Gay Marriage Support And Church Membership

[CV75]

You do realize that adoption of children has NOTHING to do with marriage in this country right? It is not a requirement for a couple or evern a single person to be married in order to adopt children. It is also not a requirement to have children in order to be married. If this is your argument, it is a complete red herring.

You seem to be missing the point that the Convention is not same-sex marriage friendly and emphasizes the right of the child vis a vis both (biological) parents, not same-sex partners, married or not. Same-sex marriage is even the further step away.

[CV75]

There are many problems with reliance on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. First, (big surprise), the United States has not ratified it because of opposition from religious conservatives. The only other country that has not ratified is Somalia, and it's rather embarrassing that the United States is on the level of Somalia in its commitment to the rights of children.

Second, I think that your distinction between biological and non-biological parents is your own distinction, and not a distinction within the document itself. A parent is a parent, whether biological or adoptive. A legal guardian is not the same thing as a parent. Adoptive parents have the same rights as biological parents, and just because a child has been adopted does not mean that the child's rights have been violated or infringed in any way. Adoptive parents are not second-class parents. The document explicitly recognizes systems of adoption. (Art. 21.)

Third, the treaty absolutely does not make any judgment that having two parents of the same gender is not in the best interests of the child. The document is neutral as to that issue.

Reliance? It’s a good argument, that’s all.

The “problems” you cite have their counterargument as well. The USA was very much a part of drafting it (and if “conservatives” are holding it up, that only confounds those who would say its treatment of parentage supports a liberal stance on marriage).

My distinction about biological parentage in context of the Convention is shared by enough to make it a good argument—Google it!

Adoption and guardianship are treated in the Convention as lesser alternatives to natural parentage.

Look where the Convention is not neutral and you will recognize themes that are not supportive of same-sex marriage.

Edited July 24, 2012 by CV75

[KevinG]

I think the USA is hesitant to get into any law that restricts it sovereignty. The UN security counsel is a good warning.

The conservative boogeyman is not that powerful.

[CV75]

I think the USA is hesitant to get into any law that restricts it sovereignty. The UN security counsel is a good warning.

The conservative boogeyman is not that powerful.

I think the underlying principles still support the child's right to be raised by natural, biological parents, which in more cultures than not favors/assumes traditional marriage over same-sex marriage. The document is the argument in that it reflects global values and a well-thought out reason and position to protcet children, any of the UN politics aside.

[Cobalt-70]

Not bizarre at all for Mormons. We tend to de-emphasise the word submit and use the phrase help meet. You do know that DJs viewpoint is evangelical and not LDS?

I have seen a very healthy friendship and equal support with my gay friend and his partner. I don't doubt a good monogamous relationship can be had within same sex couples. On the other hand my friend has no desire or impulse to define marriage for me and mine. We respect each others right to associate and believe as we do and our friendship has been stronger for it.

If he wanted to become a Mormon he would have to sacrifice to do so. If I wanted to live another lifestyle I would be giving up my blessings to do so.

Neither one of us wants special interest groups or governments telling us what we have to do or believe.

Maybe you know this, but the term "help meet" is not a noun as it is used by Mormons and some other Christians, and is an artifact from the peculiar King James translation. It means "helper, suitable...." The idea of a helper does not imply a hierarchy. Just as Eve was a suitable helper for Adam, Adam was also a suitable helper for Eve. Unlike Adam, for some men perhaps the most suitable helper is another man (putting aside sexual intimacy issues for the moment)--but in any event, it is evidently "not good for man to be alone." When people help each other, that does not imply that one person dominates, and the other submits. To the extent that the temple ceremony still maintains the relic of female submission and obedience to her male overlord, that language has changed in the past, and undoubtedly it will change in the future as the Brethren realize how offensive it still is.

[Cobalt-70]

My distinction about biological parentage in context of the Convention is shared by enough to make it a good argument—Google it!

One may have several parents, both adoptive or biological. All that is argued for by those who advocate this is a right to know one's biological parents. But that is not a universal interpretation. In the United States and elsewhere, parents have the right to give their children up in closed adoptions, and sever their ties. And the Convention does not countenance the forcible removal of children from their unwilling biological parents, except when it is in the best interests of the child. But regardless, the Convention certainly does not provide a right of children to be cared for by their biological parents who voluntarily gave them up, in preference to their adoptive parents. The adoptive parents are the parents in charge. They are the ones with legal responsibility for the child.

