Is Marriage A Civil Right?

[seriously honestly]

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?

ahhhh....what are you taking about? I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I thinking gay marriage would turn sraight people gay. That's completely ridiculous, and I never said anything similar to that.

[california boy]

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

Reread your post. If you are unclear what language was offensive, please contact a moderator and ask them to help you understand what language and name calling is acceptible on this board. Or if you like, I will contact the moderator and ask them to do it for you.

[california boy]

ahhhh....what are you taking about? I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I thinking gay marriage would turn sraight people gay. That's completely ridiculous, and I never said anything similar to that.

You do realize that I have apologized 3 times for misunderstanding what you wrote. Never the less, I am more than happy to once again apologize for not understanding your comment. Please accept my apology. It was not intentional.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

[Pahoran]

Reread your post. If you are unclear what language was offensive, please contact a moderator and ask them to help you understand what language and name calling is acceptible on this board. Or if you like, I will contact the moderator and ask them to do it for you.

Ah. Passive-aggressiveness. How quaint.

I recall your hissy fit when I was so terribly insensitive as to mention bathhouses. You regarded it as "disrespectful" that I did not ignore reality in favour of the modernly sanitised "gay" narrative. If you think I've said something reportable, then by all means, go ahead and report it. But don't expect to intimidate me with thinly veiled threats.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

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.

Sorry.

As much as it saddens me to say so, this is wholly inaccurate; and it's the reason I oppose having a Bill of Rights incorporated into the Constitution.

You are right, homosexuals have no more right to marry each other than to marry their sisters or mothers. But that does not rest on any imaginary list of rights found in any document, not even the Constitution. Our rights come from "[our] Creator", not from a piece of paper or parchment.

The right to marry derives, as do all rights, from the principle of self-ownership (or stewardship, in Gospel terminology). The critical question is "What is marriage?" Homosexuals want to change the very definition of marriage so as to make it include their perversion of the "natural use of women", as Paul put it, and to work that which is unseemly. Paul was making a religious argument to a religious people, but the same is true secularly, as well.

The point of marriage is to assure that children and their mothers have their needs met, as much as their fathers/mates can manage. Nothing more. Only when the state got involved in regulating marriage did distortions of that principle appear.

All of the arguments, save one, from same-sex "marriage" advocates focus on the "gimme mentality": we want tax benefits, we want inheritance benefits, we want to control our medical care for each other, we want ..., we want ... . The only argument (I have heard) that does not demand money (directly of indirectly) or power is we want societal legitimacy for our relationship. In every case, this latter as well as all the former ones, the "problem" can be resolved by simple legal procedures that are implicit in the state's three-way marriage contract. But that marriage contract is the chief impediment to achieving the very goals all, homosexuals as well as ordinary people claim to want.

It also assures that lawyers will get richer, since, once "married", homosexuals in a same-sex "marriage" will have to go to court to split up. Since homosexual liaisons are much shorter than ordinary people's, they'll spend a lot more money getting divorced than others will.

Same-sex "marriage" is a loser for all of us, not least of whom the homosexual "community" (with the exception of lawyers in their midst).

Lehi

[seriously honestly]

You do realize that I have apologized 3 times for misunderstanding what you wrote. Never the less, I am more than happy to once again apologize for not understanding your comment. Please accept my apology. It was not intentional.

No, no worries--I responded and then continued to read through. We're good

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

The purpose of State involvement is to help insure that children don't pay the price when parents can not or will not take responsiblity for their children. The Church also has an interest in the needs of families and children.

SEE Temple Recommend Question 12: Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

1. 
   

[LeSellers]

The purpose of State involvement is to help insure that children don't pay the price when parents can not or will not take responsiblity for their children.

That is the stated purpose, the excuse, for the state to get involved. The real purpose is to make the state the third party in every marriage, the third, but most powerful party. It is to weaken families so the state will have more power still, because strong families do not need much government, but weak ones do. And the state's self interest is to grow and become ever more powerful.

Individual families were quite capable of insuring that their children and grandchildren did not pay the price, and, in times past, is was extremely rare for a parent, much less both of them, to refuse their natural responsibility for their offspring. At the very least, an irate father-in-law would remind his son-in-law of the obligations he incurred with that "I do."

Lehi

[Mark Beesley]

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.

We do not pass laws to increase morality.

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

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

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

Edited December 1, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[Cobalt-70]

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.

All this concern about definitions of words. Are you saying that God is the author of the English language, so that when we look up the definition of "family" in an English dictionary, that entry was written by God? I thought God only wrote the Adamic dictionary. Why don't we just support legislation to require gay couples and their children to only refer to themselves by another word, such as "schmamly"? They could also call their marriages "schmarriages." Would that satisfy your linguistic concerns?

