Government Involvement In Marriage

[AngryJock82]

I met a dog the other day who had tried to mate with a tree like that.

"How was it?" I asked

"Ruff," said the dog

"Why's that?" I asked

"Bark," said the dog

To teach the tree a lesson I doused it in gasoline and threw on a match.

"Woof," said the dog

The inference here is that gays should be torched for their inability to reproduce? If so, I'm not at all impressed.

[AngryJock82]

Before I say what I'm going to say I want to point out that I'm LDS and British. Marriage and SSM is a global debate. But generally the parameters of the debate are very narrow indeed. As LDS we generally see SSM as an attack on the family and one that must be vociferously repelled. But consider this, in all the thousands of years marriage has been considered a hetro institution, many hertos have consistently abused it. Adultery, child abuse (physical/sexual), incest and rape. We didn't as a sexuality get it 100% did we. Now gay people want to have what we've generally taken for granted. So what? Let them. And if they want to adopt, so what? Let them. I see no reason why they can't / shouldn't. There are a myriad terrible hetro families. Being attracted to someone of the opposite sex does not guarantee that you'll be a good person. At least with gay couples they'll be vetted before they can adopt whereas hetro couples can breed and potentially ruin the lives of their children with impunity. As LDS we need to run the numbers. We are a tiny minority of the world's population, forcing someone to live by our standards when they don't even have a belief in God in some cases is quite shocking.

As for governmental involvement, take the state entirely out of it. Make marriage a free for all that way the church's global reputation won't be so badly impacted when it tries to get involved in things like prop 8. If someone wants to marry an ironing board, let them.

[wenglund]

In order for the government to provide "equal stuff for all"....

Do you seriously believe this is the role of government, let alone in a republican democracy?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

For myself, it is my passion and understanding for the new and everlasting covenant of marriage that leads me to make the suggestions that I do. I do have a testimony that the doctrinal definition of marriage is that between a man and a woman. That exaltation can only be achieved in such a pairing.

I want to protect that, which leads me to want to free that ordinance from government involvement.

If the government restricts the use of a marriage license to one group, we've allowed them to possibly restrict it in the future to the exclusion of groups now considered acceptable for marriage. If the government expands the rights to a marriage license to all, who's to say that they couldn't legally impose the right of marriage on a private group that doesn't agree with them?

I believe that the removal of government from the marriage arena will foster a liberty which will safeguard the Church. Government involvement in marriage has been used to abuse and persecute not only our spiritual (and for some of us literal) ancestors in the Church, but those of other races and cultures. The social benefits are, for the most part, available outside of marriage, and in fact, supported by the Church, "The Church does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights." (Church Newsroom)

I understand your concern, and it is not without some warrant.

However, your suggestion strikes me metaphorically as somewhat like prescribing amputation so as to avoid nicks and bruising on one's arms and legs.

If one looks more carefully at the good as well as the bad, one may reasonably conclude that for the several millennium that governments have been regulating marriages and families, on balance their involvement has been quite beneficial. Because of this, it is likely that we, today, like the vast majority of the world 50 years ago, wouldn't even be considering getting the government out of the business of marital/family relationships (even were this feasible, which it is not) were it not for the successful efforts of a select group of people in bastardizing the institution of marriage.

Instead of unrealistically proposing amputating the government from marriage and family, it may be far more wise to deal with whatever nicks and bruises that may occur because of their involvement. In other words, let's do what we can to stop the bastardizing of marital and family institutions, and if that proves unsuccessful because of inanity, then if the government eventually imposes marriages on us that we don't agree with (like SSM), then we can find ways to work around this as well.

One way we may do so is for the Church to get out of the marriage business and continue instead in the "sealing" business. If it comes to it, then as is already the case in several countries, marriages may be performed civilly by non-LDS authorities and those marriages that are acceptable unto the Lord may then be sealed for eternity in the temples. This way, the Church wouldn't be forced to profane the sacred by being forced to perform same-sex marriages, but would still be free to perform sealing rituals.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The inference here is that gays should be torched for their inability to reproduce? If so, I'm not at all impressed.

One would have to radically contort this line of humor in order to extrapolate such an insipid interpretation. If so, I am very impressed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[AngryJock82]

One would have to radically contort this line of humor in order to extrapolate such an insipid interpretation. If so, I am very impressed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I apologise most sincerely for my insipid interpretation. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what the contributor was trying to say.

[wenglund]

Before I say what I'm going to say I want to point out that I'm LDS and British. Marriage and SSM is a global debate. But generally the parameters of the debate are very narrow indeed. As LDS we generally see SSM as an attack on the family and one that must be vociferously repelled. But consider this, in all the thousands of years marriage has been considered a hetro institution, many hertos have consistently abused it. Adultery, child abuse (physical/sexual), incest and rape. We didn't as a sexuality get it 100% did we. Now gay people want to have what we've generally taken for granted. So what? Let them. And if they want to adopt, so what? Let them. I see no reason why they can't / shouldn't.

