The Battle For Gay Marriages In The Uk

[zerinus]

The battle for “gay marriage” rights in the UK is hotting up, with the government being committed to introducing it by 2015, and the Catholic Church being dead against it, and in favor of the traditional definition of marriage. See here, here, here, and here. I hope the LDS Church will be proactive in giving the Catholic Church their support.

[frankenstein]

What's the traditional British definition of marriage? Does there traditional definition include polygamy like it does.in the US?

Edited March 12, 2012 by frankenstein

[blackstrap]

There is a substantial percentage (20%?) of the population that are from ethnic minorities. I wonder what their stance will be.Not monolithic I suppose but more inclined to "traditional" marriage.

[jskains]

Interesting that you put "traditional" in quotes. Do you have an example of historical homosexual marriage that would give question to the idea that a bonding of males and females was not the traditional use of marriage?

[blackstrap]

Just following franky's lead and its implications.

[Jaybear]

Interesting that you put "traditional" in quotes. Do you have an example of historical homosexual marriage that would give question to the idea that a bonding of males and females was not the traditional use of marriage?

Not so interesting, The term "traditional marriage" should be put in quotes, because its a manufactured concept used for rhetorical purposes, and not in support of any secular rational argument.

The concept of marriage has evolved through history, and like all institutions will continue to evolve and adapt. When referring to "traditional marriage" one needs to explain whose traditional and when.

Frankly the two most significant changes to the American construct of "traditional" marriage have both been adopted by the LDS Church; (1) no fault divorce; and (2) marriage which purports to bind the couple for all eternity..

Since the LDS Church also fiddled with restoring the practice of polygamy, its more than a tad bit hypocritical for a Mormon to claim to oppose gay marriage because it would undermine "traditional marriage."

[Buzzard]

Not so interesting, The term "traditional marriage" should be put in quotes, because its a manufactured concept used for rhetorical purposes, and not in support of any secular rational argument.

The concept of marriage has evolved through history, and like all institutions will continue to evolve and adapt. When referring to "traditional marriage" one needs to explain whose traditional and when.

Frankly the two most significant changes to the American construct of "traditional" marriage have both been adopted by the LDS Church; (1) no fault divorce; and (2) marriage which purports to bind the couple for all eternity..

Since the LDS Church also fiddled with restoring the practice of polygamy, its more than a tad bit hypocritical for a Mormon to claim to oppose gay marriage because it would undermine "traditional marriage."

Strange, some of us don't feel like hypocrites at all for saying that changing the definition of marriage to something it has never been in recorded history undermines traditional marriage. Note that I did not use quote marks.

[Saints Alive]

I dont see why some get hung up on the whole polygamy vs. one man, one woman definition of marriage. Even when polygamy was practiced by the church (and still among apostate groups and individuals) it was between one man and one woman, the man may have had other marriages, each one was between him and one other woman.

[frankenstein]

God did not ordain divorce marriage a man permitted divorce marriage. So here we have man not a few thousand years into his exist taking what god ordained and bending it to mans own wants. So yes the term "traditional marriage " is only relative to persons agenda using the term.

As for polygamy, the American people spoke sometime in 1880s or earlier that plurality of wives/spouses violated traditional marriage.

So what is traditional marriage for the UK. Does their tradition have the same religious based racist tradition as the US?

[jskains]

Not so interesting, The term "traditional marriage" should be put in quotes, because its a manufactured concept used for rhetorical purposes, and not in support of any secular rational argument.

The concept of marriage has evolved through history, and like all institutions will continue to evolve and adapt. When referring to "traditional marriage" one needs to explain whose traditional and when.

Frankly the two most significant changes to the American construct of "traditional" marriage have both been adopted by the LDS Church; (1) no fault divorce; and (2) marriage which purports to bind the couple for all eternity..

Since the LDS Church also fiddled with restoring the practice of polygamy, its more than a tad bit hypocritical for a Mormon to claim to oppose gay marriage because it would undermine "traditional marriage."

Your avoiding the question. Since male and female bonding is viewed in my eyes as traditional marriage, can you demonstrate how it isn't? Is there a case in history where same sex coupling was ever used for marriage? If not, then it isn't manufactured, it's just a fact. Your use of quotes becomes manufactured for emotional rhetoric acting as if we are ignoring some history of homosexuality that you apparently are aware of, but none of us have heard of.

