Is Marriage A Civil Right?

[california boy]

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.

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.

I would have to agree with the study that you included in your answer.

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."

This trend has also been going on in the United States since the 1950's as well, where gay marriage for the most part is not and has not been legal. I actually think that when conservatives push that marriage is a religious issue, they contribute to this trend. I was talking to a young woman in her late 20s about her future and what she wanted in life. Part of what she told me was that she was not religious so has decided not to get married. Her words were, "marriage is for religious people. I want to be with someone simply because I love them. When people stop loving each other the marriage ends anyway. So why get married." I gave her several reasons why she should get married, but that didn't change the fact that she and probably many others like her have come to believe that you only get married if you have strong religious beliefs.

Just what message are we sending to our children when we tell them that it is not important for gay couples to marry. When we don't allow marriage, aren't we sending a message to people that are not religious that living together is an ok option?

[california boy]

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.) 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.

I am sorry I got the meaning of your post wrong. It was not intentional. Thanks for taking the time to correct me.

I certainly respect and support your religious views of marriage and gay relationships. You have every right to believe in the teachings of the Mormon church. And I would defend your right to worship and follow Gods teachings in the way that your conscious dictates. I don't expect you to participate in gay marriage. And I don't expect the Mormon church to participate in gay marriage.

[LeSellers]

I don't expect you to participate in gay marriage. And I don't expect the Mormon church to participate in gay marriage.

That's what those who proposed the income tax in the early XX said: "We don't expect anyone except millionaires to ever have to pay an income tax. And even for them, it will never rise above 3% any way." Actually, they promised those things, it was not a matter of expectations. Even though I believe most of them were lying to get their agenda passed, there may have been some who really believed it, as I'm sure you believe the implication of your words.

The stated purpose of any law is not always (and rarely is) the actual result. History is a good teacher if men are willing to study it.

Lehi

[Mark Beesley]

OK, let's bring those verses out:

...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

What Mosiah was teaching was not that if you behave badly God will punish you. He was teaching that if the majority of people in society choose to enact laws that encourage and/or legitimize sin, then that society has separated itself so far from God that it is inviting the full retribution of natual law to come upon it (the society as a whole) rather than enjoying the redeeming power of the atonement of Christ. Thus, when an issue with moral ramifications comes to the people for a vote, the Church will do what it can to prod society into choosing the righteous path rather than the path of iniquity. Why? Because we love our neighbors and we are assured that the warnings of God are not given in vain, and we also know that the rain falls upon the wicked and the righteous alike, as taught by the Savior. Matthew 5:45

If you will study, ponder and pray about the scriptures without an agenda of your own, you will be more likely to discern the actual message that God intends to convey.

[california boy]

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.)

You are correct in stating that gay marriage under the marriage umbrella will have no effect on how heterosexuals participate in or perceive their marriage. But I am not saying that marriage between two people does not effect their own relationship. On the contrary I am the one here supporting the importance of marriage. I am saying that all of the reasons straight people think marriage is important is the same reasons why gay people think marriage is important. Part of it is of course financial and legal privileges. But that is not all what marriage is ALL about. Marriage formalizes and stabilizes any relationship. You don't have to be straight for marriage to be a benefit to the couple or to the state. You have managed to hit the nail on the head in understanding why gay couples want to be married and why it is in the best interest of the state to encourage them. It brings stability to relationships, families and society. Telling people they should just live together creates less stable relationships, families and society.

It is for the exact same reasons in gay marriage that taxpayers have to contribute to supporting relationships through government programs? The benefits to society are the same.

And of course I agree with you concerning the impact on children no matter who their family is.

[Jaybear]

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.

That is simple, direct and decisive,and relevant if the question was whether your church should marry gay couples.

But its not.

The question is whether gay couples have the right to a CIVIL marriage.

Read Roe v. Wade, you will note that nowhere in that opinion does the court address the question of civil rights, by looking to see what God has to say on the matter.

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.

Sorry, but ....

1. Marriage are not marketable commodities that are bought and sold, nor should they.

2. If they were, and heterosexual marriages were the Louise Vuitton of marriages, no one should have any problem distinguishing between a gay and a heterosexual marriage.

3. Circular argument. Your argument begins with premise that gay marriages are "counterfeit."

[california boy]

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?

moral indiscretions has an impact on society as a whole. I also think that if straight people were not allowed to marry, immorality would be much much worse. How could it not be.

[california boy]

What Mosiah was teaching was not that if you behave badly God will punish you. He was teaching that if the majority of people in society choose to enact laws that encourage and/or legitimize sin, then that society has separated itself so far from God that it is inviting the full retribution of natual law to come upon it (the society as a whole) rather than enjoying the redeeming power of the atonement of Christ. Thus, when an issue with moral ramifications comes to the people for a vote, the Church will do what it can to prod society into choosing the righteous path rather than the path of iniquity. Why? Because we love our neighbors and we are assured that the warnings of God are not given in vain, and we also know that the rain falls upon the wicked and the righteous alike, as taught by the Savior. Matthew 5:45 If you will study, ponder and pray about the scriptures without an agenda of your own, you will be more likely to discern the actual message that God intends to convey.

This is certainly a religious view of what God wants. And I respect the right for Mormons to believe in any dogma they so choose. There is no argument here.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Marriages are marketable. They have value. We even call it in the market for a husband/wife. Some cultures even have what is known as a "Bride Price".

We already do, and have for the last thousands of years. We get our laws concerning legally recognized marriage from the Ancient Greeks and Romans. They were far more tolerant of homosexuality than even we are, and they never did legally recognize homosexual marriage.

That homosexual marriage is counterfeit is not a priori but a definition. Try passing that $3 bill in your pocket off as legal tender of the US.

