Gay Marriage Support And Church Membership

[CV75]

Human rights.

What makes you any different then a gay? What if you were told you are a Latter-day Saint so you can not be married?

It is that simple.

That is the best argument I have heard for gay marriage. I have not heard one argument that matches that for the opposing side.

Yours is not an argument at all until you lay out the good reasons for denying a Latter-day Saint marriage (after they have been particpating in a millennia/centuries-old institution). This must be why you do not recognize the good arguments when they are presented.

[wenglund]

Human rights.

What makes you any different then a gay? What if you were told your a Latter-day Saint so you can not be married?

It is that simple.

That is the best argument I have heard for gay marriage. I have not heard one argument that matches that for the opposing side.

But, that isn't a valid argument, let alone a rational basis argument (which is what I spoke to). It falsely presumes that state sanctioned marriage is a human right. It isn't. Rather, it is a limited right granted by the state. Were it a human right, then the state would be obliged to sanction marriages of under-age children, non-citizens, incestuous relations, human/animal relations, and polygamists, and marriages performed by any human, since they all involve humans. Because it is a right granted by the state, then the state has the right to grant marital sanctions to whomever, and reason would suggest that the state ought to make that decision based on state interest--i.e. where the costs are outweighed by the benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2012 by wenglund

[tyler90az]

But don't expect me to recognize that partnership as one God approves of.

Therefore, you do not care if gays get married because God will not approve anyway? Am i understanding you right?

[CV75]

I agree as well that the state should have no place in marriage.

But where most individuals' economic, political and religious views converge in how they view the role of the state in providing services and protections in relation to the institutions they hold dear, the state should have a palce in marraige, inasmuch as its place eflects the citizens' wishes on the whole.

[tyler90az]

But, that isn't a valid argument. It falsely presumes that marriage is a human right. It isn't. Rather, it is a limited right granted by the state. Were it a human right, then the state would be obliged to sanction marriages of under-age children, non-citizens, incestuous relations, human/animal relations, and polygamists, and marriages performed by any human, since they all involve humans. Because it is a right granted by the state, then the state has the right to grant marital sanctions to whomever, and reason would suggest that the state ought to make that decision based on state interest--i.e. where the costs are outweighed by the benefits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Human equality is a human right.

The difference between gay marriage and the marriages you listed are the ones you listed cause harm. They either physically cause harm like an incestuous relationship or emotional harm to an underage.

[KevinG]

But where most individuals' economic, political and religious views converge in how they view the role of the state in providing services and protections in relation to the institutions they hold dear, the state should have a palce in marraige, inasmuch as its place eflects the citizens' wishes on the whole.

This is the tricky bit when moral statutes intersect with community standards. I am OK with gay partners receiving the same tax benefits as my wife and I. But should this extend to polygamists? Is it really just that I can deduct my numerous children while my gay friend cannot deduct his no children? Once civil rights are extended from individuals to groups (even groups of two) where does the line get drawn on who can benefit from the law and who cannot?

That is where the debate belongs - however I'm hearing more noise about how the LDS Church should be required to act in a certain way or have their tax status revoked for "bigotry and discrimination". That is what I have an issue with.

[tyler90az]

Yours is not an argument at all until you lay out the good reasons for denying a Latter-day Saint marriage (after they have been particpating in a millennia/centuries-old institution). This must be why you do not recognize the good arguments when they are presented.

That is the same exact thing I am telling everybody in this post. Like you said, "Yours is not an argument at all until you lay out the good reasons for denying a [gay marriage]." I am searching hard to come to agreement with the church on this issue.

[Damien the Leper]

It is perplexing that we assume that the "truths we hold" are self evident. They are not. There is logically no reason to assume so.

This article addresses the logical fallacy against gay marriage.

[Calm]

For example I don't believe the LDS church must allow gays to marry in the temple. If it comes to that in the future, no problem.

"No problem" for whom? And what would you suggest be done if a law is made that LDS and other religions must marry gay couples wherever and whenever they ask.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

It is an institutional problem, as well. Relief Society presidencies, and Primary presidencies, used to be pretty autonomous. Now, there is no organization within the church, no matter how small, in which women do not have to submit to a man. But more disturbingly, we still teach that husbands have dominion over their wives, at a micro level, in the family. All we care about is that he does not exercise "unrighteous" dominion. We don't seem to have a problem, however, with the very fact of the dominion itself.

