Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[rockpond]

The problem with your arguments is that they can be reversed and are just as valid read the other way. The difference being that (in my view) the media reporting on this is overwhelmingly anti religion (not just LDS).

How can they be reversed and still be valid? Has the legal recognition of heterosexual marriage been threatened?

[wenglund]

You'd do well to follow that advice yourself. I'm asking you follow up questions. Follow up questions that you, apparently, are unwilling to answer. I agree that you have provided a lot of data. Some of it has been very enlightening. What you haven't done is connected that data in a way that rationally supports your case.

Person A: Look...here is light shining from my flashlight

Person B: I don't see any light. Will you show me the light?

Person A: What? Look right here. Here is the light obviously shining from my flashlight.

Person B: You haven't shown any light. Will you show me the light?

Person A: Well, then, I have just turned on my halogen lights. Do you see the light now?

Person B: You haven't turned on any lights. I keep asking you to turn on lights, but you refuse to do so. Will you please shine some light?

Person A: But, I have shown light multiple times and in multiple ways and degrees, but you can't seem to see it. You must be blind.

Person B: It doesn't help to insult. Now, will you show me the light?

Person A: It isn't an insult to suggest that someone is blind who can't see light that has been clearly shown in various ways and so forth. Again, I have shown the light, and if you can't see it, then there isn't anything more I can do to help you see it. You are a nice guy, but it is a waste of both our time trying to get you to see the light when you evidently cant.

Person B: I keep asking you follow-up questions, which you, apparently, are unwilling to answer.

Person A: [scratches head]

I've stuck with you for 15 pages, Wade. Asking follow-up questions to clarify what you are saying is to be expected. I don't see how you have answered those questions in what you have provided. You've obfuscated by changing your lines of thought and diverting the discussion with rules about "your thread". Well, here's a newsflash for you: Your thread has failed to prove the point that you apparently thought it would. More people here appear to agree that the case you laid out supports legalization of gay marriage rather than the opposite.

I can accept this is how you see it, and how you have and can only see it. Again, whatever I say will invariably be filtered in such a way that reinforces your, and your fellow gay activists, preconceptions. There is nothing I could say, or anyone else for that matter, that would change your mind because it is clearly closed and cemented. This, of course, is your choice and right, though it doesn't make for a productive conversation, even after, and especially after 15 pages of trying. Again, I wish you well in spite of your unwavering path of darkness in this regard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 9, 2013 by wenglund

[Nemesis]

No personal threads.

Nemesis

[wenglund]

I understand Daniel's history. It's also none of my business to judge him. Nor is it yours. The language you used to describe him and his choices is not appropriate.

So, it is not your business to judge him, but it is your business to judge me? Wake up!!

He violated, in one of the worst ways, his covenants and commitments to his family and Church, and yet after I called him out for his questioning how my sarcastic behavior somehow poorly reflects on the Church, and yet you, and he, have the gall to think I am the one being inappropriate. Unbelievable. Truly upside-down--though you will never see it.

Neither Daniel nor I wish to profane the sacred institution of marriage. We've both spoken in favor of strengthening it.

Actions speak louder than words, and you can draw near with your lips, but the proof is in the pudding. In other words, it doesn't so much matter what you say. What matters is the results of what you do and say--whether unwitting or not. Legalizing SSM obviously mangles the definition of marriage, and legally countenancing and promoting perverse sexual behaviors under the guise of marriage, profanes that sacred institution, whether you wish to accept that reality of not.

To your final point, I can't possibly call out all of the demeaning sarcasm on this board. But I will respond when I see someone make what I think is a personal character attack. I am far from being a perfect example but we're brothers and sisters in Christ on this board and we (myself included) should represent that.

No one is asking you to call out all examples of demeaning sarcasm. What I am pointing out is your self-evident extreme bias in who you select to call out. Please, for your own sake, stop fooling yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

So, it is not your business to judge him, but it is your business to judge me? Wake up!!

He violated, in one of the worst ways, his covenants and commitments to his family and Church, and yet after I called him out for his questioning how my sarcastic behavior somehow poorly reflects on the Church, and yet you, and he, have the gall to think I am the one being inappropriate. Unbelievable. Truly upside-down--though you will never see it.

