What If The Church Had Issued The Following Pre-Prop 8 Vote?

[wenglund]

I was thinking about how mere regulation of marriage to include homosexual couplings would not expand government. I was not including the consequential fallout.

With SSM, somebody (the government) will now have to issue marital licenses, provide marital benefits, and enforce and adjudicate marital regulations for homosexual relationships they otherwise would not have. So, the mere expansion of marital regulations to include same-sex couples, will expand government.

Worse yet, with opposite-sex couples, marital laws were instituted so as to decrease the burden of unregulated heterosexual relationships on the court, and so the increase in regulation was intended to ultimately decrease government--i.e. the cost of regulation was exceeded by the benefits derived therefrom. Whereas, with homosexual couples, the added regulation does just the opposite: it increases regulation and government.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

You are complaining about black and white and come up with that last line?

Ugh, was sarcasm.

[Stone holm]

With SSM, somebody (the government) will now have to issue marital licenses, provide marital benefits, and enforce and adjudicate marital regulations for homosexual relationships they otherwise would not have. So, the mere expansion of marital regulations to include same-sex couples, will expand government.

Worse yet, with opposite-sex couples, marital laws were instituted so as to decrease the burden of unregulated heterosexual relationships on the court, and so the increase in regulation was intended to ultimately decrease government--i.e. the cost of regulation was exceeded by the benefits derived therefrom. Whereas, with homosexual couples, the added regulation does just the opposite: it increases regulation and government.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am trying to understand the logic here. Under the common law if you cohabitated for a number of years you were considered married, but most states repealed those laws in the 1960's because so to speak everyone was doing it. So unregulated promiscuous behaviour amongst gays increases the size of government when the State in question already regulates the relationship under another name? How exactly does that increase or decrease the size of government? By that same logic it would make sense to quit regulating marriage altogether.

[CASteinman]

I am trying to understand the logic here. Under the common law if you cohabitated for a number of years you were considered married, but most states repealed those laws in the 1960's because so to speak everyone was doing it. So unregulated promiscuous behaviour amongst gays increases the size of government when the State in question already regulates the relationship under another name? How exactly does that increase or decrease the size of government? By that same logic it would make sense to quit regulating marriage altogether.

He is talking about the consequential fallout I think, not the direct management of the process.

[Stone holm]

He is talking about the consequential fallout I think, not the direct management of the process.

Really, how exactly does that work?

[CASteinman]

Really, how exactly does that work?

I have not given it a lot of thought. It looks like he has.

My objections to gay marriage are not related to the size of Government. They are related to "you get what you pay for".

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, I also have my moral perspectives -- my value judgments -- about what constitutes "best". These have led me to determine, after 1 or 2 decades, that I was not, after all, a Libertarian. For a long time I thought so. But I have concluded in the last decade that I am not.

In fact, from a certain perspective, I share some sense of government with "social progressives" -- who operate from the position that there are moral duties Government has in operation. I agree with that. I differ with many of them in what those moral duties are and in what order they should be prioritized.

Pragmatic clarity in understanding yourself (and others) without being worried about labels is helpful, I have found. Generally, I consider the broad and wide social progressive agenda to be a godless morality and I am not in agreement with that.

I don't mean for this to become political, but I think this actually has bearing on how we implement living the gospel in our lives -- to include the selection of government -- as ordained by God.

I also think it is relevant to preparation for the Last Days.

I agree that these conversations that flirt with the political are essential in the development of our own religious identities. For that reason I find it a little frustrating at the arbitrary separation on this board between religious apologetics and politics. Though I do understand why it must be so.

Perhaps in a decade or so I will swing from my current Libertarian considerations to framework more like yours... I certainly never thought I would adopt a libertarian view a decade ago.

One comment however... I do not it is fair to say social progressives want a godless morality... Many are very content with god at the root of morality... What they are not happy with is govt at the root of morality...

I currently agree with this. Limited govt for me includes the removing from govt oversight those areas if moral legislation that go beyond considerations of harm and consent.

I do however have god at the center of morality. I just don't want the govt as an agent on behalf of good enforcing that morality.

[Calm]

For that reason I find it a little frustrating at the arbitrary separation on this board between religious apologetics and politics.

I don't think it was particularly arbitrary but based firmly on experience of how the political threads generated a much higher rate of inflammatory and judgmental comments.

[wenglund]

I am trying to understand the logic here. Under the common law if you cohabitated for a number of years you were considered married, but most states repealed those laws in the 1960's because so to speak everyone was doing it. So unregulated promiscuous behaviour amongst gays increases the size of government when the State in question already regulates the relationship under another name? How exactly does that increase or decrease the size of government? By that same logic it would make sense to quit regulating marriage altogether.

