England Passes Marriage Equality

[Damien the Leper]

Equality will only be equated with victory when I look like Tom Selleck. Until then some things will just have to considered unfair.

It is disappointing that something that means so much to one person can be so easily condescended by another person. If this is a standard for equality then I want no part of it and will happily advocate against certain liberties for the general population at large. Thankfully by God's grace...it is not the standard.

[BCSpace]

That's all it is and has ever been. A question of who gets benefited (tax breaks, privileges, etc.) by the state. So should the state be engaged in benefiting risky and undesirable behavior? Of course not. By providing such benefits, the state also lends credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of society which of course leads to more risky and undesirable behavior.

So the only way to be true to be a true libertarian is to never get married? Otherwise you are sucking on the teat of government welfare? I thought welfare was bad.

I've never said welfare is bad.

This means homosexuals are currently the pure ones.........

How so? They are seeking state welfare by agitating for their marriages to be recognized by the state.

Those making the religious argument that marriage is ordained by God and by definition means only a man and a woman can be married, while correct, miss the mark completely because such a weapon can't hit in a non religious society. Making it a welfare/societal issue is the only way to win. That is why you have always seen me argue that gays can already be married in every state. Just don't ask the state to recognize such marriages.

So you, who decry welfare regularly, are arguing that giving gays welfare equal to what you are getting will convince a secular society that you are correct?

No. Ideally, the state determines who is eligible for welfare because it is in the interest of the state that they receive it. Benefiting homosexual marriage is obviously not in the best interest of the state.

Somehow I do not think this plan will work. Good luck though

.

It's the only plan that can possibly work; unless of course you don't want anything to work.....

[BCSpace]

Not at all. Equality is based on liberty, not welfare.

The welfare as you call it is not at the top of the reasons why I would like to marry. If it's about welfare then perhaps heterosexual couples should stop applying for marriage licenses.

I will admit that I really don't need a piece of paper to legitimize my relationship. The paper is trivial compared to the sanctity of the committed relationship itself.

Exactly. You don't need the state to recognize your gay marriage if you have one or are seeking one. However, the state has a vested interest in encouraging the ideal marriage relationship, a heterosexual one. Therefore, you can't possibly be happy about any state recognizing gay marriages.

[semlogo]

Exactly. You don't need the state to recognize your gay marriage if you have one or are seeking one. However, the state has a vested interest in encouraging the ideal marriage relationship, a heterosexual one. Therefore, you can't possibly be happy about any state recognizing gay marriages.

Apparently it doesn't. Or at least such vested interest has not been adequately argued in the courts.

[The Nehor]

I've never said welfare is bad.

You have told me several times that government welfare is bad on this board and another....no matter what.

Who are you and what have you done with BCSpace?

How so? They are seeking state welfare by agitating for their marriages to be recognized by the state.

Meaning that married heterosexuals are all on welfare and gays are generally not meaning only they can be true libertarians.

No. Ideally, the state determines who is eligible for welfare because it is in the interest of the state that they receive it. Benefiting homosexual marriage is obviously not in the best interest of the state.

Benefiting heterosexual marriage is not in the best interests of the state (cuts tax revenues substantially).

It's the only plan that can possibly work; unless of course you don't want anything to work.....

I was not arguing with your ideals; I was arguing with how you justify them.

[thesometimesaint]

The welfare as you call it is not at the top of the reasons why I would like to marry. If it's about welfare then perhaps heterosexual couples should stop applying for marriage licenses.

I will admit that I really don't need a piece of paper to legitimize my relationship. The paper is trivial compared to the sanctity of the committed relationship itself.

As couples whom live together before marriage have a higher rate of separation, and divorce. A piece of paper isn't a trivial matter.

[semlogo]

As couples whom live together before marriage have a higher rate of separation, and divorce. A piece of paper isn't a trivial matter.

I think a little historical context is important - "legal" marriage is a relatively new concept. I rather doubt Joseph & Mary had a piece of paper from the government proclaiming that they were legally married. Certainly many early church leaders' marriages were not recognized by law.

[The Nehor]

I think a little historical context is important - "legal" marriage is a relatively new concept. I rather doubt Joseph & Mary had a piece of paper from the government proclaiming that they were legally married. Certainly many early church leaders' marriages were not recognized by law.

I would disagree. The meticulous record keeping and paperwork were lacking but marriage was accepted, used, and regulated by governments as far back as we have records.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I hope you will not be insulted to learn that not all of us share in your joy. It's not marriage equality, it's another bullet into the wounded body of traditional marriage, the foundation of every society.