Actions speak louder than words, and you can draw near with your lips, but the proof is in the pudding. In other words, it doesn't so much matter what you say. What matters is the results of what you do and say--whether unwitting or not. Legalizing SSM obviously mangles the definition of marriage, and legally countenancing and promoting perverse sexual behaviors under the guise of marriage, profanes that sacred institution, whether you wish to accept that reality of not.

No one is asking you to call out all examples of demeaning sarcasm. What I am pointing out is your self-evident extreme bias in who you select to call out. Please, for your own sake, stop fooling yourself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have judged your words to Daniel as being overly harsh and personal for a board such as this. I believe that's different than attacking his innate sexual orientation as you did. But if you feel it's appropriate here, then continue.

Genders of the participants is just one aspect of marriage. Commitment and love, for me, are far more important. So, in encouraging more people to enter the institution of marriage, I am no profaning it.

President Packer said: “Romantic love is not only a part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it. Indeed, the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is unattainable in the absence of it” (BYU Fireside, Nov. 3, 1963)

For me, that's what marriage is about.

As interesting as it is to discuss the governments involvement in the institution, I believe that ultimately... regardless of government, politics, and supreme court decisions... people will marry. Not because they happened to find someone of the opposite sex who said "yes", not because the government might promise them a benefit for procreating, but because of the human desire for romantic love.

[Ahab]

Legalizing SSM obviously mangles the definition of marriage, and legally countenancing and promoting perverse sexual behaviors under the guise of marriage, profanes that sacred institution, whether you wish to accept that reality of not.

I think you would benefit from analyzing your thoughts some more about what the word "marriage" actually means. Just because the word has typically been used to refer to opposite sex partner doesn't mean it can't apply equally well to same sex partners.

The problem is not with the definition, but with what is acceptable both morally and socially.

Same sex marriage = bad/immoral/not good for society. Opposite sex marriage = good/moral/good for society.

Why? You can hash that out in another thread if you want to have a discussion about it, but I suspect you already know.

Your issue in this thread is to ask why government is involved in determining who can and should get married.

I suspect you already know why those who govern are involved in giving their opinions, and in the end that's all it will ever be. Their opinions. If you're hoping someday everyone will be able to agree on this issue, you might as well forget about that.

[wenglund]

I have judged your words to Daniel as being overly harsh and personal for a board such as this. I believe that's different than attacking his innate sexual orientation as you did. But if you feel it's appropriate here, then continue.

Genders of the participants is just one aspect of marriage. Commitment and love, for me, are far more important. So, in encouraging more people to enter the institution of marriage, I am no profaning it.

President Packer said: “Romantic love is not only a part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it. Indeed, the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is unattainable in the absence of it” (BYU Fireside, Nov. 3, 1963)

For me, that's what marriage is about.

As interesting as it is to discuss the governments involvement in the institution, I believe that ultimately... regardless of government, politics, and supreme court decisions... people will marry. Not because they happened to find someone of the opposite sex who said "yes", not because the government might promise them a benefit for procreating, but because of the human desire for romantic love.

Are you seriously suggesting that Elder Packer's comments can rightly be interpreted to include homosexual romantic love--especially if it involves the sexual expression of that romantic love?

I am fine with letting people do in private as they please. As I have said before, if people want to have sexual relations with members of the same sex, or animals, or plants, or whatever, and call it "romantic love" or "marriage" or "the cat's meow" or whatever, They can behave and pretend however they please, I really don't care--that is, unless their private behavior and pretending has public involvement and consequences, not excluding government sanctioning certain private sexual behaviors and pretendings.

So, while you are free to naively reduce things in your mind to some vague notion of "romantic love," that isn't what is at issue in this discussion or generally--certainly not my involvement, or the Church's for that matter. It is precisely about public involvement and consequences.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Are you seriously suggesting that Elder Packer's comments can rightly be interpreted to include homosexual romantic love--especially if it involves the sexual expression of that romantic love?

Just explaining my belief that the definition of marriage, for me, goes well beyond just the gender of the participants.

