehoods and at the same time whine about the pro-8 ads being "dishonest."

But the Church wasn't getting involved in "their private lives." The Church was advocating for public policy. There's a difference.

And besides, people who dress in drag and mince down the main street to "celebrate" their immorality have little or no grounds to turn around and complain that their arrangements are "their private lives" and therefore nobody else's business.

Regards,

Pahoran

Sorry I am not going to respond to anyone who has no idea how to have a civil conversation. When you can clean up your language, you can try again.

[altersteve]

I understand the Mormon churches position very well. They view homosexual relationships as an abomination whether inside or outside of marriage. The question you are not answering is why would preventing gay marriage be more moral. It seems to me that it doesn't make one bit if difference if a gay couple is married or not. Church belief is that it is the exact same sin either way. So why has the church spent so much time, money, energy in preventing gay couples from marrying.

If gay marriage is immoral, then it stands to reason that no gay marriage would be "more moral," right?

Apparently you don't understand the Church's position very well at all. It's not just that homosexual relations are an abomination inside or outside of marriage, it's that gay marriage completely distorts the God-given definition of "family." That is why Latter-day Saints fight against its legalization. Men and women were created by God to be together, and He ordained them to be at the head of every family. A father and a mother. Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are at the head of our heavenly family, and it should therefore be that way in our earthly families. Fathers and mothers have different, but equally important (and equally sacred), roles in the plan that Heavenly Father has for each of His children.

And that's the main idea here. You see, the family (as God has defined it) is the central unit of His plan for us, so ultimately, it doesn't come down to the fact that gay marriage is immoral. Rather, it has to do with why it's immoral: it makes God's plan impossible.

Edited November 30, 2011 by altersteve

[Calm]

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.....

Continuing the R rated movie analogy...

Assume that the standards are not imposed by the industry but by the government....then assume that the government subsidizes and protects in certain ways g rated movies because it has been found that g rated movies are linked with behaviors beneficial to the state. The producers of r rated movies decide the benefits attached to the g rated movies, both government and social standing etc., are desirable things that they would like to enjoy as well, but instead of changing their movies to match the standard of the g rating, they petition the government to change the standard.....one of the results would be to make the standard meaningless.

Among other things, it is not about making gay behaviour more or less moral, it is about making the idea of marriage itself less moral by including under its umbrella immoral behaviour.

It seems often the case that gay activists only look at the implications for what changing the definition of marriage means to them and then ask what difference if such changes occurred for the gay population would it make for heterosexuals when the main concern is not about the changes it would make for gays, but how it would primarily affect the overall perception of marriage. Most that I know feel the same way about expanding the concept of marriage to include homosexuality as they do including the concept of adultery....they see the concept of an"open marriage" as detrimental to the institution and do not believe such a concept should be labeled as a marriage but something else. Since there is no major legal or educational movement to get adulterous marriages given the same legal or social recognition that committed and faithful marriages receive, one will not see a large political opposition to it.

[altersteve]

So you think when gay marriage becomes legal, then it will turn straight people gay huh. And the only thing that is preventing straight people from turning gay is if they could only marry??? Are you serious?

Wow. I've never seen a more perfect example of putting words in someone's mouth.

[california boy]

If gay marriage is immoral, then it stands to reason that no gay marriage would be "more moral," right?

Apparently you don't understand the Church's position very well at all. It's not just that homosexual relations are an abomination inside or outside of marriage, it's that gay marriage completely distorts the God-given definition of "family." That is why Latter-day Saints fight against its legalization. Men and women were created by God to be together, and He ordained them to be at the head of every family. A father and a mother. Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are at the head of our heavenly family, and it should therefore be that way in our earthly families. Fathers and mothers have different, but equally important (and equally sacred), roles in the plan that Heavenly Father has for each of His children.

And that's the main idea here. You see, the family (as God has defined it) is the central unit of His plan for us, so ultimately, it doesn't come down to the fact that gay marriage is immoral. Rather, it has to do with why it's immoral: it makes God's plan impossible.

I don't know why you don't think I understand the churches position. I certainly understand that the church encourages family units where there is a father and a mother. And that Mormons feel it is Gods plan to have family units. But how does gay marriage effect those family units? Do you think that less straight people will choose to marry and have children? Straight couples still seem to be choosing to marry, and have children in EVERY state and EVERY nation where gay marriage is legal. I am not aware of any statical difference in which these family units that the church encourages has occurred. So what does gay marriage have to do with straight couples marrying and forming families? Gods plan will continue to go forward whether there is gay marriage or not. Gay marriage is certainly not going to effect it or stop it one bit.

[california boy]

Wow. I've never seen a more perfect example of putting words in someone's mouth.

If you didn't mean that allowing gay marriage would turn straight people into gay people, what did you mean? This is what you said.

I can't speak for the LDS church, but I don't think preventing gay marriage is matter of making somone "more moral", but as a way of preventing an already immoral situation from escalating to a more complicated immoral situation.

Perhaps you can tell us all what you ment by gay marriage would escalate to more complicated immorality.

[california boy]

Continuing the R rated movie analogy...

