Defining Marriage

[Cobalt-70]

.. and marriage between "gays" will continue to be wrong (as in evil) even though the law of the land may approve of it and consider it to be "legal".

I hope that at least the "gays" will be aware that just because something is legal that doesn't mean it is right.

I question that premise. Suppose two men are already living together, and have adopted a child. Put aside your moralizing on that issue for a minute. Taking that as a given, are you saying that letting them get married--and therefore making a commitment to monogamy and stability for the benefit of the child--is an "evil"? It seems to me that anything that strengthens the family is a good thing.

[Tacenda]

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.

I hope that sometimes, that the Savior would just come down and atleast make an appearance. But very worried I'm not prepared.

[KevinG]

I question that premise. Suppose two men are already living together, and have adopted a child. Put aside your moralizing on that issue for a minute. Taking that as a given, are you saying that letting them get married--and therefore making a commitment to monogamy and stability for the benefit of the child--is an "evil"? It seems to me that anything that strengthens the family is a good thing.

They jury is out on same sex two parent households vs. opposite sex two parent households on the health of the children. I tend not to use that non-existent criteria to make judgements on the merits of the issue.

[KevinG]

I hope that sometimes, that the Savior would just come down and atleast make an appearance. But very worried I'm not prepared.

Amen!

[Cobalt-70]

Of course morality is a very real basis for legislation. Some morals are good, some bad, some legislation is good, and some bad. But the two are rarely disconnected in the most important facets of a society’s laws. A relaxation of this particular tradition began long before homosexuality became popular and has also tracked with the popularity and acceptance of other taboos. A self-fulfilled prophecy of a downward spiral in society isn’t really something to glory in.

One may be happy that traditional marriage and family values have eroded in the last 60 years to the point where gay marriage is an acceptable consideration for the ballot box. And one may be OK with “gay marriage,” but which perversion of marriage will he fight against 30 years from now—or is gay marriage the final frontier?

The problem is that when the morality upon which the legislation is based is solely on a religious doctrine. For morality to be a legitimate basis for legislation, it has to be a secular morality. If "God says so" is the reason for your legislation to deny rights to a minority that are held by the majority, then at least in the United States, you have violated the principles of freedom/establishment of religion, due process, and equal protection.

[Cobalt-70]

They jury is out on same sex two parent households vs. opposite sex two parent households on the health of the children. I tend not to use that non-existent criteria to make judgements on the merits of the issue.

You are dodging the issue. These parents are already together and raising the child. That's a given, and we are putting moralizing on that issue aside. The question is, given the fact that a family unit exists, whether it is "evil" for them to want to strengthen that family by making a life-long commitment to monogamy. My question is, how can strengthening families ever be evil?

In any event, the jury is not still out. Every study has shown that children of same sex couples are as healthy as children of opposite-sex couples. Certainly, they are at least as healthy as children of single parents.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[KevinG]

Why is state sponsored definition of marriage a requirement for life long commitment?

I manage to believe in eternal commitment despite the fact that the government gives me no benefits or support for my temple sealing.

[Cobalt-70]

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).

Sorry to break it to you, but homosexuality is already legal in the United States and all Western countries. It is already "above reproach" from a legal perspective, because private relations between two consenting adults is already a fundamental right. And no, the government is not the secular substitute for the church. Legality and morality are two very different things. If you want them to be the same, then you might be interested in moving to Saudi Arabia or Iran. Just because something is legal, does not mean that society is making a moral judgment as to that thing. It is legal to commit adultery. It is legal to covet your neighbor's donkey. It is legal to swear, to deceive, to dishonor your parents, and to fail to keep the Sabbath day holy. The fact that Western societies don't outlaw these things does not mean that Western society is immoral. It means that we value religious freedom and constitutional principles.

[Cobalt-70]

Why is state sponsored definition of marriage a requirement for life long commitment?

It's not, but we in the United States live in a society where the government is in the business of sponsoring marriages, and you can't get married without government approval, regardless of what your church says. So if two men or two women want to make a life-long commitment to each other, and if they belong to a church that supports them in their desire to make such a life-long commitment, and is willing to join them in a life-long or eternal commitment in the eyes of the church, then any effort by the government to withhold its sponsorship of such an arrangement is either religious discrimination or violation of freedom of religion.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

We have to remember that just as the Chick-fil-A president has the right to express his homophobia, other people have a right to boycott Chick-fil-A, or to express their displeasure. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

[Ahab]

I question that premise. Suppose two men are already living together, and have adopted a child. Put aside your moralizing on that issue for a minute.

Okay, I can suppose that without imagining anything immoral going on at that point.

Taking that as a given, are you saying that letting them get married--and therefore making a commitment to monogamy and stability for the benefit of the child--is an "evil"?

Drop the idea that marriage equates to making a commitment to monogamy and stability. It doesn't, necessarily, because any 2 people could get married without any commitment to have sexual relations with only each other, and could instead have sexual relations with whoever they wanted. And what kind of "stability do you suppose is inherent in marriage? If there is any, it could stop at any moment, just as it could in any marriage.

