Is Part Of The Concern Over Same Sex Marriage, The Bob Jones University Case?

[rockpond]

 

Lets restart our efforts here.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/why-marriage-matters-consequences-of-redefining-marriage

 

You will notice that there are foot notes provided for refrence so they are not just making stuff up.

 

 

Okay, let's take it one statement at a time.  First this one:  "Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father."

 

How?  How would it do that?

 

How well has the current definition worked?  What is our divorce rate?  What part of allowing gay marriage prevents us from teaching what we believe is an ideal?  And how would allowing legally recognized marriage for gay couples make more heterosexual people choose NOT to marry?

[california boy]

 

Lets restart our efforts here.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/why-marriage-matters-consequences-of-redefining-marriage

 

You will notice that there are foot notes provided for refrence so they are not just making stuff up.

 

I read what you posted from the Heritage Foundation.  It is an opinion piece not based on anything that will be able to be defended in a court of law, where you have to actually show legal proof for the claims you make.  So really, while it explains the opinions of those that are against gay marriage, it really will have no effect on whether gay marriage becomes law.  You obviously agree with this opinion. I don't have any problem with you agreeing with this opinion.  You will probably still agree with this opinion long after gay marriage becomes legal.  Hey this is what we most like about America.  Everyone can have an opinion even if it is not based in fact.

[california boy]

As promised, I will now explain how changing the definition of words like "marriage," can change the social meaningfulness of those words.

 

Since people are so close and committed to their respective positions on mangling the definition of marriage, and likely can see things different no matter what, let me instead use a different word to illustrate the point.  There are a number of words in the English language to which cultures attach unusual meaningfulness. in our modern culture, one of these words is "courage." This word is heavily imbued with social meaningfulness, and it bestows upon the recipient no small measure of notoriety and honor, and tends to instill with the observer a strong sense of marvel and appreciation.

 

However, were the definition of "courage" to be legally and diametrically changed to include poltroons and milquetoasts, then logically the word would lose much of its social meaningfulness.

 

As explained in my blog: All the extensive and passionate advocacy for same-sex marriage has given the impression that marriage is a highly valued and cherished institution by the Left and gays, and that they wish it to be elevated in stature, rather than degraded. (See HERE)

However, when the definition of a word is diluted and bastardize, it is reasonable to expect that its value and meaningfulness to society and in the law would be diluted as well.

This is certainly true for the word "marriage" following the public and court debates and legalization of "same-sex marriage." (See HERE and HERE)

Not only was the definition diluted by including relationships that had previously been implicitly excluded (the more inclusive the definition the less prized the word), but its value and meaningfulness was unavoidably diminished and further tainted by linking it to behaviors that were once considered morally reprehensible, criminal in many states, and "are scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive." (See HERE and HERE)

And, as indicated in previous posts, the word "marriage" wasn't the only casualty of legalized gay marriage. Other words, like "committed" and "fidelity" and "monogamy" have also somewhat fallen prey

By legalizing same-sex marriage and altering other marital and moral terms, the fundamental institution of society has subsequently lost some of its appeal and virtue and moral impetus. Dennis Prager wisely asks: "why do we so rashly overturn an institution that has served our society so well for thousands of years?" (See HERE)

 

There is also this: is it any wonder, then, that many consider traditional marriage and families to be in crisis (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and that marital and birth rates are in decline. (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--including same-sex marriage rates where it is legal (see HERE and HERE).

Granted, marital and birth rates were, in some instances, in decline prior to legalization of same-sex marriage, though the decline has been exacerbated in those instances (see previous links and HERE), and may in some ways have been as much a symptom or byproduct of other threats as it was, or is, a threat, itself.

And, while divorce among heterosexuals has somewhat diminished (it went from 4.0 per 1,000 in 2000, to 3.6 in 2010--see HERE), "A 2004 study of registered partnerships in Sweden reported that gay male couples were 50 percent more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples. Lesbian couples were nearly three times more likely to divorce than were heterosexual couples." (See HERE) "The pattern is evident in the Netherlands as well as Norway and Sweden, where Mundy notes that the risk of breakups for female partnerships more than doubles that found in male unions. The actual study she cites estimates that in Sweden 30 percent of female marriages are likely to end in divorce within six years of formation, compared with 20 percent for male marriages and 13 percent for heterosexual ones." (HERE)

Furthermore, same-sex marriage isn't the only threat to traditional marriage. Economics and other popular cultural issues like the sexual revolution, the "hook-up" generation, radical feminism, narcissism, no-fault divorce, etc. are in some respect greater threats. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE) And, there are not a few heterosexuals who have been against marriage. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

Nevertheless, as indicated, same-sex marriage is corrosive to traditional marriage--not so much on an individual basis, but cumulatively at the cultural level (see HERE). It is one of many straws pilled onto the cultural camel's back in relation to traditional marriage.