Adoption and guardianship are treated in the Convention as lesser alternatives to natural parentage.

I totally disagree. In adoption systems, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. (Art. 21.) Adoptive parents are not "lesser." By definition under adoption systems, they are the better alternative to the biological parents, because unlike the biological parents, the adoptive parents want the child (sometimes desperately), and are willing to care for them.

[wenglund]

America has as one of its fundamental principles that all men are equal under the law. We also have as a basic principle the concept that there is protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Certain basic rights are not left to the vote of the people. The gay community is making its claim that gay marriage is part of equal treatment under the laws of this country. So far the courts have agreed. As we all know, this will eventually be ruled on by the US Supreme Court. I think what Tyler is looking for is some legitimate legal argument denying gays equal rights regarding this issue. So far, there has not been a particularly strong legal argument to not allow gay marriage. Economic costs are not a legitimate reason to deny someone equal protection under the law. And no lawyer brought up this argument when presenting the case for both DOMA and Prop 8. I doubt if the Supreme Court would accept economic expediency as a reason for denying someone equal protection under the law. Perhaps I am wrong. We will all have to wait and see what the final ruling is.

This tells me that even gay advocates are fully aware that there is no rational basis for selectively extending state sanctioned marriages to same-sex couple. Their only resort, then, has been to slowly erode the notions of equal protection and due process beyond recognition and eventually find the right judges to apply those notion, via judicial fiat, in ways they were never intended and which ultimately make no sense--like absurdly calling it tyranny to rationally preserve the tradition definition of marriage.

By the way, there have been a number of federal and state DOMA cases where the issue of Equal Protection and Due Process have been considered, and where the courts have upheld the DOMAs using the rational basis argument. It is only recently that a couple of judges have ruled otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2012 by wenglund

[KevinG]

To the extent that the temple ceremony still maintains the relic of female submission and obedience to her male overlord, that language has changed in the past, and undoubtedly it will change in the future as the Brethren realize how offensive it still is.

I've been in the temple before and after recent changes. The language used in reference to the relationship between men and women is to compare it to the relationship between Christ and his church. If we follow that intent we as men are the first servants to our families. If men exercise their priesthood properly there is no doubt that this does not imply any kind of unrighteous dominion.

[wenglund]

It still stands that i have not heard a good argument for being against same sex marriage. If anybody would enlighten me, plese do so. Despite what wade thinks, this is not a trap, rather I am truly searching.

But, I don't think this is a trap. Rather, I think you just aren't getting it. The best argument against state sanctioned gay marriage is that their hasn't been a compelling case made that there is rational basis for it.

Be that as it may, if you are interested, here is a Secular Case Against Gay Marriage. Here is a Liberatrian Case Against Gay Marriage. Here is an Economic Case Against Gay Marriage. Here is a Gay Man's Case Against Gay Marriage. And, here is a Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

One may have several parents, both adoptive or biological. All that is argued for by those who advocate this is a right to know one's biological parents. But that is not a universal interpretation. In the United States and elsewhere, parents have the right to give their children up in closed adoptions, and sever their ties. And the Convention does not countenance the forcible removal of children from their unwilling biological parents, except when it is in the best interests of the child. But regardless, the Convention certainly does not provide a right of children to be cared for by their biological parents who voluntarily gave them up, in preference to their adoptive parents. The adoptive parents are the parents in charge. They are the ones with legal responsibility for the child.

I totally disagree. In adoption systems, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. (Art. 21.) Adoptive parents are not "lesser." By definition under adoption systems, they are the better alternative to the biological parents, because unlike the biological parents, the adoptive parents want the child (sometimes desperately), and are willing to care for them.

The Convention is based on the reality that chidlren have two biological parents, what their rights are in relation thereto. The legal situations it addresses for the sake of the child begins with the ideal and descends into lesser expediencies. Note how much you need to twist the interpretation to devalue the ideal.

Biological parentage for children is a primary and unique element of marriage, not of same-sex unions/partneships/relationships. So while the right of illegitimate children are proteted in any recognized legal arrangement, civilization holds marriage as the gold standard, and this is embedded in the Convention.