Assume that the standards are not imposed by the industry but by the government....then assume that the government subsidizes and protects in certain ways g rated movies because it has been found that g rated movies are linked with behaviors beneficial to the state. The producers of r rated movies decide the benefits attached to the g rated movies, both government and social standing etc., are desirable things that they would like to enjoy as well, but instead of changing their movies to match the standard of the g rating, they petition the government to change the standard.....one of the results would be to make the standard meaningless.

Among other things, it is not about making gay behaviour more or less moral, it is about making the idea of marriage itself less moral by including under its umbrella immoral behaviour.

It seems often the case that gay activists only look at the implications for what changing the definition of marriage means to them and then ask what difference if such changes occurred for the gay population would it make for heterosexuals when the main concern is not about the changes it would make for gays, but how it would primarily affect the overall perception of marriage. Most that I know feel the same way about expanding the concept of marriage to include homosexuality as they do including the concept of adultery....they see the concept of an"open marriage" as detrimental to the institution and do not believe such a concept should be labeled as a marriage but something else. Since there is no major legal or educational movement to get adulterous marriages given the same legal or social recognition that committed and faithful marriages receive, one will not see a large political opposition to it.

Marriage is a contract between two people and the state. Whether the marriage is moral or not is not a result of having the contract. Marriage is moral or immoral by the actions of the people in the contract. I could make an endless list of straight people who have chosen to be immoral in their marriage contract. I doubt that it effects your marriage one bit. If your neighbor has an affair, does it change your marriage? Do you kids all the sudden decide that they don't want to be married after all??? Tell me exactly how gay marriage or people that have affairs in their marriage effects your marriage at all. Because when the court asked the defenders of prop 8 that question, they could not come up with a single answer.

I know you may think I am just being argumentative. But I am not. I am only pointing out what reasonable people think of the churches position that not allowing gay marriage is a moral issue. It just doesn't hold up to logic.

[thesometimesaint]

California Boy:

So disagreeeing with a persons beliefs is sufficient cause to misrepresent that person, to instill hatred against them to the point of violence against them? Doesn't sound very peacable to me. Sounds more like mob incitment to me.

Please tell me again why your side didn't riot riot in South Central against the black churches.

[Calm]

Marriage is a contract between two people and the state. Whether the marriage is moral or not is not a result of having the contract. Marriage is moral or immoral by the actions of the people in the contract. I could make an endless list of straight people who have chosen to be immoral in their marriage contract. I doubt that it effects your marriage one bit. If your neighbor has an affair, does it change your marriage? Do you kids all the sudden decide that they don't want to be married after all??? Tell me exactly how gay marriage or people that have affairs in their marriage effects your marriage at all. Because when the court asked the defenders of prop 8 that question, they could not come up with a single answer.

I know you may think I am just being argumentative. But I am not. I am only pointing out what reasonable people think of the churches position that not allowing gay marriage is a moral issue. It just doesn't hold up to logic.

I am curious as to what you think is the cause of the decrease in the marriage rate, both in the delay of marriage without an equivalent delay in sexual activity, but even more important the decrease in any marriage occurring.

Fifty years ago women in Sweden were getting married at a rate of about 90%, today the rate is less than 60% and that tends to occur at or after the birth of the first child. In the US the rate has dropped 10%, but they have a higher rate of children being born to women not in longterm relationships.

The high breakup level of relationships in Sweden, the report comments, "is testimony to the fragility of modern marriage in which most of the institutional bonds have been stripped away - economic dependence, legal definitions, religious sentiments, and family pressures - leaving marriage and other pair- bonds held together solely by the thin and unstable reed of affection."

The big losers in this trend, the report continues, are the children. In both Sweden and the United States studies show that children from broken families have two to three times the number of serious problems in life.

Continuing to point to what effect immediately occurs of one perceived contributing factor is ignoring the actual concern which is the longterm effect...not only of the changing of the legal definition of marriage, but the overall perception of the need for marriage in the first place (if it is not that different from being single, why bother) as well what is considered acceptable within the limits of marriage, such as sexual fidelity, the providing of children of a longterm stable environment, etc.

[Calm]

cb,

You are apparently (from the way you are phrasing your questions, etc.) claiming that including homosexual relationships under the marriage umbrella will have no effect on how heterosexuals participate in or perceive their marriage. If so, then logically a change of definition of marriage to include additional behaviours should also have no effect on how homosexuals participate in their relations save for the legal benefits given the relationship. Therefore there should be no increase of longterm stability or fidelity in homosexual relationships due to being labeled marriages. If so, then there seems to be no benefit to the state to expand the financial and legal privileges accorded to married individuals. Why should taxpayers have to contribute to supporting relationships through government programs that do not provide any personal or social benefit? Why not require those involved in such relationships to provide and pay for their own legal protections?

(I believe that legal protection should be provided for children such that any relationship that does not promote stability for children should not receive the same level of benefits that stable relationships do and certainly greater enforcement of laws such as child support---ensuring that those benefits actually benefit the child and not the legal caregiver----and other established programs should be undertaken, so please do not include protection of children as part of the justification for including homosexual relationships in the legal definition of marriage, just consider the individuals and the relationship itself in your argument....thank you ahead of time.)