I am sorry, but you managed to completely confuse what I said. Please go back and read my comments more carefully. [Edit: Also, see my clarifying comments below]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2013 by wenglund

[Mark Beesley]

What If The Church Had Issued The Following Pre-Prop 8 Vote?

What if the Church were really just a church of men rather than the Church of Jesus Christ? Then the secular oriented letter would have been fine. It isn't a church of men. It is the Church of Jesus Christ, and I am comfortably certain that He would vote for the 4th option in the poll. He didn't tell the woman taken in adultery, Go, and don't get caught. He said, Go, and sin no more.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think it was particularly arbitrary but based firmly on experience of how the political threads generated a much higher rate of inflammatory and judgmental comments.

I agree with the necessity of the separation for this very reason... I do however think, for me at least, it limits some important conversations that are important in developing my religious perspectives.

[CASteinman]

What they are not happy with is govt at the root of morality...

Maybe so. And I would say I agree. But, I think the real difference is that I want morality to be at the root of Government. In fact, I do not believe it is possible for it to be otherwise. And with that -- the question is: Whose Morality?

I say -- "Mine".

I just don't want the govt as an agent on behalf of good enforcing that morality.

Government will be an agent on behalf of something and will enforce some sort of morality. You cannot escape this. So the choice is (as above) "Whose Morality?"

[wenglund]

Let me make it a bit more simple for you, Stone. The reason governments are in the business of regulating marriages is, in part, because marriages, in their unregulated state, make it very difficult to adjudicate marital disputes and issues (property rights, rights of survivorship, spousal obligations, inheritances, divorce, child custody and support, etc.), which creates a significant burden of the courts. The system of marital laws (which in some states include common law marriages) were set up to ease that burden on the court and give order to the fundamental institution of society.

And, while marital regulations represent an expansion of government on the one hand (the executive branch), the eased burden on the courts represent a decrease in government on the other hand (the judicial branch), with the net result being less government as a whole than before the regulation.

However, prior to domestic partnerships and civil unions and the move to mangle the legal definition of marriage, the courts weren't burdened with homosexual relationship disputes and issues any more than they were, and are now, burdened with friendship issues.

Yet, through the creation of legal entities for homosexual relationships, and conferring rights and benefits associated with those legal entities, and setting up a system of laws and regulation related thereto, not only was the government expanded by way of those new regulations, but it also expanded the burden on the courts--a burden that previously the courts didn't have. And, given the higher rate of promiscuity and infidelity among homosexuals, the burden on the courts is disproportionately higher for homosexual relationships than their heterosexual counterparts.

And, speaking of common law marriages in states where they are legally recognized, prior to the legalization of same-sex marriages in some state, the very notion of common law was irrelevant to homosexual relationships even with the advent of domestic partnerships and civil unions. But, by mangling the legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals, common law may now apply, which may create all sorts of additional unforeseen problems for the government and courts.

Is that clear?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

Maybe so. And I would say I agree. But, I think the real difference is that I want morality to be at the root of Government. In fact, I do not believe it is possible for it to be otherwise. And with that -- the question is: Whose Morality?

I say -- "Mine".

Government will be an agent on behalf of something and will enforce some sort of morality. You cannot escape this. So the choice is (as above) "Whose Morality?"

I also share your thoughts on this. Govt can't be amoral... It is impossible. I also want govt to be moral...

I just don't think it is fair for me to insist on it being mine... Though i absolutely insist on my right to live my own morality...

The only way govt can manage morality is through coercion, either restricting people from doing what they want to do or forcing to do something they don't want to.

They only area of morality that I am happy to allow govt this much power is limited to harm...

I do however want to see religions more actively involved in advocating for their moral principles in the public forum... Just with such moral propositions not linked to govt benefits.

[CASteinman]

I just don't think it is fair for me to insist on it being mine...

Then it would be someone elses. I can't figure out why that's better.

They only area of morality that I am happy to allow govt this much power is limited to harm...

So you do not want government to have power to tax, or compel education or coin money or a great many other things. This would be a severely weak and dysfunctional government, bordering on anarchy.

[Bikeemikey]

Then it would be someone elses. I can't figure out why that's better.

So you do not want government to have power to tax, or compel education or coin money or a great many other things. This would be a severely weak and dysfunctional government, bordering on anarchy.

That's the problem... I can't figure out how to restrict the govt to the narrow principle of harm without impacting broader social goods of education, health etc...