[Cobalt-70]

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 ban on same-sex marriage in Sweden was lifted 2009. All this decrease in marriage rates happened before that. The decrease in marriage is due to women's liberation, birth control, divorce, and basically just the fact that marriage is not viewed with the same respect that it used to be. One way to increase these numbers, and perhaps respect for the institution, is to allow more people who want to be married, and respect the institution, to do so. There is a huge pool of gay and lesbian people who respect the institution of marriage far more than most heterosexual people do. If we are going to save the institution of marriage, we probably need their help.

This can actually work. In Denmark, for example, where same sex marriage has been legal the longest, there was a tremendous decline in marriage rates prior to the 1980s. Since the ban on same sex marriage was lifted in 1989, marriage rates for both gay and straight couples has been climbing, so that now, the marriage rate is the highest it has been since the early 1970s. I think the same statistical trend has held for the other Scandanavian countries as well. Marriage rates have been climbing since same sex marriage bans have been lifted. So the question is, are we really concerned about saving the institution of marriage itself, or are we really just on a crusade to prevent a particular segment of society from participating in that institution?

[Pahoran]

The ban on same-sex marriage in Sweden was lifted 2009. All this decrease in marriage rates happened before that. The decrease in marriage is due to women's liberation, birth control, divorce, and basically just the fact that marriage is not viewed with the same respect that it used to be. One way to increase these numbers, and perhaps respect for the institution, is to allow more people who want to be married, and respect the institution, to do so. There is a huge pool of gay and lesbian people who respect the institution of marriage far more than most heterosexual people do. If we are going to save the institution of marriage, we probably need their help.

I don't agree.

As I pointed out to Jaybear: you don't get the health benefits of eating vegetables by eating cheesecake and campaigning to have cheesecake declared a vegetable by judicial fiat. Nor do you increase respect for marriage by declaring short-lived, non-exclusive sexual liaisons to be marriages by judicial fiat.

And, as has been amply demonstrated elsewhere: the gaygitators are not expecting "gays" to settle into lifelong, monogamous, white-picket-fence family relationships just like Ozzie and Harriet, merely replacing Harriet with Harry. That is how they are trying to market their assault, but that's not what it's about. They are really looking to bring about a "post-marriage" society in which all marriages -- not just theirs -- will be non-exclusive and short-lived.

This can actually work. In Denmark, for example, where same sex marriage has been legal the longest, there was a tremendous decline in marriage rates prior to the 1980s. Since the ban on same sex marriage was lifted in 1989, marriage rates for both gay and straight couples has been climbing, so that now, the marriage rate is the highest it has been since the early 1970s. I think the same statistical trend has held for the other Scandanavian countries as well. Marriage rates have been climbing since same sex marriage bans have been lifted. So the question is, are we really concerned about saving the institution of marriage itself, or are we really just on a crusade to prevent a particular segment of society from participating in that institution?

Correlation is not causation. Your argument partakes of the post hoc fallacy. The fact is that a number of countries have shown a rebound in marriage stats as the Gen-X'ers have grown up and realised that there's more to life than partying, and not all of those countries have surrendered to the "gay" jihad.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

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

Lifting the ban on same-sex marriage does not "legitimize sin." As a result of our Constitution, homosex is already legal and legitimate from a secular perspective. It is also illegitimate from many religious perspectives. No law (short of requiring religions to change their doctrines, which can never happen because of the 1st Amendment) is going to change that. Moreover, lifting a ban on same-sex marriage does nothing to encourage sin. Since gay couples will be married couples now, perhaps it even decreases the amount of gay sex that goes on.

I don't think any law that upholds our God-given constitutional principles of Due Process and Equal Protection can ever be considered an iniquitous law, even if it allows people to exercise their agency to make what we consider to be bad choices.

[Jaybear]

I don't agree.

As I pointed out to Jaybear: you don't get the health benefits of eating vegetables by eating cheesecake and campaigning to have cheesecake declared a vegetable by judicial fiat. Nor do you increase respect for marriage by declaring short-lived, non-exclusive sexual liaisons to be marriages by judicial fiat.

If I didn't say so, your analogy is absurd.

Its well established that, as a general rule, people who are married, live longer, healthier, happier lives. You have yet to articulate a single rational thought as to why the benefits only apply to heterosexual couples.

And, as has been amply demonstrated elsewhere: the gaygitators are not expecting "gays" to settle into lifelong, monogamous, white-picket-fence family relationships just like Ozzie and Harriet, merely replacing Harriet with Harry. That is how they are trying to market their assault, but that's not what it's about. They are really looking to bring about a "post-marriage" society in which all marriages -- not just theirs -- will be non-exclusive and short-lived.

Pfft. Name two gay individuals who harbor such a goal.

I will counter that with Hugh Hefner and Joseph Smith, two heterosexuals with their own innovative/inspired ideas about marriage.