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

I assume he did, but frankly, the only examples we have in the bible portray Jesus as not being at all deferential to his mother. Perhaps that's one of the problems arising from the fact that the bible was written only by men.

[altersteve]

Therefore, you do not care if gays get married because God will not approve anyway? Am i understanding you right?

No, you're not. I don't care if gay people want to be in legal partnerships (no matter what they want to call that partnership), but not because God won't approve. That's a strange position to take IMO: "I support gay partnerships because God won't approve"? That makes no sense at all. The reason I have no opposition to them getting "married" (although that's not a word I really recognize in same-sex unions, since it's not a "marriage" to me) is because it doesn't affect me or my family. What they do is their business and their life and I don't feel I have a right to say how they should live it. That's not my call.

Plainly stated, my position is that the state should not determine who can get married and who can't. They don't have the right to make that judgment because marriage is a religious institution, so they shouldn't recognize any religious union between two people as legally binding. Anyone couple who wants to be legally bound should enter into a civil union. In other words, the contract with God and the contract with the government should be separate.

[altersteve]

This is the tricky bit when moral statutes intersect with community standards. I am OK with gay partners receiving the same tax benefits as my wife and I. But should this extend to polygamists? Is it really just that I can deduct my numerous children while my gay friend cannot deduct his no children? Once civil rights are extended from individuals to groups (even groups of two) where does the line get drawn on who can benefit from the law and who cannot?

That is where the debate belongs - however I'm hearing more noise about how the LDS Church should be required to act in a certain way or have their tax status revoked for "bigotry and discrimination". That is what I have an issue with.

I agree with this.

[Cobalt-70]

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?

"[F]athers are to preside over their families..." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, 1995). Women, on the other hand, are "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." The women is not the president of her family--or even a co-president--and she has no dominion over her husband. Her "domain" is child-rearing, but dominion over the women herself, and the children, is the man's.

[Calm]

Church's rely on roads, fire protection, police, municipal utility services, and benefit from the protection of the army.

Tax exemption is a privilege not a right. Tax exemption means your church benefits from public generosity. Why should the public not have the right to put strings on these benefits.

Because then you have the problem of what a church can say within its own walls being dictated to it by the government as it choses to interpret what the people's will is or should be.

And this is all well and good as long as the government's idea of what is right aligns with your own, but what about in a state that has decided that in order to survive it will no longer allow immigration of anyone who doesn't match the majority demographic, won't allow to be taught in church anything but out of a government approved text?

I would have thought history and even the present day is full of enough examples of what happens when the government steps in to the role of churchleader as opposed to leaving churches open to potentially provide another avenue of discourse for checks and balances so that one does not overwhelm the other.

[CV75]

It is an institutional problem, as well. Relief Society presidencies, and Primary presidencies, used to be pretty autonomous. Now, there is no organization within the church, no matter how small, in which women do not have to submit to a man. But more disturbingly, we still teach that husbands have dominion over their wives, at a micro level, in the family. All we care about is that he does not exercise "unrighteous" dominion. We don't seem to have a problem, however, with the very fact of the dominion itself.

This is so messed up I don't know where to begin (is that your stragetgy?!?!)! LOL

Institutional, no; circumstantial and parochial, perhaps, problems come up all the time (it's more a function of human nature, which the Gospel refines).

I think enough has been said about the proper perspective of dominion, priesthood, etc., but you keep asserting a most improper persepctive and misattributing it to "we."

I assume he did, but frankly, the only examples we have in the bible portray Jesus as not being at all deferential to his mother. Perhaps that's one of the problems arising from the fact that the bible was written only by men.

"Only" examples! LOL He obeyed her request about the wine ant the wedding, He arranged for her security upon His death, He accounted to her his business with His Father. More than anything, have ever known a Jewish mother?

Edited July 25, 2012 by CV75

[KevinG]

"[F]athers are to preside over their families..." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, 1995). Women, on the other hand, are "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." The women is not the president of her family--or even a co-president--and she has no dominion over her husband. Her "domain" is child-rearing, but dominion over the women herself, and the children, is the man's.

Oops you missed the next sentence... "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

The roles described in the Proclamation on the Family are no more misogynist than saying "boys and girls are different".

Edited July 25, 2012 by KevinG

[wenglund]

Human equality is a human right.

This doesn't make sense. Humans by their very nature are unequal, and they don't have a right to be otherwise. Some people are tall and others or short, some people are thin and others fat, some people are smart and others or not, some people are rich and others are poor. Short people don't have a human right to be tall. Fat people don't have a human right to be thin. Etc., etc. Certainly, it isn't the government's responsibility to ensure the right of short people to be tall.