[Ahab]

Just explaining my belief that the definition of marriage, for me, goes well beyond just the gender of the participants.

Does whether or not something is good or evil make any difference to you? Or is it only about what people want to do or allow?

[rockpond]

Does whether or not something is good or evil make any difference to you? Or is it only about what people want to do or allow?

Yes, good or evil makes a difference to me.

[Ahab]

Yes, good or evil makes a difference to me.

Ever noticed that people who do things that are evil have a way of thinking of those things as good things? People in government are no exception. They can pass good laws as well as laws which allow evil acts. Do you also realize the fact that something being legal doesn't mean it is good? How do you think those who govern others should determine whether or not something is good or evil? What more do we have than our own opinions?

[go_utes01]

Ever noticed that people who do things that are evil have a way of thinking of those things as good things? People in government are no exception. They can pass good laws as well as laws which allow evil acts. Do you also realize the fact that something being legal doesn't mean it is good? How do you think those who govern others should determine whether or not something is good or evil? What more do we have than our own opinions?

Ancient and modern-day prophetic writings, personal revelation, thousands of years of societal experience, to name a few sources.

[rockpond]

Ever noticed that people who do things that are evil have a way of thinking of those things as good things? People in government are no exception. They can pass good laws as well as laws which allow evil acts. Do you also realize the fact that something being legal doesn't mean it is good? How do you think those who govern others should determine whether or not something is good or evil? What more do we have than our own opinions?

In order...

Yes, some consider evil to be good.

Yes, legal does not mean "good" (which I read to mean "morally just" or "righteous" in the context you are presenting).

I believe that those who govern our country should follow our constitution as well as their own consciences.

Hopefully our opinions are guided by our belief system and the Spirit through personal revelation.

[Ahab]

Ancient and modern-day prophetic writings, personal revelation, thousands of years of societal experience, to name a few sources.

Okay, but all of those things, at best, only help to influence our opinion in some way. So what good does that do?

Perhaps it's a tangent to the question in the OP, but along with asking WHY the government gets involved in issues like this it might be good to ask WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE when government does get involved? People will still marry whoever or whatever they want to marry, in the strict sense of what a marriage involves, so all we're talking about what they're going to approve or sanction, rather than what they're going to consider a "marriage" to be. The word "marriage" is already set in stone as to what it really means and it can be applied to both good and evil forms of marriage.

[wenglund]

I think you would benefit from analyzing your thoughts some more about what the word "marriage" actually means. Just because the word has typically been used to refer to opposite sex partner doesn't mean it can't apply equally well to same sex partners.

It may apply in a very loose sense of the word "marriage," but so would any relationship, be it between human and humans, or humans and animals, or humans and corporations, or corporations and corporations, or plugs and sockets, or whatever.

But, at issue isn't the loose sense of the word, but the tight traditional and legal definition. You would benefit greatly from grasping the important distinction.

The problem is not with the definition, but with what is acceptable both morally and socially.

Same sex marriage = bad/immoral/not good for society. Opposite sex marriage = good/moral/good for society.

The problem has to do with both the definition and the moral component, and this because the two are inextricably connected in the implied meaning and application of the term "marriage."

The word "marriage," in its tight and legal sense, has long, if not always, been used as a marker to distinguish between relationships that are legitimate from those that are illegitimate, and those relationships and behaviors that are moral and "good" from those that are immoral and "bad." Those who are "married" are consider to be in a legitimate, moral, and "good" kind of relationship.

However, by mangling the tight and legal definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples, and thus same-sex sexual relations, it effectively legitimizes and renders as moral and "good" that which is intrinsically immoral and "bad." It confounds the term and profanes the legitimate and moral and "good" institution that bears its name.

So, I am sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. It would benefit you to understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 9, 2013 by wenglund

[Ahab]

It may apply in a very loose sense of the word "marriage," but so would any relationship, be it between human and humans, or humans and animals, or humans and corporations, or corporations and corporations, or plugs and sockets, or whatever.

But, at issue isn't the loose sense of the word, but the tight traditional and legal definition. You would benefit greatly from grasping the important distinction.

