Defining Marriage

[wenglund]

CFR, from that the Biblical phrase "one flesh" means create a child, and to be authoritative, it would have to be an Official LDS source.

CFR that my personal interpretation needs to be authoritative--i.e. from an Official LDS source, let alone CFRed.

And your positions means the childless couples are not considered to be married.

CFR (this is news to me).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Ah, nostalgia for the good times. 60 years ago:

***

Apparently when people are given the freedom to make choices to do things in their personal lives that others disagree with then "society" falls apart.

Unfortuanately you are only looking at one side of the argument with a very narrow lens. My using a timeline to show how long it has taken for marriage to be abused to the level it is today has nothing to do with my nostaligia or your naivette.

[treehugger]

CFR that my personal interpretation needs to be authoritative--i.e. from an Official LDS source, let alone CFRed.

....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Since it is your personal philosophy what "one flesh"means, then surely you are going to edit post 25 since you are unwilling or unable to honor the CFR.

[CV75]

Virtually NONE of the problems with marriage in this country today is because of the 4% population that is gay.

I kind of find the use of this statistic a bit disingenuous—only 4% of the population is good/special enough to be recognized as gay? Where does this leave all the other sexual orientations and proclivities?

There isn’t much worse than the relatively nouveau riche selfishly applying their status to legitimize their immoral predilections—that is what this is all about.

[Ahab]

You forgot to add "according the the religious beliefs of the Mormon church."

No, I didn't say it because it really wasn't necessary and doesn't change the truth one iota.

Homosexual marriage isn't a good thing regardless of what anyone believes about it.

Most gays don't think gay marriage is any more wrong than straight marriage.

Yep, and they're wrong to think that, whether they realize it or not. Homosexual marriage is wrong every time, all the time.

They believe that it is not good for man to be alone. I know, kind of an odd point of view.

They could just be room mates, even life long room mates, without getting into the "marriage" aspect of a relationship.

The "marriage" part... where 2 join together as one flesh... isn't something two people of the same sex should be doing.

It isn't right. It isn't good. It is an evil abomination of the way things should be for things to be good.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Ahab

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

God just married them (apparently without a ceremony--just an introduction). He didn't define the English word marriage, or any equivalent word in the mythical Adamic language. Besides, kinship relationships similar to what we now call marriage existed well before the time frame of Adam and Eve.

Yes...on earth as it is in heaven. This is we're it began, marriage is modeled after an institution than has always existed.

[Ahab]

The question for me is no longer can gays and others define marriage as they wish. Given the widespread support of civil unions and access to legal rights identical to heterosexual couples I don't see civil rights being denied too often. There are still a few places where corrections need to be made (visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance laws, etc.) but those are being corrected.

The question then becomes "at what point do your free speech rights begin to overreach into my right of free association and speech?" The attempt to boycott Chick-fil-a because Dan Cathy affirmed his support for traditional marriage or the successful attempt to deny the Boy Scouts access to publicly funded parks and facilities because their choice of free association does not agree with yours is overstepping that line.

I'm all for respecting the rights of others and support the efforts to insure gays and straights have the same fundamental rights under the law. Once those efforts seek to punish others for their beliefs and associations then they deny the fundamental rights of all citizens to freely choose their associations and express their beliefs.

I ate a Chick-fil-a today not to protest gay rights but to support Dan Cathy's right to express his beliefs without the whole Chick-fil-a chain being punished for the opinions of some of their leadership.

At some point some rights should be taken away if people don't live up to a certain code of ethics. That's why certain rights are taken away when someone is convicted of a crime. The problem is that some people don't realize homosexual marriage is wrong.

But suppose they did, for a moment. Suppose people thought homosexual marriage was wrong and should be a crime, perhaps punishable by time in prison, or at least a fine. Now suppose the legislative system agreed with that idea and actually made it a crime. There would still probably be some people who would do it, no matter what the punishment, but at least it would be on record as a crime, and punishable.

That's what's going to happen eventually anyway when our Lord takes over this world. I hope some people will learn before it's too late.

[wenglund]

Since it is your personal philosophy what "one flesh"means, then surely you are going to edit post 25 since you are unwilling or unable to honor the CFR.

No need. To avoid rank hypocrisy, you will surely edit out your CFRs in post #32, since you failed to honor my CFRs in post # 51, thereby leaving no CFRs for me to honor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[treehugger]

No need. To avoid rank hypocrisy, you will surely edit out your CFRs in post #32, since you failed to honor my CFRs in post # 51, thereby leaving no CFRs for me to honor.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, if you want to use the philosophy of men mingled with scripiture in a vain attempt to support then Bible, have it; just have the integrity to admit you appeal to non-authoritative sources.