Also try to understand that "letting someone get married" means, at least to me, to let (or allow or approve of) them having sexual relations with each other, and that's at the very heart of what I don't approve of when it comes to people who are of the same sex.

As I said before, which you may have missed, marriage is the union of two things, just as a male pipe can be joined to a female pipe, so what you have when you have a "marriage cermony" is a solemnization of that particular act which will join them together (later, usually in their private quarters) while someone is giving a rubber stamp approval as if to say that act is acceptable... which it is getting to be in the eyes of many State governments.

It's still not right before God, though, because God has not given and will not give his sanction for 2 people of the same sex to be joined together in that way.

What God has joined together let no man separate doesn't equate to what man has joined together let God not separate, and at some point that type of union is not only going to be condemned by God, which it is already, but those who are joined in that way will be separated, by God.

It seems to me that anything that strengthens the family is a good thing.

I agree there, but there is nothing to show that 2 people of the same sex coming together as one in that way is adding strength to a family.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Ahab

[KevinG]

We have to remember that just as the Chick-fil-A president has the right to express his homophobia, other people have a right to boycott Chick-fil-A, or to express their displeasure. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

Perhaps you missed the other thread with 15 pages of defense for Dan Cathy's freedom to defend traditional parenting without a single reference supplied to support the notion his comments, Chick-fil-a or the Winshape foundation were "anti-gay". Lots of assertions but no evidence.

[KevinG]

It's not, but we in the United States live in a society where the government is in the business of sponsoring marriages, and you can't get married without government approval, regardless of what your church says. So if two men or two women want to make a life-long commitment to each other, and if they belong to a church that supports them in their desire to make such a life-long commitment, and is willing to join them in a life-long or eternal commitment in the eyes of the church, then any effort by the government to withhold its sponsorship of such an arrangement is either religious discrimination or violation of freedom of religion.

A better solution to forcing others to act upon beliefs they disagree with is what I have advocated all along. Get the government out of the business of rewarding what should be a church only matter.

[KevinG]

I agree there, but there is nothing to show that 2 people of the same sex coming together as one in that way is adding strength to a family.

The jury is out. Not enough longitudinal evidence. I do doubt the veracity of sticking our fingers in thousands of years of established family structures for the purposes of a social experiment in sexual freedom, but there is no evidence either way that it will help or harm children to be in a same sex parented family.

[Ahab]

A better solution to forcing others to act upon beliefs they disagree with is what I have advocated all along. Get the government out of the business of rewarding what should be a church only matter.

Government is involved in all of this, whether it involves man made laws or Gods laws.

This is an issue of man's laws vs God's laws. You know whose laws will win in the end.

[Ahab]

The jury is out. Not enough longitudinal evidence. I do doubt the veracity of sticking our fingers in thousands of years of established family structures for the purposes of a social experiment in sexual freedom, but there is no evidence either way that it will help or harm children to be in a same sex parented family.

At the very moment two people of the same sex have a child (by adoption) the parents of that child have been cut off from the family, according to law. Two people of the same sex can't have children, by themselves, so where do you suppose that child came from?

The Mother is the one who gives birth to the child, and if she's married to another woman, the Father is outside of the family, instead of in it as he should be.

On the other hand, the Father is the one who fertilizes the egg of the woman so she can give birth to a child, and if he is married to another man, the Mother is outside of the family instead of in it as she should be.

Maybe those "gay" folks would make a better case for strengthening a family if they were advocating a 3-some in their "families", with 2 of those being the actual parents of the child. As it is now, they're not making a good case at all for strengthening the family of the child and they got their child by taking him or her away from the parents.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Ahab

[Cobalt-70]

A better solution to forcing others to act upon beliefs they disagree with is what I have advocated all along. Get the government out of the business of rewarding what should be a church only matter.

I think that's the best ultimate solution. You leave it up to religions to define what marriage means in the context of each religion. The government could allow civil unions between any two people (or three, for that matter) regardless of who they are, with no discrimination. Although those who join a civil union would usually be married, the unions would have nothing, necessarily, to do with marriage or sexual relations. Rather, the unions would be a legal mechanism for people to join together into any kind of family-like organization, with all the attendant legal rights that come with kinship.

Unions could be, for example, between two or three unmarried sisters who are roommates and who want to adopt and raise an orphan child together. It could be between an elderly parent and a son who lives with her and takes care of her in the few years before she dies. It could be between two married couples who are best friends, and want to jointly raise their children in a four-parent home.

[Ahab]

I think that's the best ultimate solution. You leave it up to religions to define what marriage means in the context of each religion. The government could allow civil unions between any two people (or three, for that matter) regardless of who they are, with no discrimination. Although those who join a civil union would usually be married, the unions would have nothing, necessarily, to do with marriage or sexual relations. Rather, the unions would be a legal mechanism for people to join together into any kind of family-like organization, with all the attendant legal rights that come with kinship.