As understand things, the intent of the LDS Church and also various governments (at least the governments in the U.S.) is to encourage and strengthen the divine/evolved institution of marriage and family, which would entail attempts to diminish adultery and other abuses. If so, then it would be contrary to good common sense to use whatever hetero abuses that have or may yet occur to justify adding further homo abuses--either through profaning the sacred, and/or by secularly devolving the basic structure of society to a lower common denominator, and/or by adding to the marital roles a segment of society that statistically is at greater risk for abuse.

There are a myriad terrible hetro families. Being attracted to someone of the opposite sex does not guarantee that you'll be a good person. At least with gay couples they'll be vetted before they can adopt whereas hetro couples can breed and potentially ruin the lives of their children with impunity. As LDS we need to run the numbers. We are a tiny minority of the world's population, forcing someone to live by our standards when they don't even have a belief in God in some cases is quite shocking. As for governmental involvement, take the state entirely out of it. Make marriage a free for all that way the church's global reputation won't be so badly impacted when it tries to get involved in things like prop 8. If someone wants to marry an ironing board, let them.

I understand that some people may think it better to go along with crowd and cater to pop culture rather than standing as a minority on principle, and that it may even be "shocking" to do otherwise.

I can also see how these same people may confuse democratic outcomes with "force." and this selectively (for some reason it doesn't seem to occur to them that within society we LDS are often subjected to other people's different and oft lower standards).

I suspect that some people think this way, in part, because they are, ironically, vulnerable to peer pressure and their end goal may be to go along to get along.

My thinking is different in large part because my objective isn't conformity with the world, but conformity with Christ, and my intent isn't so much to keep from rocking the boat as it is to help steer our collective boat towards a fruitful end. In short, I am not looking so much to appease as I am looking out for people's best interest. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I apologise most sincerely for my insipid interpretation. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what the contributor was trying to say.

He was saying that the sounds that dogs make can be used as a humorous play on words. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I think you are confusing legal protections with legal benefits and entitlements.

Be that as it may, the concern expressed in the OP was in regards to getting the government uninvolved in marital and family units. If what you intimate above is correct, then at best your suggested name change will increase governmental involvement by increasing the number of marital-like family units. In short, in the eyes of the OP, your suggestion doesn't solve the problem or issue of governmental involvement, but rather it adds to the problem--inanely as it were.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is a non sequitur.

[wenglund]

That is a non sequitur.

False. Do the math.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 23, 2012 by wenglund

[slamarwi]

Wade, I apologize for the tongue in cheek post. it wasn't meant to confuse. (I am against big government, socialism, laziness, redistribution of wealth, excessive taxes, islamic extremism, etc. etc.)

The interesting thing about it was no one (except yourself) objected. I was hoping some might either find it humorous or would take exception and comment, neither happened. I guess I still have a great deal to learn about creating dialogue on this forum.

het beste - lwiscombe

P.S. - The summary at the end was meant in ernest.

[Nathair/|\]

Massachusetts

You have two bulls.

They're deeply in love.

That's just fine.

Texas

You have two bulls.

They're deeply in love.

You kill them both and make barbeque.

[wenglund]

Wade, I apologize for the tongue in cheek post. it wasn't meant to confuse. (I am against big government, socialism, laziness, redistribution of wealth, excessive taxes, islamic extremism, etc. etc.)

The interesting thing about it was no one (except yourself) objected. I was hoping some might either find it humorous or would take exception and comment, neither happened. I guess I still have a great deal to learn about creating dialogue on this forum.

het beste - lwiscombe

P.S. - The summary at the end was meant in ernest.

I am glad you clarified. However, you aren't entirely responsible for the failed humor. It has become increasingly more difficult to be facetious online these days because what you and I may think absurd and say in jest, others view as normal and in earnest. What a wacky cyber world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Sorry, just to be clear, the topic of discussion isn't so much about same-sex marriage as it is about government involvement with marriage. This could include all types of marriage: Polygyny, Polyandry, Monogamy, Hetersexual, Homosexual, whatever.

Gov't is supposed to reflect laws of the land.

[Bikeemikey]

Gov't is supposed to reflect laws of the land.

I thought they were meant to make such laws?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Massachusetts

You have two bulls.

They're deeply in love.

That's just fine.

Texas

You have two bulls.

They're deeply in love.

You kill them both and make barbeque.

Best when they make it to "Steak n Shake", then I fall in love with them too. If they bring alone a pig...true love! Edited November 24, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee