Mark Beesley Posted February 16, 2012 Author Posted February 16, 2012 I think its was elder patron who stated that essentially the concept of marriage under a different name is just as bad as ssmI am unfamiliar with Elder Patron. Who is he?
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2012 Posted February 16, 2012 frankenstein:Incorrect. Under California State law Civil Union couples have ALL of the same RIGHTS, responsibilities, priviledges, and duties as a Married couple. No right was taken away from anyone. You can call it a ham sandwitch for all I care.
frankenstein Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Tss...perhaps you are joking or perhaps you would deny the sun isn't shining though you are staring at it. Those who claim no right was taken away by prop 8 have sold their credibility to the lowest bidderMark besley...I meant elder Clayton or elder oaks stated that anything with the same rights as marriage is something the church does not support.
california boy Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Speaking from a historical perspective, it is the reason for marriage, and no other.The 99% (yes, I made that statistic up, but you find what the real number is, I don't have time) of couples who, eh, couple can have children unless the woman is "of a certain age". The reason Rome, the first state to require marriage of its elites, did so to protect the children's inheritances. A child born to a married woman was presumed to be her husband's child. If she was not married, there was no way to ascertain whose child he was, and, thus, no way to assign him an inheritance. But, along with dmarriage came divorce. ...Gotta go. I'll try to complete this later.LehiNot only did you make up the statistic, you also made up the logic. The real facts show that the MAJORITY of marriages do not involve children. Here is an article about this very thing.http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/do-kids-still-matter-to-marriage/This argument was tried on the judicial system which was quickly struck down as a valid point since the state has never had a requirement for the intention of having children when issuing a marriage license no matter what the age of the couple. And of course the obvious, you don't need a marriage license to have children. Perhaps the more accurate reason for marriage is to form a legal family unit. From that legal unit springs inheritance rights for both offspring, adopted children and spouses along with a myriad of other legal protections.
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 frankenstein:That's not what the law says. Personally I'd be in favor of the state getting out of the marriage business all together. Let them all be Civil Unions and leave marriage to the churches if the couple so desires.
LeSellers Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Not only did you make up the statistic, you also made up the logic. The real facts show that the MAJORITY of marriages do not involve children. Here is an article about this very thing.Perhaps you missed the reference to history. Children were the reason the state interfered in marriage in the first place, and it was Rome, long before Christ, that saw the first such interference (as far as i have been able to determine).I said "children", but there was also the reason that women, who bear the greater direct burden in raising children, needed the protection of having cultural protect them from men who would gladly father their children, but who would abandon them without a formal (however 'informal"—i.e., without state involvement) sanction against that. That's why churches established public commitment ceremonies (called weddings), so the woman would have that protection.Keep in mind that the reason for marriage, whatever it has become in its "apostasy", was to get the man to keep his pledge to the children and their mother(s) that he would support them while they grew up and her when she had to rely on his income because she was unable, because of raising children, to have saved up for her old age using past earnings. This argument was tried on the judicial system which was quickly struck down as a valid point since the state has never had a requirement for the intention of having children when issuing a marriage license no matter what the age of the couple. And of course the obvious, you don't need a marriage license to have children. Again you are trying to make my comments about contemporary USmerica. It was not. My point was to establish the history of marriage.Perhaps the more accurate reason for marriage is to form a legal family unit. From that legal unit springs inheritance rights for both offspring, adopted children and spouses along with a myriad of other legal protections.All stemming from the historical reason for marriage.But, as I was interrupted by life, before I completed the thought you attacked, I would like to complete at least part of it. there were no state-imposed marriages anywhere in the world for commoners until the mid XIX when England started granting "licenses" for marriages. (The fact that people could get married in church—or even without a church— prior to that law points out that a "license" is merely a fee the state imposes so people can do legally what they have the right and power to do anyway. It's just the way the state interferes with natural rights and is an affront to human dignity.) The peerage in England (and elsewhere) had to get permission from the king to marry because he had a vested interest in who his vassals were. But commoners were not far above slaves and domestic animals: they were, as far as the king was concerned, property, and had no right or obligation to him (except to pay taxes and work to build his wealth). They could breed as much as possible.Marriage, in spite of your assaults on the institution, is, was, and should always be about children. The fact that people today don't value children is just another reason the state ought to get totally out of the "marriage business" and leave it to individuals. The fact that the state interferes in marriage, both by licensing and controlling it and by giving it preferential treatment, is the only reason homosexuals want to be married in the first place. Get rid of the goodies, and there is no "reason" for same-sex "marriage".Lehi
KevinG Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 1) Those who have not studied the Principle and the distinctions between sealings, marriage and marital relations really shouldn't try to be clever about Joseph Smith. It just ends up sounding stupid.2) If the state would stop giving/authorizing financial incentives and benefits for marriage this whole political debate would dry up. The US got afoul of the 1st Amendment long ago when we started "insentivizing" an institution that beloned to the church and now its coming back to bite us in the butt.