It is a direct violation of Biblical doctrine...no one can use the scriptures to defend this in any way. I fear for them.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I would disagree. The meticulous record keeping and paperwork were lacking but marriage was accepted, used, and regulated by governments as far back as we have records.

Agreed

[The Nehor]

It is a direct violation of Biblical doctrine...no one can use the scriptures to defend this in any way. I fear for them.

While a sin I think it is less a sin then we make it out to be. The scriptures written for our day do not mention it at all. I have to wonder why the book of mormon writers left it out if it is as serious as we sometimes seem to make it out to be. I worry that we condemn it so much because it is one temptation most of us never have. I imagine to many it looks like eunuchs railing against fornication.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

While a sin I think it is less a sin then we make it out to be. The scriptures written for our day do not mention it at all. I have to wonder why the book of mormon writers left it out if it is as serious as we sometimes seem to make it out to be. I worry that we condemn it so much because it is one temptation most of us never have. I imagine to many it looks like eunuchs railing against fornication.

I don't understand...are you suggesting the BoM was written in the 1800's, or that it teaches nothing about marriage? Could you expand...the Church teaches sexual sin is second only to murder; adultery that is...which I think includes any intercourse outside of marriage.

[Gillebre]

While our awesome brother Nehor will speak for himself, I feel compelled to say that he was definitely not suggesting the authorship of the Book of Mormon took place in the 1800s. To the rest, only he could say.

[The Nehor]

I don't understand...are you suggesting the BoM was written in the 1800's, or that it teaches nothing about marriage? Could you expand...the Church teaches sexual sin is second only to murder; adultery that is...which I think includes any intercourse outside of marriage.

I think we overgeneralize from Alma's counsel to Corianton. The sin next to murder was Corianton abandoning his mission to spend time with a prostitute. Either that or (according to some) going to a fertility rite which was almost certainly an orgy.

Is that equal to an engaged couple that slips up or a teenager experimenting with homosexuality? I personally doubt it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I think we overgeneralize from Alma's counsel to Corianton. The sin next to murder was Corianton abandoning his mission to spend time with a prostitute. Either that or (according to some) going to a fertility rite which was almost certainly an orgy.

Is that equal to an engaged couple that slips up or a teenager experimenting with homosexuality? I personally doubt it.

I don't know...I've only "known" one woman and that is how it will remain...37 years last week. I am a faithful husband and a good son to my Mama....not good for much else.

[volgadon]

not good for much else.

Nonsense.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Nonsense.

OK a poet and a Papa, went to my new Ward today...only 6 (now 7) High Priest's. The Ward I left had 30+

[Damien the Leper]

As couples whom live together before marriage have a higher rate of separation, and divorce. A piece of paper isn't a trivial matter.

Meh...

[Damien the Leper]

It is a direct violation of Biblical doctrine...no one can use the scriptures to defend this in any way. I fear for them.

Don't fear for me as it would be a waste of your time. I respect God but I do not fear him. I respect scripture for what it is and what it is not.

[Damien the Leper]

I would disagree. The meticulous record keeping and paperwork were lacking but marriage was accepted, used, and regulated by governments as far back as we have records.

Considering that the world is much older than 50,000 years...this isn't saying much.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't understand...are you suggesting the BoM was written in the 1800's, or that it teaches nothing about marriage? Could you expand...the Church teaches sexual sin is second only to murder; adultery that is...which I think includes any intercourse outside of marriage.

Pre-marital sex isn't adultery.

Nehor is correct. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants do not address sexual ethics like the Bible does.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't know...I've only "known" one woman and that is how it will remain...37 years last week. I am a faithful husband and a good son to my Mama....not good for much else.

I think this is awesome but it does not address Nehor's post.

[Damien the Leper]

OK a poet and a Papa, went to my new Ward today...only 6 (now 7) High Priest's. The Ward I left had 30+

30+? That is WAY too many high priests. That is a lot of sleeping taking place at church.

[The Nehor]

Considering that the world is much older than 50,000 years...this isn't saying much.

It is saying all we can say. As for people before then I am going to go out on a limb and say if they had laws from God they could have been different. They were another dispensation outside of ours which began with Adam.

[semlogo]

I would disagree. The meticulous record keeping and paperwork were lacking but marriage was accepted, used, and regulated by governments as far back as we have records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Europe