Appeals to non-authority makes you position no more valid than California Kids.

Edited August 1, 2012 by treehugger

[wenglund]

Wade, if you want to use the philosophy of men mingled with scripiture in a vain attempt to support then Bible, have it; just have the integrity to admit you appeal to non-authoritative sources.

If you lack the personal integrity to rightly acknowledge that you made an inane request, and have since lamely attempted to cover your shame through a flurry of self-serving caricatures of what I have done, that certain is your choice.

Appeals to non-authority makes you position no more valid than California Kids.

My comment in question was to Cobalt-70, and not California boy. If you presume to self-righteously wag your finger, it might be wise to get your facts straight first. Otherwise, you come off as....well, as you usually do. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves.

The one he castrated to 'turn into a girl'?

Using Nero as an example of same sex marriage is not exactly something that would lead to greater acceptance of the desired insitution.

Using Elagabalus as an example of same sex marriage would be another one that would tend to support the restriction of such as a perversion, not the acceptance of it.

Edited August 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

The one he castrated to 'turn into a girl'?

Using Nero as an example of same sex marriage is not exactly something that would lead to greater acceptance of the desired insitution.

When the great composer Stravinski was asked by the Pope "How can the Catholic church support the arts?" he supposedly replied, "Bring back the Castrati".

[california boy]

As expected, you got it exactly backwards. The term "marriage" has been legally defined (implicitly and explicitly) for centuries. It is the SS advocates who, not until relatively recently, have attempted to "force" their definition on others, though through the courts.

In the indelible words of Bill O'Reilly: "Let the spin stop here, because we are looking out for you."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

CFR where anyone is forcing gay marriage on the Mormon church or any other church in America.

[california boy]

I agree that the preponderance of troubles with marriage are caused by heterosexuals not honoring marriage covenants. That does not excuse throwing out the baby with the bathwater and giving up on traditional expectations of marriages.

This is not really a case about throwing the baby out with the bath water. When 96% of the population is making a travisty of the definition of marriage and wants to blame 4% of the population for the mess, it is more a mote and beam comparison. You might want to reread what Christ had to say about such judgements.

Again I'm not interested in imposing my definition of marriage through civil law. I do however thing religious bodies should have a voice in the community standards that guide our laws. The debate for me is where your civil rights and my civil rights may overlap. There we need to have a serious dialogue not demonization of those who disagree with each other.

Well first of all you have to make a case that your civil rights are being threatened at all. CFR where gay marriage will threaten your religious beliefs.

[california boy]

Homosexual marriage isn't a good thing regardless of what anyone believes about it.

Yep, and they're wrong to think that, whether they realize it or not. Homosexual marriage is wrong every time, all the time.

Unless of course you are gay. I can certainly see why gay marriage might not be right for you. My recommendation is for you to not have a gay marriage. There, problem solved.

They could just be room mates, even life long room mates, without getting into the "marriage" aspect of a relationship.

The "marriage" part... where 2 join together as one flesh... isn't something two people of the same sex should be doing.

It isn't right. It isn't good. It is an evil abomination of the way things should be for things to be good.

So your position is to advocate relationships outside the bonds of marriage. Are you really taking up the position that fortification is much better than being married?

[wenglund]

CFR where anyone is forcing gay marriage on the Mormon church or any other church in America.

Sorry, you can only request CFRs for things that I actually said, and not for things you misread into what I said. Please, read more carefully. You keep getting things wrong. My comment was in regards to "changing the definition of marriage," and it was general in relation to "others," and not specific to the Mormon Church or any other Church. Sheesh

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 2, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

Sorry, you can only request CFRs for things that I actually said, and not for things you misread into what I said. Please, read more carefully. You keep getting things wrong. My comment was in regards to "changing the definition of marriage," and it was general in relation to "others," and not specific to the Mormon Church or any other Church. Sheesh

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for acknowledging that no one is forcing their definition of marriage on you. That is real big of you to admit that wade. Good job.

[CV75]

This is not really a case about throwing the baby out with the bath water. When 96% of the population is making a travisty of the definition of marriage and wants to blame 4% of the population for the mess, it is more a mote and beam comparison. You might want to reread what Christ had to say about such judgements.

I'm not sure why you won't respond you what i said in reply to this before, when you misrepresented my position that gay marriage represents the low point of a long decline in morals where traditional marriage has not been respected for some time.Gay "marriage" vs traditional/religious marriage is not a beam/mote issue. There isn't even a "versus" issue, as it's an apples and oranges comparison. The problem with gay "marriage" is that it specifically canonizes and codifies immoral behavior. Plus the issues raised by Jaybear in confessing gay "marriage" as universally taboo throughout all civilizations.