The problem has to do with both the definition and the moral component, and this because the two are inextricably connected in the implied meaning and application of the term "marriage."

The word "marriage," in its tight and legal sense, has long, if not always, been used as a marker to distinguish between relationships that are legitimate from those that are illegitimate, and those relationships and behaviors that are moral and "good" from those that are immoral and "bad." Those who are "married" are consider to be in a legitimate, moral, and "good" kind of relationship.

However, by mangling the tight and legal definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples, and thus same-sex sexual relations, it effectively legitimizes and renders as moral and "good" that which is intrinsically immoral and "bad." It confounds the term and profanes the legitimate and moral and "good" institution that bears its name.

So, I am sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. It would benefit you to understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just to make sure you're understanding what I mean when I say something about this issue:

1. Marriage is the act of 2 things (usually but not always of the same kind) uniting or coming together as one.

2. A marriage cermony, aka wedding, is a legalistic ceremony which sanctions/approves a marriage relationship based upon the terms offered by those in authority to administer the ceremony, and those in authority can approve/sanction unrighteous marriage relationships as well as righteous marriage relationships.

I hope you can see the light I am shining here.

[rockpond]

Okay, but all of those things, at best, only help to influence our opinion in some way. So what good does that do?

Perhaps it's a tangent to the question in the OP, but along with asking WHY the government gets involved in issues like this it might be good to ask WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE when government does get involved? People will still marry whoever or whatever they want to marry, in the strict sense of what a marriage involves, so all we're talking about what they're going to approve or sanction, rather than what they're going to consider a "marriage" to be. The word "marriage" is already set in stone as to what it really means and it can be applied to both good and evil forms of marriage.

It makes a difference to those gay couples who cannot achieve the legal rights that are granted through marriage (inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decisions, custody of children, etc).

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the word marriage is set in stone. It's currently the subject of debates, referendums, legislative action, and judicial appeals. It's meaning may be set in stone for you, but obviously is not set in stone for society as a whole.

[rockpond]

It may apply in a very loose sense of the word "marriage," but so would any relationship, be it between human and humans, or humans and animals, or humans and corporations, or corporations and corporations, or plugs and sockets, or whatever.

But, at issue isn't the loose sense of the word, but the tight traditional and legal definition. You would benefit greatly from grasping the important distinction.

The problem has to do with both the definition and the moral component, and this because the two are inextricably connected in the implied meaning and application of the term "marriage."

The word "marriage," in its tight and legal sense, has long, if not always, been used as a marker to distinguish between relationships that are legitimate from those that are illegitimate, and those relationships and behaviors that are moral and "good" from those that are immoral and "bad." Those who are "married" are consider to be in a legitimate, moral, and "good" kind of relationship.

However, by mangling the tight and legal definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples, and thus same-sex sexual relations, it effectively legitimizes and renders as moral and "good" that which is intrinsically immoral and "bad." It confounds the term and profanes the legitimate and moral and "good" institution that bears its name.

So, I am sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. It would benefit you to understand this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But that's your definition of good/moral. Others clearly have different definitions of good & moral.

[Ahab]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the word marriage is set in stone. It's currently the subject of debates, referendums, legislative action, and judicial appeals. It's meaning may be set in stone for you, but obviously is not set in stone for society as a whole.

The definition is in any dictionary, and it's basically all about 2 things uniting or coming together as one. It applies to building ships and plumbing pipes as well as people uniting parts of their bodies together. What's been the subject of debates is actually the "baggage" people associate with their ideas of what a marriage involves, but to get to the true meaning all you have to do is look in a dictionary to see what the word means.

[rockpond]

The definition is in any dictionary, and it's basically all about 2 things uniting or coming together as one. It applies to building ships and plumbing pipes as well as people uniting parts of their bodies together. What's been the subject of debates is actually the "baggage" people associate with their ideas of what a marriage involves, but to get to the true meaning all you have to do is look in a dictionary to see what the word means.

I agree that the subject of the debates is all the baggage associated with different ideas pertaining to marriage. And I just looked up the definition in Meriam-Webster and Dictionary.com. I tend to agree with those definitions but I'm not sure that Wade would. But of the basic definition of two things coming together and uniting as one -- yeah, I agree with that.