And I don't think the govt should be allowed to control questions of social good... Otherwise you are left with religions partitioning the govt when they want a moral agenda supported and them adoption by coercion.... Which is against everything religions like Mormonism represents.

Though questions and it is both political and religious.

[Stone holm]

Then it would be someone elses. I can't figure out why that's better.

So you do not want government to have power to tax, or compel education or coin money or a great many other things. This would be a severely weak and dysfunctional government, bordering on anarchy.

Yeah that is going a bit beyond what he was saying. I believe he was indicating basically that it is hard to see exactly how two guys wanting to get married affects us straights? And if it doesn't specifically harm us, then why are we being busybodies about it? In other words, we are imposing our personal views of sexual morality upon others.

[CASteinman]

Which is against everything religions like Mormonism represents.

Not everything. Take for example, murder. Its a religious rule not to murder. We have taken it to government. Lots of people agree with it even those who are not religious. But it came from God.

And we are OK with that coercion.

You would say: but that deals with harm. I say; "Yes it does. But it came from God and its coercion."

You might then say "Well I only agree with the laws of God that pertain to harm". To which I would reply: which ones don't?

It was this line of thinking that took me out of Libertarianism.

[CASteinman]

Yeah that is going a bit beyond what he was saying.

Not according to his reply.

I believe he was indicating basically that it is hard to see exactly how two guys wanting to get married affects us straights?

That could have been said more directly and it also has an answer. Well, several answers.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

In other words, we are imposing our personal views of sexual morality upon others.

Yes and if we do not, then others will impose their views of sexual morality on us. This is how society works.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[omni]

And here I was thinking it was the spirit that brought in new converts to the gospel.

Ask those in charge of the "I'm a Mormon campaign" if image doesn't have an impact on missionary efforts.

[Stone holm]

Let me make it a bit more simple for you, Stone. The reason governments are in the business of regulating marriages is, in part, because marriages, in their unregulated state, make it very difficult to adjudicate marital disputes and issues (property rights, rights of survivorship, spousal obligations, inheritances, divorce, child custody and support, etc.), which creates a significant burden of the courts. The system of marital laws (which in some states include common law marriages) were set up to ease that burden on the court and give order to the fundamental institution of society.

And, while marital regulations represent an expansion of government on the one hand (the executive branch), the eased burden on the courts represent a decrease in government on the other hand (the judicial branch), with the net result being less government as a whole than before the regulation.

However, prior to domestic partnerships and civil unions and the move to mangle the legal definition of marriage, the courts weren't burdened with homosexual relationship disputes and issues any more than they were, and are now, burdened with friendship issues.

Yet, through the creation of legal entities for homosexual relationships, and conferring rights and benefits associated with those legal entities, and setting up a system of laws and regulation related thereto, not only was the government expanded by way of those new regulations, but it also expanded the burden on the courts--a burden that previously the courts didn't have. And, given the higher rate of promiscuity and infidelity among homosexuals, the burden on the courts is disproportionately higher for homosexual relationships than their heterosexual counterparts.

And, speaking of common law marriages in states where they are legally recognized, prior to the legalization of same-sex marriages in some state, the very notion of common law was irrelevant to homosexual relationships even with the advent of domestic partnerships and civil unions. But, by mangling the legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals, common law may now apply, which may create all sorts of additional unforeseen problems for the government and courts.

Is that clear?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep, that is pretty clearly nonsense. I would also question the assertion that married homosexuals are more promiscuous than married heterosexuals. Very unlikely.

[CASteinman]

I would also question the assertion that married homosexuals are more promiscuous than married heterosexuals. Very unlikely.

Its a brave new world:

When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.

“I take it as a gift that someone will be that open and honest and sharing with me,” said Rio, using the word “open” to describe their marriage.

Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women.

...

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

...

None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

Note that the very survival of marriage is possible through gay marriage promiscuity. Up is down and good is bad.

http://www.nytimes.c.../29sfmetro.html

Edited April 19, 2013 by CASteinman

[go_utes01]

Ask those in charge of the "I'm a Mormon campaign" if image doesn't have an impact on missionary efforts.

People sharing their testimony doesn't invite the spirit? Or do you believe that is just a pr campaign? Do you think they are really all members or are some just actors?

[Bikeemikey]

Its a brave new world:

Note that the very survival of marriage is possible through gay marriage promiscuity. Up is down and good is bad.

http://www.nytimes.c.../29sfmetro.html

Will smith has an open marriage... That is not representative of anything.

Not sure what the purpose of your share was? Are you trying to suggest that gay marriages are more likely to be open?