4% of the population is not the issue (and you didn't repond to my reply to that, either!), it is the popularization and legitimization of the concept of gay "marriage" and institutionalizing other immoral acts that manipulate the laws to the point of foreseeably supressing the expression of religion freedom. Where morality is the basis of law, an erosion of morality will inevitably result in laws that impinge on moral-friendly people and institutions.

[Jaybear]

I'm not sure why you won't respond you what i said in reply to this before, when you misrepresented my position that gay marriage represents the low point of a long decline in morals where traditional marriage has not been respected for some time.Gay "marriage" vs traditional/religious marriage is not a beam/mote issue. There isn't even a "versus" issue, as it's an apples and oranges comparison. The problem with gay "marriage" is that it specifically canonizes and codifies immoral behavior. Plus the issues raised by Jaybear in confessing gay "marriage" as universally taboo throughout all civilizations.

4% of the population is not the issue (and you didn't repond to my reply to that, either!), it is the popularization and legitimization of the concept of gay "marriage" and institutionalizing other immoral acts that manipulate the laws to the point of foreseeably supressing the expression of religion freedom. Where morality is the basis of law, an erosion of morality will inevitably result in laws that impinge on moral-friendly people and institutions.

How does gay marriage codify and canonize immoral behavior?

The behavior you consider immoral is sodomy.

Gay couple are not getting married so that they can copulate. They are already doing that.

To them, marriage is about making a social contract, a public expression of commitment to each other.

How is making a formal, legally binding public commitment to a person of the same sex immoral?

As to this patently absurd notion of suppressing religious freedom. Most church's consider polygamy to be illegal. Do you believe that legalizing polygamy would lead to the suppression of "the expression of religious freedom" of those churches opposed to polygamy. Perhaps we should ban Mormonism, because many Churches don't consider Mormons Christians, and we wouldn't want to suppress their god given ability to express their narrow view of Christianity by refusing to marry Mormons in their church. .

Frankly, the only reason you side is even going to this "suppression of religious freedom" is because you recognize that you can't present a rational basis to oppose gay marriage. Another court, Bush appointee, just struck down the attempt to explain DOMA on rational terms.

Bryant bases her official equal protection claim on rational basis, making the case that DOMA is so constitutionally impermissible that it does not even pass that lower standard of review. She eviscerates BLAG's arguments in defense of the statute, arguing that it does not promote heterosexual marriage, does nothing to ensure that children have two parents of the opposite sex, has no bearing on traditional notions of morality (as Bryant notes, "there is no universal position shared amongst Judeo-Christian faiths regarding the morality of same-sex marriage"), undermines federalism by sabotaging states' attempts at democratic self-governance, and explicitly goes against any purported policy of incrementalism.

[CV75]

How does gay marriage codify and canonize immoral behavior?

[blah blah]

How is making a formal, legally binding public commitment to a person of the same sex immoral?

[blah blah]

As to this patently absurd notion [blah blah]

a rational basis [blah blah]

Gay “marriage” codifies and canonizes immoral behavior as follows: The immoral behavior is in changing the lawful (which law is morally-based) union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife into something that is not morally based. This is aside from the problems of immoral sexual behavior of any kind. The immoral behavior is also in changing the moral definition of marriage into one that is not moral. It is immoral to treat something good as bad and vice-versa, thereby changing it into what it isn't. The codification of course is in the collection and arrangement of such laws, rules, and regulations, etc. that change the moral union into something less. The canonization is in the placement of immoral behavior above reproach, and in absence of belief in church authority, sanctioning by its substitute (in this case, a government).

Formal, legally binding public commitment between persons of the same sex is immoral when it is clearly part of the agenda to make the changes described above, and when accompanied and symbolic of a demand for society to accept immoral sexual activity. It is, after all, about full expression of homosexual identity and the attendant sexual expression of public commitment, civil rights aside (which is a separate issue).

What does a church considering what is illegal have to do with that which is illegal being illegal (it's irrelevant!!!); your notion is screwy and beside the point--patently absurd, even! Also, you copy and paste another person’s blog/opinion of what he thinks is rational and use that to support that someone else is irrational? This is patently absurd as well. Try expressing your own ideas for a change... (oops--never mind!).