[wenglund]

Just to make sure you're understanding what I mean when I say something about this issue:

1. Marriage is the act of 2 things (usually but not always of the same kind) uniting or coming together as one.

2. A marriage cermony, aka wedding, is a legalistic ceremony which sanctions/approves a marriage relationship based upon the terms offered by those in authority to administer the ceremony, and those in authority can approve/sanction unrighteous marriage relationships as well as righteous marriage relationships.

I hope you can see the light I am shining here.

The only light that is relevant to the subject of this thread, is your second meaning. I hope you can now see this, and not confuse the discussion with irrelevancies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I agree that the subject of the debates is all the baggage associated with different ideas pertaining to marriage. And I just looked up the definition in Meriam-Webster and Dictionary.com. I tend to agree with those definitions but I'm not sure that Wade would.

I agree with MW's definition of marriage as: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Any other definition would require massive re-writing of the marital law (as has occurred in several states like Washington), where all instances of related terms like "husband" and "wife" would need to be expunged and replaced with more gender-neutral terms like "spouse."

That such radical alterations would need to occur for alternative definitions to make sense in terms of existing law, clearly suggest that the meaning I cited above, and as explicitly codified in numerous state and federal DOMA laws, has long been what was clearly intended--and for good reason (as I have spelled out over the course of this thread).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 9, 2013 by wenglund

[Ahab]

The only light that is relevant to the subject of this thread, is your second meaning. I hope you can now see this, and not confuse the discussion with irrelevancies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're confusing and mingling the 2 distinct but related issues, though, so if you'll stop doing that this issue will be settled, for you.

The problem has to do with both the definition and the moral component, and this because the two are inextricably connected in the implied meaning and application of the term "marriage."

Only for you and for others who think like you do. When I hear the word "marriage" I don't automatically assume or associate that word with a good union or relationship between people, because I know that word has multiple meanings. I know that usually when a man says he is married he is essentially saying he has a spouse and his spouse is a woman, but I also know that's not always the case. He might even mean that he's married to his job, or in his relationship with Jesus Christ, not even talking about having a spouse as a partner. In general, it's just better to not assume anything until you know what someone is talking about, and even then what he's saying isn't necessary a good thing. A man who is married to another man as his spouse is not in a good relationship.

The word "marriage," in its tight and legal sense, has long, if not always, been used as a marker to distinguish between relationships that are legitimate from those that are illegitimate, and those relationships and behaviors that are moral and "good" from those that are immoral and "bad." Those who are "married" are consider to be in a legitimate, moral, and "good" kind of relationship.

I think you meant "were"...Those who were "married" were considered to be in a legitimate, moral, and "good" kind of relationship.

However, by mangling the tight and legal definition of "marriage" to include same-sex couples, and thus same-sex sexual relations, it effectively legitimizes and renders as moral and "good" that which is intrinsically immoral and "bad." It confounds the term and profanes the legitimate and moral and "good" institution that bears its name.

Legitimizing an immoral and bad form of marriage doesn't actually render it as moral or good, though. Not effectively or in any other way. It only makes it legal, which isn't the same thing as good or moral. Maybe that's what you're having trouble understanding. The fact that something is legal doesn't mean it is good.

[rockpond]

I agree with MW's definition of marriage as: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

Any other definition would require massive re-writing of the marital law (as has occurred in several states like Washington), where all instances of related terms like "husband" and "wife" would need to be expunged and replaced with more gender-neutral terms like "spouse."

That such radical alterations would need to occur for alternative definitions to make sense in terms of existing law, clearly suggest that the meaning I cited above, and as explicitly codified in numerous state and federal DOMA laws, has long been what was clearly intended--and for good reason (as I have spelled out over the course of this thread).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Eleven states now. And the "massive re-writing" hasn't seemed to be that big of a problem.

p.s. Wade - I'm not aware of anyone here who has bought into what you have "spelled out over the course of this thread".

[rockpond]

The fact that something is legal doesn't mean it is good.

I agree.