california boy Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Marriage, in spite of your assaults on the institution, is, was, and should always be about children. The fact that people today don't value children is just another reason the state ought to get totally out of the "marriage business" and leave it to individuals. The fact that the state interferes in marriage, both by licensing and controlling it and by giving it preferential treatment, is the only reason homosexuals want to be married in the first place. Get rid of the goodies, and there is no "reason" for same-sex "marriage".LehiI am not sure why you decided to make this personal. I certainly did not assault marriage. I am only clarifying the facts. And since you are couching what marriage was in history, I am not quite sure what your point was as it applies to todays world. We have certainly moved far away from marriage being only about children's inheritance.That said, I completely agree with you for the reasons why marriage equality is so important for anyone in this country and always has been. It is about being treated equally under the law. Many would agree with you that the state should get out of the marriage business, but I see no push in that direction from the church, conservatives, liberals etc. There is no group that seems willing to embrace the idea of civil unions for all. Any ideas why? It seems like gay marriage is inevitable. If churches want to keep the idea that marriage is a sacred sacrament, they would be pushing this idea. Certainly gay couples would have no problem with this concept since there are plenty of churches that would provide a religious service to their marriage if they so choose.
LeSellers Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 I am not sure why you decided to make this personal. I certainly did not assault marriage. In this topic, perhaps not, but it has been your consistent approach to the issue of marriage, i.e., that the definition of marriage should be so diluted as to make the term meaningless.You claim that same-sex "marriage" is inevitable. That's exactly what those who want the destruction of USmerica to happen: to weaken the moral glue that once made USmerica a beacon to the world. Their chosen means: to make homosexuality accepted in USmerican culture.Lehi
frankenstein Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 frankenstein:That's not what the law says. Personally I'd be in favor of the state getting out of the marriage business all together. Let them all be Civil Unions and leave marriage to the churches if the couple so desires.What is not what the law said? Prior to prop 8 every Ca. Citizen had the right to enter into a ssm, that right no longer exists. Prop 8 had the direct and intended affect of removing the right of Ca citizens to enter into ssm.And for the op, this board needs another thread like it needs another romney thread.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Who said that marriage belongs to religion? Atheists get married to other atheists. This is worthless.Societies (Gov't) have always defined marriage male / female. This has nothing to do with religion, it is just that the religious are more traditional and usually more conservative. No one has tried to deny atheists too marry, in fact most would support it, having children would bring anyone to their knees seeking God's direction.
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 frankenstein:The law on Civil Unions. Prop 8 only effected only what is marriage called not Civil Unions. It is essentially a battle over symantics.
Stargazer Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Story of my life. We have a really excellent singles branch in our stake, and a good number of really excellent single sisters in it. You're welcome to move to the area!
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 We have a really excellent singles branch in our stake, and a good number of really excellent single sisters in it. You're welcome to move to the area!Thanks, there are some here too. There are some I would like to marry and some who would like to marry me. It's finding that rare gem that fits in both categories.
frankenstein Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 frankenstein:The law on Civil Unions. Prop 8 only effected only what is marriage called not Civil Unions. It is essentially a battle over symantics.Should I rephrase then? Prop 8 took away the right for all Ca. Citizens to enter into ssm, instead of allowing ssm, Ca. opted for a second class status of ss union, except for the 18k legal ssm marriages, which are still considered legal marriages despite prop 8.You can argue it any way you want, but the undenialable fact is that prop 8 took away the right to ssm.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.