If you can’t understand that laws can evolve to the point of suppressing the expression of religious freedom, then you are very naïve (look at countries where the religion is the state—not the same as what we’re talking about in US politics--and where religious freedom stands there), and if you can’t understand that morality is the basis of US law, and an erosion of morality will inevitably result in an erosion of laws that support moral-friendly institutions, then all you have left is to waffle and jabber as you’ve been doing and as others have called you out on.

I hope I don’t have to get into the differences and overlap between church, religion, and morality; if I do, don’t expect me to indulge you with another reply.

[happy]

The "ugly" and "embarrassing"...

It comes across as you might be agreeing with those views rather than just reporting them.

I am unsure how. I was saying that is how they were portraid.

"Many very ugly views were presented about how the Biblical definition of marriage is embarrassing."

I feel my sentence was pretty clear. Especially since I referred to the views that called the definition embarrassing as ugly.

Edited August 2, 2012 by happy

[Ahab]

Unless of course you are gay.

No, even for someone who is gay homosexual marriage is still a bad thing.

It doesn't become good just someone likes it. It's still a bad thing, a very bad thing, even if people like it.

I can certainly see why gay marriage might not be right for you. My recommendation is for you to not have a gay marriage. There, problem solved.

The problem is solved for me but it isn't solved for everyone. I tell other people what I know and how I feel about homosexual marriage, rather than keeping my knowledge and beliefs locked up inside of me without sharing them with others, and I do this because I want to try to help people realize there is a better way for them to live. I won't keep harping on it forever and ever, though, like some people I know or hear about. I figure that as long as someone knows how I feel about it, and what I have to say regarding it, I did all I could do to try to help them overcome their own problem.

So your position is to advocate relationships outside the bonds of marriage.

Heh, sure. Friendships are relationships, don't you know, and I don't have a problem with anyone being a friend to someone else. There are some types of relationship that I don't approve of, though, and I don't have a problem telling people what I don't like and why I don't like it.

Are you really taking up the position that fortification is much better than being married?

I think you meant fornication, and No I wasn't advocating for that. I meant I don't have a problem with 2 people of the same sex being friends to each other, even life long friends, and even if they want to live in the same house together and share all of the expenses. I used the word room mates, and people of the same sex can be room mates without being married to each other... or as you might say, without "having sex" with each other.

[Ahab]

Just in case someone hasn't already raised this point:

The act of making or trying to make homosexual marriage "legal" is NOT an attempt to redefine marriage. Rather, it's an attempt to make it something which is "acceptable"... if not for you, then for someone else who may want to do it.

The marriage, itself, is the act of coming together, like when 2 people join together to become one flesh, or as one. It's a word that is used to delicately describe the "joining" act when two people do what some people refer to as "having sex" together. Think of the word "marriage" as a plumber thinks of it in his trade, or as it's used when not referring to people being married... the union of two things.

If homosexual continues to become legal as far as the law of the land goes, it still won't become acceptable to God, though.

And the reason it's not acceptable to God is NOT because some "religous" people believe it is, either. It's because God knows it is not a good thing.

Some people seem to think that as long as they like something, God should like it too, or at least allow it. Satan tried that once and look where it got him.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Ahab

[KevinG]

Well first of all you have to make a case that your civil rights are being threatened at all. CFR where gay marriage will threaten your religious beliefs.

I am wary of redefining laws that give more power to government to determine how private citizens act. I have long been an advocate of taking the financial incentive out of tax laws for marriage. But to answer your CFR people criticize my stance on marriage and the fear the someday the LDS church would be pressured using lawfare to solemnize gay marriages as a "slippery slope" argument. Just as they criticized my opposition to greater fed power over health care as a slippery slope argument. Just yesterday Catholic organizations lost a court case that forces them to provide birth control and abortion services in their health plans. I have reason to fear more government control over the church and private moral decisions. that is my sole objection to the prop 8 debate and other similar legislation.

[Ahab]

I am wary of redefining laws that give more power to government to determine how private citizens act. I have long been an advocate of taking the financial incentive out of tax laws for marriage. But to answer your CFR people criticize my stance on marriage and the fear the someday the LDS church would be pressured using lawfare to solemnize gay marriages as a "slippery slope" argument. Just as they criticized my opposition to greater fed power over health care as a slippery slope argument. Just yesterday Catholic organizations lost a court case that forces them to provide birth control and abortion services in their health plans. I have reason to fear more government control over the church and private moral decisions. that is my sole objection to the prop 8 debate and other similar legislation.

Maybe all we need to get our Lord to come back soon, or as soon as I'd like, is to have some leglislature mandating homosexual marriage in a temple of God. If nothing else, that would at least make him angry.

I'm kinda hoping it would happen if it would finally get him to come down here.