[Mark Beesley]

This is certainly a religious view of what God wants. And I respect the right for Mormons to believe in any dogma they so choose. There is no argument here.

That is wonderful. So, now you understand why we supported Prop 8.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Marriages are marketable. They have value. We even call it in the market for a husband/wife. Some cultures even have what is known as a "Bride Price".

No, they are not. Women were, and in some places still are marketable commodities, but not marriages.

If you believe otherwise, how much is your marriage worth?

That homosexual marriage is counterfeit is not a priori but a definition. Try passing that $3 bill in your pocket off as legal tender of the US.

If the US Government starts printing $3 bills, then $3 bills are legal tender.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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?

That is not what she said. It is also not about “Marriage” it is about those who oppose gay marriage to accept homosexual behavior as good and moral. Then will comes the “hate speech laws” that will outlaw Pastors from speaking out against it. Then to deny Church’s tax exempt status for not performing gay marriages, which of course would mean in our places of worship and in our Temples. You misrepresent what she says and then ask if she is serious to make her appear a fool. Common tactic, which will only bring more resistance to your cause.

[california boy]

That is wonderful. So, now you understand why we supported Prop 8.

Actually I don't. Perhaps you have not read my posts in this thread. While it may be worth while to pass laws to increase morality in a nation, passing laws against gay marriage does nothing to increase the morality in this country. What you haven't explained is why the Mormon church thinks that gay marriage is immoaal. If you can explain that, THEN I can understand why the Mormon church supported Prop 8, Otherwise, this scripture doesn't apply to this particular law.

[california boy]

That is not what she said. It is also not about “Marriage” it is about those who oppose gay marriage to accept homosexual behavior as good and moral. Then will comes the “hate speech laws” that will outlaw Pastors from speaking out against it. Then to deny Church’s tax exempt status for not performing gay marriages, which of course would mean in our places of worship and in our Temples. You misrepresent what she says and then ask if she is serious to make her appear a fool. Common tactic, which will only bring more resistance to your cause.

You do realize I have apologized twice for not understanding her post. And I am happy to apologize a third time. I am sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You do realize I have apologized twice for not understanding her post. And I am happy to apologize a third time. I am sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Then my apologies, I did not see that.

[california boy]

Try passing that $3 bill in your pocket off as legal tender of the US.

LOL Now you gota love that analogy. Love your reference to the expression "as queer as a 3 dollar bill".

[thesometimesaint]

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.

[thesometimesaint]

California Boy:

I've always heard it as "Phoney as a $3 bill".

[Jaybear]

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.

That is a very good reason to (1) not enter into a gay marriage; and (2) oppose gay marriages performed by the LDS Church.

Its not a good reason to support a law banning gay CIVIL marriage for those who are not members of your church.

I expect a better reason from someone who would otherwise profess to believe in the principle of secular government.

[altersteve]

That is simple, direct and decisive,and relevant if the question was whether your church should marry gay couples.

But its not.

The question is whether gay couples have the right to a CIVIL marriage.

That statement was a response to california boy's question about why Latter-day Saints oppose gay marriage. His question, as far as I can see, did not have anything to do with whether or not gay couples have a civil right to marry.

That aside, from a completely political point of view, and based on my own understanding, I don't believe a person has a civil right to marry someone of the same gender any more than they have a civil right to marry a baby, an animal, or an inanimate object. If the Constitution doesn't say anything about gay people being free to marry one another (which it doesn't), then they have no civil right to do so. I see no evidence that it should be considered legal anywhere. Once again, this is from a political point of view, but obviously my opinion here is influenced by my religious beliefs. That should be expected, especially from a Latter-day Saint.

[Sky]

Actually I don't. Perhaps you have not read my posts in this thread. While it may be worth while to pass laws to increase morality in a nation, passing laws against gay marriage does nothing to increase the morality in this country. What you haven't explained is why the Mormon church thinks that gay marriage is immoaal. If you can explain that, THEN I can understand why the Mormon church supported Prop 8, Otherwise, this scripture doesn't apply to this particular law.

Here is what the Church itself has to say about why it thinks gay marriage is immoral. It has some great links and resources that should give you more than sufficient answers. I think this is more productive than having posters on here endlessly trying to give you reasons but not getting anywhere.

Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I was speaking of how the Church views homosexual marriage as the reason for its opposition.

I believe in secular government until The Return of the King. However even a secular government is dependent on the morality of its citizens. It is impossble to govern an immoral people.In our form of government the government doesn't get to decide morality, but does enforce the morality of the people whom it represents. The people of California decided that the term "Marriage" was exclusive to heterosexual unions. While at the same time providing for Civil Unions which provided by law all the exact same rights, responsibilities, duties, and priviledges of official Marriages to SS Unions. What could be more secular than that?

[california boy]

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.

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?

[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.

As you perfectly well know, there was nothing unclean about my language. If you can't deal with my arguments, then please have the honesty to say so, instead of hiding behind your artificial indignation.

Regards,

Pahoran

[california boy]

Here is what the Church itself has to say about why it thinks gay marriage is immoral. It has some great links and resources that should give you more than sufficient answers. I think this is more productive than having posters on here endlessly trying to give you reasons but not getting anywhere. Same-Sex Marriage and Proposition 8

Thanks for the link Sky. Most of the links reiterate the dogma of the Mormon church regarding what they believe marriage should be. I don't think I have misrepresented that dogma. If I have, please correct me.

Perhaps you can point out something specific from the links that you feel supports the claim that not allowing gay marriage is more moral than allowing it. Or anything that supports the decision of the church to get involved in Prop 8 because it was a moral issue.