Unions could be, for example, between two or three unmarried sisters who are roommates and who want to adopt and raise an orphan child together. It could be between an elderly parent and a son who lives with her and takes care of her in the few years before she dies. It could be between two married couples who are best friends, and want to jointly raise their children in a four-parent home.

Now snap back to reality where what they want and what they're getting is a relationship they call "marriage"... which is a technically correct term for what they have even though God doesn't approve of that in their relationship.

[california boy]

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.

What do you want me to acknowledge?. Yeah I get that YOU think gay marriage is the low point of a long decline in morals. But God certainly does not make such a distinction in the Bible. You are entitled to your religious views about homosexuality, but they are just that, your view and those that support your view. For some reason gay marriage has become the whipping boy for those that interpret the Bible like you do. It has become the favorite moral sin to attack. Everyone is up in arms about gay marriage. But what you don't want to say is that the decline of marriage by those that are not gay is actually the real issue. People like to make a big deal out of other people's sins. It seems to comfort them in their own sins. It reminds me of some scriptures in Alma in the BOM where people were stood on their rameumptoms and proclaimed their thankfulness that they were "not like that person who sins". Yeah human nature never changes does it. Let's legislate against other peoples sins, then I will feel I am obeying God more. The rameumptom has been replaced with placards, donations to prop 8 and the ballot box.

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.

4% is the issue when people like you use gay marriage simply because it is such a small minority. If you really believed that we should pass laws in this country to define with your view of marriage should be, then why isn't there any cry for laws like: "If you get divorce, you are never allowed to marry again. You have already proved that you treat sacred covenants with God as being unimportant. Take care of the family you got, you don't need another one to screw up" Perhaps you could name just ONE law that has been voted on by states that eliminates marriage to any other immoral group. If you can do that, then you have a point. And that is the point that you have completely ignored though I have asked it numerous times.

2..

[Storm Rider]

You are dodging the issue. These parents are already together and raising the child. That's a given, and we are putting moralizing on that issue aside. The question is, given the fact that a family unit exists, whether it is "evil" for them to want to strengthen that family by making a life-long commitment to monogamy. My question is, how can strengthening families ever be evil?

In any event, the jury is not still out. Every study has shown that children of same sex couples are as healthy as children of opposite-sex couples. Certainly, they are at least as healthy as children of single parents.

Did we not just have thread that addressed a study that found out the exact opposite of what you are stating i.e. that children of same sex couples are at a distinct disavantage? I don't mind when one stretches the truth, but this type of hyperbole goes too far.

[california boy]

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.

Ah yes, the slippery slope argument. The one that can be used to win any argument. The one that is as valid as reading tea leaves to predict the future. You have found that fear is a valuable tool to scare people into your point of view.

Here is my slippery slope argument. Once you start banning marriage from one group of sinners we will eventually not allow anyone who is not religious to marry. Once we ban anyone who is not religious from marrying then we will only allow religious people that pass an interview of their worthiness to marry. Eventually only temple marriage will be the only government recognized form of marriage. Denying gay marriage is a Mormon plot to require temple marriage for everyone and all of mankind will be saved.

[california boy]

Now snap back to reality where what they want and what they're getting is a relationship they call "marriage"... which is a technically correct term for what they have even though God doesn't approve of that in their relationship.

You are a pretty scary guy Ahab. I am not sure this country is looking for an ayatollah

[california boy]

Did we not just have thread that addressed a study that found out the exact opposite of what you are stating i.e. that children of same sex couples are at a distinct disavantage? I don't mind when one stretches the truth, but this type of hyperbole goes too far.

Oh yeah the study that is currently under investiagation for ethics violations

Among the study's critics is UT sociology professor Debra Umberson.

"Regnerus' study is bad science. Among other errors, he made egregious yet strategic decisions in selecting particular groups for comparison," Umberson and three colleagues wrote in a June 26 editorial on The Huffington Post

Five UT faculty members also signed a letter, along with 200 scholars at multiple universities, to the editor of Social Science Research, James Wright, pointing out what they said were flaws in Regnerus' methodology and saying the journal's review process took five weeks, when most take between two and three months.

[Libs]

Thanks for posting that CB. I hadn't seen that. Interesting.

[Calm]

I think that's the best ultimate solution. You leave it up to religions to define what marriage means in the context of each religion. The government could allow civil unions between any two people (or three, for that matter) regardless of who they are, with no discrimination. Although those who join a civil union would usually be married, the unions would have nothing, necessarily, to do with marriage or sexual relations. Rather, the unions would be a legal mechanism for people to join together into any kind of family-like organization, with all the attendant legal rights that come with kinship.

Unions could be, for example, between two or three unmarried sisters who are roommates and who want to adopt and raise an orphan child together. It could be between an elderly parent and a son who lives with her and takes care of her in the few years before she dies. It could be between two married couples who are best friends, and want to jointly raise their children in a four-parent home.

If this happens, which isn't a bad idea in my view, the relationships are likely to be quite transient for many though so to get a disunion of a civil union needs to be less about property sharing than a marriage, otherwise the courts are going to be full of very difficult cases deciding who gets what....especially in the cases where children are involved.