The difference between gay marriage and the marriages you listed are the ones you listed cause harm. They either physically cause harm like an incestuous relationship or emotional harm to an underage.

A reasonable case can also be made that gay marriage can be harmful--physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

However, whether you realized it or not, you just underscored my argument. You just rightly abandoned the unfettered notions of human equality and human rights in favor of discrimination on the rational basis of preventing "harm." This is a giant step in the right direction. Now, if we can just get you to rightly consider the benefit side of the equation as well. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Oops you missed the next sentence... "In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

Equal partners, in the sense that the man's place is to "preside," and the woman's place is to "nurture," and that nurturing is as important as presiding. But that doesn't change the equation, which is that the man's role is to preside, and the woman's role is not to preside.

[KevinG]

Equal partners, in the sense that the man's place is to "preside," and the woman's place is to "nurture," and that nurturing is as important as presiding. But that doesn't change the equation, which is that the man's role is to preside, and the woman's role is not to preside.

I think your definition of preside may be different than the Lords.

D&C 121:41 No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By ^akindness, and pure ^bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the ^csoul without ^dhypocrisy, and without ^eguile—

[wenglund]

It is perplexing that we assume that the "truths we hold" are self evident. They are not. There is logically no reason to assume so.

This article addresses the logical fallacy against gay marriage.

I can't speak for others, but I don't operate on that assumption.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[altersteve]

"[F]athers are to preside over their families..." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, 1995). Women, on the other hand, are "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." The women is not the president of her family--or even a co-president--and she has no dominion over her husband. Her "domain" is child-rearing, but dominion over the women herself, and the children, is the man's.

"Dominion" and "domain" are disgusting words to use here. Neither the man nor the woman have "dominion" over any specific thing; they are equal partners. That the husband is "to preside over" the family does not mean he has "dominion" over his wife and children, it means he is responsible for their safety and well-being. He provides for them and protects them. It's the same way that a bishop presides over a ward -- God gives him the responsibility to act as a shepherd over these sheep in His place, and if anything happens to them, depending on the situation, the responsibility falls on his shoulders to go find them and bring them back to the herd. This is the father's job because he's the head priesthood holder. And as Christ taught, I hope you recall, whoever is greatest among us is given the responsibility of serving the rest of God's children, not dominating over them.

[Cobalt-70]

"Only" examples! LOL He obeyed her request about the wine ant the wedding, He arranged for her security upon His death, He accounted to her his business with His Father. More than anything, have ever known a Jewish mother?

Arranging for her security after his death is an example of a male "taking care of" a fragile woman, so that plays into the patriarchy. His accounting to her his business with his father, that was portrayed by the author as rather dismissive. His mother's concern was unimportant, because he was with the Men, doing Man business. The story of the wine at the marriage comes across as Mary asking Jesus to intervene, which is actually a submissive act by Mary. It was not a portrayal of Mary directing Jesus to help out with the marriage in a subordinate role.

[CV75]

This is the tricky bit when moral statutes intersect with community standards. ...Once civil rights are extended from individuals to groups (even groups of two) where does the line get drawn on who can benefit from the law and who cannot?

I would say that civil rights are appropriately extended to individuals who behave individually or collectively (in the case of a couple or other legally-recognized structure) according to what the community defines as its moral standard, which is often quite minimal in freer societies. This would be reflected in regulatory measures (such as tax breaks and recognized unions) that support the ability of individuals and recognized structures to contribute the most they can to the greater good. If the society believes polygamy or the erosion of the definition/institution of traditional marriage are bad for the whole, such favors should be denied. KInd of the BSA issue on a grand scale. In a democratic republic, these matters are very well thought out with a lot of participation and experience.

... I'm hearing more noise about how the LDS Church should be required to act in a certain way or have their tax status revoked for "bigotry and discrimination".

And I agree that's just plain nuts.

[KevinG]

Heaven forbid if men are called to take care of wives and children!

[wenglund]

"[F]athers are to preside over their families..." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, 1995). Women, on the other hand, are "primarily responsible for the nurture of their children." The women is not the president of her family--or even a co-president--and she has no dominion over her husband. Her "domain" is child-rearing, but dominion over the women herself, and the children, is the man's.

This is certainly one radically fundamentalist interpretation of the Proclamation, even if wildly off-topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 25, 2012 by wenglund