[CV75]

When people help each other, that does not imply that one person dominates, and the other submits. To the extent that the temple ceremony still maintains the relic of female submission and obedience to her male overlord, that language has changed in the past, and undoubtedly it will change in the future as the Brethren realize how offensive it still is.

1. God submits and obeys also (the most obvious being Christ to the Father, and presumably the Father to His laws and covenants).

2. God and His children help each other (how many times have we heard that we are God's hands, and that He empowers those who serve selflessly).

3. God does not dominate; He actually shares power with those who are willing to receive it (D&C 84:35-39).

4. Any changes the Brethren make to continue to communiacte best with those with ears to hear the temple covenants will continue to teach these principles.

[Damien the Leper]

This from your extended quote:

In other words, if a social tinkerer can, with a straight face, make an argument, then traditional, moral, time-tested definitions must give way, since the defender of the traditional, moral, and time-tested must then bear the burden of defending the self-evident.

Not an easy thing at all. Indeed, it's all but impossible.

What you cite from my extended quote has been done by Christianity in history. IIRC, Daniel McClellan spoke of this on his blog a year ago when he was addressing James White. Furthermore, and I hope Daniel will correct me if I'm wrong, 'tradition' is not synonymous with 'orthodox' or 'original' or 'correct'.

[Damien the Leper]

So explain how 'gay marriage' is meant to work in this way then? Who is to take on the role of the man and who takes on the role of the woman?

Even I know this is ridiculous.

[california boy]

Now that is a good argument

Slippery slope arguments are never good arguments legally or otherwise to justify not treating others equally under the law. The Mormon church did not allow temple marriage of blacks for close to 150 years. Granted the majority of those years people were perfectly fine with discriminating against blacks. But even when that was not acceptable, did the government ever force the church to marry blacks in the temple? The religious freedoms in this country are firmly entrenched in the constitution and very difficult to dislodge. Most of the laws that have so far allowed gay marriage, as an added precaution have specifically forbid the forcing of churches to marry gays.

No one is asking let alone forcing any religion to marry gays. Some religions however feel it is what God wants them to do. They like the idea of encouraging gays to form more stable monogamous relationships. Honest people disagree on this subject. It seems like the best way in this country to resolve this issue is to allow those churches that wish to perform gay marriages to do so.

[california boy]

Not bizarre at all for Mormons. We tend to de-emphasise the word submit and use the phrase help meet. You do know that DJs viewpoint is evangelical and not LDS?

I have seen a very healthy friendship and equal support with my gay friend and his partner. I don't doubt a good monogamous relationship can be had within same sex couples. On the other hand my friend has no desire or impulse to define marriage for me and mine. We respect each others right to associate and believe as we do and our friendship has been stronger for it.

If he wanted to become a Mormon he would have to sacrifice to do so. If I wanted to live another lifestyle I would be giving up my blessings to do so.

Neither one of us wants special interest groups or governments telling us what we have to do or believe.

Good to hear that you agree this is an argument most Mormons don't embrace. Sorry, I forgot DJ was evangelic. I completely agree with your logical approach.

[california boy]

Well I know that my objection is at least 70% economic.

Gay Marriage Produced $259 Million For New York City Economy

There, 70% of your objection to gay marriage is now no longer a concern. lol.

[CASteinman]

There, 70% of your objection to gay marriage is now no longer a concern. lol.

I was not referring to people spending money. My economic objection remains.

[california boy]

This tells me that even gay advocates are fully aware that there is no rational basis for selectively extending state sanctioned marriages to same-sex couple. Their only resort, then, has been to slowly erode the notions of equal protection and due process beyond recognition and eventually find the right judges to apply those notion, via judicial fiat, in ways they were never intended and which ultimately make no sense--like absurdly calling it tyranny to rationally preserve the tradition definition of marriage.

By the way, there have been a number of federal and state DOMA cases where the issue of Equal Protection and Due Process have been considered, and where the courts have upheld the DOMAs using the rational basis argument. It is only recently that a couple of judges have ruled otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is all I can tell you Wade, is that I am confident that DOMA and Prop 8 will both be overturned by the US Supreme Court precisely because there have been no strong legal argument supporting either one. And it doesn't really matter to me what basis the ruling takes. I am not a lawyer. But I am familiar enough with the laws of this country that I can see discrimination when it is staring me in the face. The majority of Americans both gay and straight also see that discrimination in these two laws. I just think the Supreme Court justices will also see discrimination and rule against both of them.