Edited November 30, 2011 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

Marriage is a contract between two people and the state. Whether the marriage is moral or not is not a result of having the contract. Marriage is moral or immoral by the actions of the people in the contract. I could make an endless list of straight people who have chosen to be immoral in their marriage contract. I doubt that it effects your marriage one bit. If your neighbor has an affair, does it change your marriage? Do you kids all the sudden decide that they don't want to be married after all??? Tell me exactly how gay marriage or people that have affairs in their marriage effects your marriage at all. Because when the court asked the defenders of prop 8 that question, they could not come up with a single answer.

I know you may think I am just being argumentative. But I am not. I am only pointing out what reasonable people think of the churches position that not allowing gay marriage is a moral issue. It just doesn't hold up to logic.

CB, do you think each of these moral indiscretions has an impact on society as a whole or do you think they have no impact at all?

[Jaybear]

cb,

You are apparently (from the way you are phrasing your questions, etc.) claiming that including homosexual relationships under the marriage umbrella will have no effect on how heterosexuals participate in or perceive their marriage.

You are mistaken. Gays are seeking the right to marry for personal, individualistic reasons.

It is your side that is claiming that allowing gays to marry will harm "traditional" marriage, therefore society.

It thus falls on your side to explain, rationally, coherently, and honestly how that is the case.

You should either do so, or stop making this specious claims.

I would note that if one could make a coherent logical argument to support this claim, the Prop 8 lawyers would have done so. So why bother, you will just end up twisting logic and reality to suit your preexisting agenda.

If so, then logically a change of definition of marriage to include additional behaviours should also have no effect on how homosexuals participate in their relations save for the legal benefits given the relationship

No one is suggesting that we change the definition of marriage "to include additional behaviors." So your point is based on a false premise.

BTW, this might shock you, but married and unmarried heterosexual couples, also engage in sexual "behaviors" that you and your God find abhorrent.

Marriage is a legal relationship. We know from considerable experience that overall marriage has a positive effect on those who participate in that relationship, and society.

What we don't know or get is why you think your neighbors marriage has a negative impact on your marriage.

I am sure that, as a religious social conservative, you are a big fan of marriage. I presume that you would agree that, in general, marriage promotes long term stability of a couple. People who marry live longer, are healthier, happier, and more financial secure.

I boggles my mind how then such a fan of marriage, could not readily see that gay couples, as heterosexual couples would benefit from marriage.

If gay married couples are happier, healthier, and more financially secure, then society benefits.

See how easy it is to make a rational coherent argument, when you are not trying to rationalize God's will.

[Jaybear]

CB, do you think each of these moral indiscretions has an impact on society as a whole or do you think they have no impact at all?

What "moral indiscretions" are you talking about.

When a couple marries, they pledge to love, and honor the other person till death. Are you suggesting that making such long term promises is immoral?

When couples marry, they assume financial responsibility for the health and welfare of their spouse. Is that immoral?

While your God has condemned sodomy, he did so at time when gay couples did not have the option to marry.

[altersteve]

I don't know why you don't think I understand the churches position. I certainly understand that the church encourages family units where there is a father and a mother. And that Mormons feel it is Gods plan to have family units. But how does gay marriage effect those family units? Do you think that less straight people will choose to marry and have children? Straight couples still seem to be choosing to marry, and have children in EVERY state and EVERY nation where gay marriage is legal. I am not aware of any statical difference in which these family units that the church encourages has occurred. So what does gay marriage have to do with straight couples marrying and forming families? Gods plan will continue to go forward whether there is gay marriage or not. Gay marriage is certainly not going to effect it or stop it one bit.

No, I don't believe gay marriage will cause less straight people to marry. I never said that. And I never said anything about gay marriage "stopping" straight couples from marrying. Simply put, it is not God's will that His children marry those of the same gender. It has never been, nor will it ever be. It's a total mockery of His plan, and a total mockery of the sacred union between husband and wife. It's equivalent to mocking the temple and the covenants we make there. Latter-day Saints simply don't stand for that, and the Lord would expect no less from the members of His Church.

And no, opposing gay marriage is not homophobic. We do not hate gay people. (That's not directed towards you, California Boy, I'm just saying that for another reader of this post who may interpret it that way.)

If you didn't mean that allowing gay marriage would turn straight people into gay people, what did you mean? This is what you said.

No, I didn't write that line you quoted. I was simply pointing out that seriously honestly, the author of that quote, did not say that gay marriage will make straight people turn gay, or anything to that effect whatsoever.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

It is same problem with anything counterfeit. It is not that the conterfeit is worthless to the individual that conterfeits it. It is that it is worthless to everyone else. IE; Say I get a bunch of raw leather, cheap hardward, and make a handbag. It is perfectly serviceable to me, and I can use it to my hearts content. However if I slap a designer name like Louise Vuitton on it, and claim it is one of his handbags that degrades the value of the real Louise Vuitton handbags.