JMS

[Jaybear]

Your avoiding the question. Since male and female bonding is viewed in my eyes as traditional marriage, can you demonstrate how it isn't? Is there a case in history where same sex coupling was ever used for marriage? If not, then it isn't manufactured, it's just a fact. Your use of quotes becomes manufactured for emotional rhetoric acting as if we are ignoring some history of homosexuality that you apparently are aware of, but none of us have heard of.

JMS

While it was expected and therefore arguably a "tradition" that a marriage be between a male and a female, there is no such thing as a "traditional marriage."

In some cultures and at such times, "traditional marriages" were (1) arranged; (2) women were treated as property; (3) required a church ceremony: (4) could not be divorced; (5) couple was of the same race; (6) ended at death; (7)one husband many wives or concubines.

A traditional marriage is a wholly subjective concept.

[Jeff K.]

Did the church request "being married for eternity" be recognized as such by federal or state law?

No.

What about the church's stand on "no fault divorce"? Did the church request all states accept it without question?

In both cases the answer is no.

Nor is there a history or precedence for gay marriage in the US or Great Britain.

[Jeff K.]

While it was expected and therefore arguably a "tradition" that a marriage be between a male and a female, there is no such thing as a "traditional marriage."

That is false.

In some cultures and at such times, "traditional marriages" were (1) arranged; (2) women were treated as property; (3) required a church ceremony: (4) could not be divorced; (5) couple was of the same race; (6) ended at death; (7)one husband many wives or concubines.

Is that the tradition in Great Britain and the US? Or is this simply another dodge?

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

The Brits got their ideas about marriage from the Romans. The Romans while much more accepting of homosexuality never the less never codified it as marriage.

[Jaybear]

Did the church request "being married for eternity" be recognized as such by federal or state law?No.

Marriages solemnized in the LDS temple, are recognized by federal and state law. So yes.

What about the church's stand on "no fault divorce"? Did the church request all states accept it without question?

The Mormon dominated Utah legislature changed the law, which had embodied the traditional notion that divorce may only be granted for cause.

Nor is there a history or precedence for gay marriage in the US or Great Britain.

For UK, no. For the US, there thousands of precedences for gay marriage dating back to 2003.

[Jaybear]

Is that the tradition in Great Britain and the US? Or is this simply another dodge?

The point which you are dodging is that there is no such thing as a "traditional marriage" because traditions differ from culture to culture and change from time to time.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Non Sequitur. Please demonstrate where in Western Tradition has homosexuality been codified as marriage.

[cinepro]

Jaybear:

Non Sequitur. Please demonstrate where in Western Tradition has homosexuality been codified as marriage.

Please demonstrate that "Western Tradition" is the standard against which marriage arrangements (or anything, for that matter) should be judged?

Edited March 12, 2012 by cinepro

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Non Sequitur. Please demonstrate where in Western Tradition has homosexuality been codified as marriage.

No where. Traditionally, in western culture known homosexuals were beaten or arrested.

Now address my point.

True or false: Traditions change from culture to culture and from time to time, leading one to conclude (1) that there is no such thing as "a traditional marriage" and (2) there is nothing inherently good or bad about tradition.

[Jaybear]

Duplicate

Edited March 12, 2012 by Jaybear

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Stare Decisis

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

The GrecoRoman empires, they are where we get our marriage laws from, were far more tolerant of homosexuality than we are. They didn't beat and arrest homosexuals

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

The GrecoRoman empires, they are where we get our marriage laws from, were far more tolerant of homosexuality than we are. They didn't beat and arrest homosexuals

Your point? Per wiki:

The first recorded mention of the performance of gay marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.^[20] At least two of the Roman Emperors were in gay unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.^[21]. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedman, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero "married a man named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse" A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law."^[22] The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.^[23] The emperor Elagabalus married an athlete named Hierocles in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 12 March 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Did the church request "being married for eternity" be recognized as such by federal or state law?No

.

Marriages solemnized in the LDS temple, are recognized by federal and state law. So yes.

Wrong, the church did not ask that Eternal Marriage be recognized federally, indeed if the state so wished they can remove that issue and the state would be fine with civil ceremonies for the requirements of the state, as it is being done elsewhere in the world. So you are incorrect. Your ideaology is speaking rather than a search for the truth.

[Jeff K.]

Please demonstrate that "Western Tradition" is the standard against which marriage arrangements (or anything, for that matter) should be judged?

I suggest you look at how common law developed. If you were a Latter-day Saint I would suggest you seek after revelation which supports the development of common law tradition that defines marriage.