[Cobalt-70]

I've been in the temple before and after recent changes. The language used in reference to the relationship between men and women is to compare it to the relationship between Christ and his church. If we follow that intent we as men are the first servants to our families. If men exercise their priesthood properly there is no doubt that this does not imply any kind of unrighteous dominion.

The problem is not unrighteous dominion. It is dominion, period. The idea that Adam has dominion over Eve is offensive, as is the idea that Mormon men have dominion over their wives. Whether that dominion is righteous or unrighteous, the fact that men think they have such dominion is still offensive to anyone younger than 65 who is not already drinking the patriarchal cool-aid.

[Cobalt-70]

1. God submits and obeys also (the most obvious being Christ to the Father, and presumably the Father to His laws and covenants).

Christ submits to the Heavenly Mother, as well. The problem is the erroneous patriarchal idea that women must submit to men, but men never, ever submit to women.

[CV75]

Christ submits to the Heavenly Mother, as well. The problem is the erroneous patriarchal idea that women must submit to men, but men never, ever submit to women.

Yes, that is an erroneous concept and it would create problems where it exists, but I see the vast preponderance of patriarchally-minded men sustaining the women holding callings in their LDS Church units. So I think it would be rather easy for you to do something about the problems you see in your experieince.

You don't have to wax speculative about Christ and His Heavenly Mother; He submitted to Mary during His mortal life.

[KevinG]

The problem is not unrighteous dominion. It is dominion, period. The idea that Adam has dominion over Eve is offensive, as is the idea that Mormon men have dominion over their wives. Whether that dominion is righteous or unrighteous, the fact that men think they have such dominion is still offensive to anyone younger than 65 who is not already drinking the patriarchal cool-aid.

You don't understand. I have dominion over my wife and she has dominion over me. We are both responsible towards each other and for each other. The scope of our authority over the family is shared. Christ gave his life to save all mankind. If a husband is set up as a type of Christ to his family then what is his role?

[CV75]

The problem is not unrighteous dominion. It is dominion, period. The idea that Adam has dominion over Eve is offensive, as is the idea that Mormon men have dominion over their wives. Whether that dominion is righteous or unrighteous, the fact that men think they have such dominion is still offensive to anyone younger than 65 who is not already drinking the patriarchal cool-aid.

Perhaps to those who do not understand how priesthood dominion works; definitively to those who refuse to understand how priesthood dominion works. But all they need to do is imagine the opposite of what they mistakenly believe it to be.

"anyone younger than 65 who is not already drinking the patriarchal cool-aid"??? So it has come to the point where the offended try to offend. And do you really think ths is the first generation where someone tries to make this a generational issue? That's just ignorant.

“And it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him. (Moses 5:1).”

Edited July 25, 2012 by CV75

[wenglund]

Slippery slope arguments are never good arguments legally or otherwise to justify not treating others equally under the law. The Mormon church did not allow temple marriage of blacks for close to 150 years. Granted the majority of those years people were perfectly fine with discriminating against blacks. But even when that was not acceptable, did the government ever force the church to marry blacks in the temple? The religious freedoms in this country are firmly entrenched in the constitution and very difficult to dislodge. Most of the laws that have so far allowed gay marriage, as an added precaution have specifically forbid the forcing of churches to marry gays.

No one is asking let alone forcing any religion to marry gays. Some religions however feel it is what God wants them to do. They like the idea of encouraging gays to form more stable monogamous relationships. Honest people disagree on this subject. It seems like the best way in this country to resolve this issue is to allow those churches that wish to perform gay marriages to do so.

This dismissive counter-argument can be distilled down to: the future of society is far less important to gay advocates than their own selfish wants, and they are even willing to warp the notion of equality to get it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Society forced the LDS church to give up their marriage beliefs under threat of taking all their property just over 100 years ago. Changing the meaning of marriage as a potential step towards denying churches tax exempt status for disagreeing isn't that slippery of a slope.