[Pahoran]

Lifting the ban on same-sex marriage does not "legitimize sin." As a result of our Constitution, homosex is already legal and legitimate from a secular perspective. It is also illegitimate from many religious perspectives. No law (short of requiring religions to change their doctrines, which can never happen because of the 1st Amendment) is going to change that. Moreover, lifting a ban on same-sex marriage does nothing to encourage sin. Since gay couples will be married couples now, perhaps it even decreases the amount of gay sex that goes on.

That would only work if the possession of a bit of paper headed "marriage license" somehow had the magical power to transform homosexuals into lifelong monogamists.

But I don't know anyone who purports to seriously believe that same sex "marriages" will be observably different from homosexual relationships as they now pervasively present: namely, short-lived and non-exclusive.

Still, as someone else pointed out, "gay marriage" will provide plenty of employment for divorce lawyers.

Regards,

Pahoran

[altersteve]

All this concern about definitions of words. Are you saying that God is the author of the English language, so that when we look up the definition of "family" in an English dictionary, that entry was written by God? I thought God only wrote the Adamic dictionary. Why don't we just support legislation to require gay couples and their children to only refer to themselves by another word, such as "schmamly"? They could also call their marriages "schmarriages." Would that satisfy your linguistic concerns?

I think you, a member of the Church, know exactly what I meant.

[Pahoran]

If I didn't say so, your analogy is absurd.

I take it "absurd" is jaybearese for "directly on point and unanswerable."

Because you have not even tried to explain what is wrong with it.

Its well established that, as a general rule, people who are married, live longer, healthier, happier lives.

Just like, as a general rule, people who eat more vegetables live longer, healthier lives.

You have yet to articulate a single rational thought as to why the benefits only apply to heterosexual couples.

Because the benefits apply to actual marriages, not sham marriages. They cannot be applied to sham marriages by judicial fiat, just like judicial fiat cannot make cheesecake into a vegetable.

Pfft. Name two gay individuals who harbor such a goal.

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

I will counter that with Hugh Hefner and Joseph Smith, two heterosexuals with their own innovative/inspired ideas about marriage.

Now that, as you perfectly well know and fully intend, is revoltingly offensive. Hugh Hefner has nothing in common with Joseph Smith. Hugh Hefner has much more in common with "gay" pornographer...

Don't reveal personal identities on this board -Ares

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Under the Constitution, a person has a fundamental right to marry. Period. That has been decided That doesn't mean that the government cannot restrict that right for a "compelling" reason, and that is where the right of states to place restrictions on incestuous marriages, or bestial marriages, come in. It's also where the states get their right to ban polygamy, which ironically is based on Reynolds v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled against the arguments presented by the LDS Church. That was an infamous court decision, as all Mormons alive during that period would agree, and I am confident that it will some day be overturned. Government has no "compelling interest" in restricting consensual polygamy, particularly when polygamy is required by one's religious practice. We will wait for the results of Perry v. Schwarzenegger to determine whether the Supreme Court has learned anything about prejudicial "justifications" for marriage restrictions since Reynolds.

[Cobalt-70]

The right to marry derives, as do all rights, from the principle of self-ownership (or stewardship, in Gospel terminology). The critical question is "What is marriage?" Homosexuals want to change the very definition of marriage so as to make it include their perversion of the "natural use of women", as Paul put it, and to work that which is unseemly. Paul was making a religious argument to a religious people, but the same is true secularly, as well.

No, the right to marry derives from the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

[Cobalt-70]

That would only work if the possession of a bit of paper headed "marriage license" somehow had the magical power to transform homosexuals into lifelong monogamists.

But I don't know anyone who purports to seriously believe that same sex "marriages" will be observably different from homosexual relationships as they now pervasively present: namely, short-lived and non-exclusive.

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

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

[KevinG]

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

As far as the State is concerned creating classes of taxation to encourage childbearing and distribute benefits and tracking populations.

Edited November 30, 2011 by DaddyG

[Jaybear]

Because you have not even tried to explain what is wrong with it.

Just like, as a general rule, people who eat more vegetables live longer, healthier lives.

Because the benefits apply to actual marriages, not sham marriages. They cannot be applied to sham marriages by judicial fiat, just like judicial fiat cannot make cheesecake into a vegetable.

...because "gay marriages are sham marriages"?

That is not a rational, coherent explanation. That is just a gratuitous insult.

[Mark Beesley]

Lifting the ban on same-sex marriage does not "legitimize sin."

Of course it does, and to argue otherwise is disingenous.

As a result of our Constitution, homosex is already legal and legitimate from a secular perspective.

Wrong. As a result of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, homosexual acts may not be criminalized. That is different than saying they deserve special protection.

[Cobalt-70]

Wrong. As a result of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, homosexual acts may not be criminalized. That is different than saying they deserve special protection.

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.