The Battle For Gay Marriages In The Uk

[jskains]

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

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

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

WAY back to 2003? Wow!

JMS

[Jeff K.]

Your point? Per wiki:

Was Nero and gay marriage an aberration for marriage or was it the norm? The answer of course is that theirs was an aberration. Your choice of the exception helps strengthen the rule. Now maybe you don't find Nero an aberration, we will all be interested in how you justify Nero and his acts as the "norm".

[Jaybear]

Was Nero and gay marriage an aberration for marriage or was it the norm? The answer of course is that theirs was an aberration. Your choice of the exception helps strengthen the rule. Now maybe you don't find Nero an aberration, we will all be interested in how you justify Nero and his acts as the "norm".

Who said it was the norm? I doubt it. I presume heterosexuality, and therefore heterosexual marriages were the norm.

WAY back to 2003? Wow!

JMS

Precedent is precedent.

But if your point is that over the course of history more homosexuals have been put to death or imprisoned for being gay, than have been allowed to marry, then you win.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

Just curious...how many married women was JS or BY sealed to even though their spouses were still alive?

[frankenstein]

Shortly after prop 8, ssm or anti ssm was being considered in another country, iirc the Lds Church stated it would not get involved because the Lds Church did not want to appear to be trying to influence foreign governments. If that is the position of the Church concerning foreign governments and ssm it is likely the Lds Church will not be formerly involved as it was with prop 8.

[jskains]

Precedent is precedent.

But if your point is that over the course of history more homosexuals have been put to death or imprisoned for being gay, than have been allowed to marry, then you win.

Really? You have proof that there was a mass of imprisonment and execution for being gay?

JMS

[wenglund]

When all else fails, try nit-picking semantics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Saints Alive]

Just curious...how many married women was JS or BY sealed to even though their spouses were still alive?

you obviously and entirely missed my point.

[Damien the Leper]

This is a tired argument. Churches need to stay out of people's relationships and bedrooms. Seriously, are they that hard up for authoritarianism, agenda enforicing, and control? It's cool that churches want to uphold their standards...but that standard is for them alone and not to be imposed on all societies and cultures. No church is God and God is no church.

[Damien the Leper]

you obviously and entirely missed my point.

Did I?

the man may have had other marriages, each one was between him and one other woman.

So it was Joseph and one other woman who was still physically married her husband? This is apostasy in one of its most disgusting forms. Such a typical double standard.

And if I did miss the point...what was it? Be explicit please.

[wenglund]

This is a tired argument. Churches need to stay out of people's relationships and bedrooms. Seriously, are they that hard up for authoritarianism, agenda enforicing, and control? It's cool that churches want to uphold their standards...but that standard is for them alone and not to be imposed on all societies and cultures. No church is God and God is no church.

This is an insipid exclamation which has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Saints Alive]

Did I?

So it was Joseph and one other woman who was still physically married her husband? This is apostasy in one of its most disgusting forms. Such a typical double standard.

And if I did miss the point...what was it? Be explicit please.

. Show me JS was sealed as a husband to another woman during his lifetime to a woman who was married to another man at that same time.

[Jaybear]

Really? You have proof that there was a mass of imprisonment and execution for being gay?

JMS

Seriously? You doubt gays have been persecuted? Here is just one example.

Between 1933–45, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.^[1] Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps.^[1] It is unclear how many of the 5,000 to 15,000 eventually perished in the camps, but leading scholar Ruediger Lautman believes that the death rate of homosexuals in concentration camps may have been as high as 60%. Homosexuals in the camps were treated in an unusually cruel manner by their captors.

[Jaybear]

This is an insipid exclamation which has no bearing on the issue at hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Insipid quote according to scholar Wade Englund: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

[AddamS]

I hope for the sake of sticking to the OP everbody is at least typing their arguments with a British accent.

[frankenstein]

When all else fails, try nit-picking semantics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Does that also apply to who is a Christian and who isn't?

[jskains]

Seriously? You doubt gays have been persecuted? Here is just one example.

So your response is Nazism? A lot of people were persecuted who were not gay. That's a shoddy citation.

JMS

[Pahoran]

Seriously? You doubt gays have been persecuted? Here is just one example.

So when it comes to "gay marriage," you proudly hold up Nero as your role model.

I agree; he suits you.

And then, to support the claim of homosexuals being persecuted, you go back to Nazi Germany, where the attitude towards homosexuals was ambivalent (to put it mildly). Ernst Roehm, anyone? Ernst Hanfstaengl?

Who really believes that Kurt Schuschnigg was locked up in Sachsenhausen and Dachau because he was a homosexual?

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

The pink triangle as a outward symbol for homosexual started with the nazis, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the Lds Church will officially seek to influence a foreign goverments political process.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The pink triangle as a outward symbol for homosexual started with the nazis, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the Lds Church will officially seek to influence a foreign goverments political process.

What are you talking about? I am afraid that your response is incoherent.

[frankenstein]

Ok did some digging. Argentina adopted gay marriage, according to Kim Farah (a pr rep for the Lds who is on record as providing wrong informatio) stated that the Lds Church took no official position for or against the ssm legislation in Argentina. Though the Church did issue a letter to all its Bishops in Argentina which restated the position of the church on marriage. I imagine the Lds Church will the same in the UK.

wwrn.org/ articles /33864/

Edited March 12, 2012 by frankenstein

[zerinus]

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.

Not true. By "traditional marriage" is meant heterosexual marriage, as opposed to same sex marriage. Marriage in all societies and in all ages of the world, and among all religions, and since time immemorial, have been heterosexual. There may have been variations within that tradition, such as polygamy vs. monogamy, or no-fault divorce vs. fault divorce etc., but the fundamental heterosexual nature of the marriage tradition has never been challenged until now. If you watched the video interview with the Catholic bishop I linked to, he is very articulate in making clear what he regards as "traditional marriage".

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."

Nothing that Mormonism has done challenges the traditional heterosexual nature of marriage. Those are variations within the tradition, not going completely outside of the tradition.

[zerinus]

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.

For the purpose of this discussion, "traditional marriage" may be taken as defined by the Catholic bishop, i.e. heterosexual (and monogamous) marriage in the Christian tradition. If we widened the scope to include other religions such as Islam, then polygamy would also be included as part of the "traditional marriage". But all of these still fall broadly within the realm of the heterosexual marriage tradition, which is what we are talking about here.

[Calm]

never mind

Edited March 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

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.

Not the heterosexual nature of marriage. That has been a universal constant since recorded history.

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.

False. (1) There is a universal heterosexual tradition of marriage dating back to prehistory. (2) There is something inherently good about heterosexual marriage, and bad about same-sex marriage. Watch the video interview with the Catholic bishop again.