If you thought correctly that traditional marriage was crumbling under its own heterosexual problems (like with the disturbing levels of cheating and divorce and domestic violence and the growing trend towards "open marriages" among heterosexuals--see HERE), imagine how much more the institution of marriage in general will suffer now that a demographic (homosexuals) is being added to the mix, who have a significantly greater penchant for infidelity, short-term relationships, domestic violence, sexual openness, divorce, and mental illness, than heterosexual (see HERE), and who have altered the meaning of words like "marriage" and "fidelity" and monogamy" to accommodate sexual infidelity. (See previous posts).

In other words, good and decent liberals have naively supposed that their support for same-sex marriage would ultimately strengthen the fundamental structure of society, but in reality they have unwittingly assented to the destruction of the traditional family--and for the life of them, they can't see it.

For example, a writer for the Atlantic Magazine said: "But what if the critics are correct, just not in the way they suppose? What if same-sex marriage does change marriage, but primarily for the better?...But the larger change might be this: by providing a new model of how two people can live together equitably, same-sex marriage could help haul matrimony more fully into the 21st century. Although marriage is in many ways fairer and more pleasurable for both men and women than it once was, it hasn’t entirely thrown off old notions and habits...Same-sex spouses, who cannot divide their labor based on preexisting gender norms, must approach marriage differently than their heterosexual peers. From sex to fighting, from child-rearing to chores, they must hammer out every last detail of domestic life without falling back on assumptions about who will do what. In this regard, they provide an example that can be enlightening to all couples. Critics warn of an institution rendered 'genderless.' But if a genderless marriage is a marriage in which the wife is not automatically expected to be responsible for school forms and child care and dinner preparation and birthday parties and midnight feedings and holiday shopping, I think it’s fair to say that many heterosexual women would cry 'Bring it on!'” (See HERE)

Be that as it may, the decline and potential collapse of traditional marriage and family through same-sex marriage and other cultural trends, isn't entirely accidental, but was set as a goal well in advance by homosexual advocates and others, and strategically planned and executed since then. For example, various gay manifestos and agendas have called for the elimination or radical altering of the traditional family (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), lesbian feminist and others have "regarded the institution as oppressive" and in need of change or elimination (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and certain prominent figures in the gay movement have admitted to being against "marriage"--gay or otherwise (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--which may account for why so few homosexuals choose to legally marry where permitted (see above), though some homosexuals support the idea of civil unions rather than marriage (see HERE and HERE). And, there are those homosexuals who see marriage as conflicting with sexual liberties (see HERE), or who regret the focus on gay marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and who even intimate that same-sex marriage was designed to destroy or radically alter traditional marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), if not also to legitimize homosexual behaviors (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

"The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of “marriage,” for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and 'open; sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever..."(See HERE, see also below).

Not surprisingly, the rancor on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate has soured people on marriage altogether. (see HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You obviously spent a lot of time writing this post.  Just wondering why you wrote it. Let's just assume that every single thing you wrote is true.

 

Did you write this to convince us that you think gays are unworthy of being married?  (I think we already knew you think gays are unworthy to be married.)  

 

Do you think the courts will look at this kind of reasoning and deem gays as unworthy of marriage?

Just how would such a ruling work.  Are you suggesting that we should now have a gauge on who is worthy to marry and who is not based on random samples of the group the couple falls into?  For example if there are studies that show children do not do as well in poor families, do we no longer allow poor couples to marry?  Or if people that divorce are three times more likely to divorce again, should we not allow any divorce people to ever marry again?

 

So tell us Wade, what should we take away from this diatribe?  I would like to know.

[wenglund]

I do GET the point you are making, I just disagree.  Marriage to me is not defined by the genders of the participants.  It is defined by the love and commitment that they are willing to give to one another and, in a religious sense, the commitment that they will also make to God.

 

I don't know that we disagree so much as you are confusing the legal definition of marriage with emotional meaning that you attach to the word. You will not find the word "love" and "commitment" even in the newly mangled legal definition, though many people may assign those emotional meanings to the word.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You obviously spent a lot of time writing this post.  Just wondering why you wrote it. Let's just assume that every single thing you wrote is true.

 

Did you write this to convince us that you think gays are unworthy of being married?  (I think we already knew you think gays are unworthy to be married.)  

 

 

No.

 

Do you think the courts will look at this kind of reasoning and deem gays as unworthy of marriage?

 

No.

 

Just how would such a ruling work.

 

I can't answer since it isn't something I thought or suggested.

 

Are you suggesting that we should now have a gauge on who is worthy to marry and who is not based on random samples of the group the couple falls into?

 

No.

 

For example if there are studies that show children do not do as well in poor families, do we no longer allow poor couples to marry?

 

No.

 

Or if people that divorce are three times more likely to divorce again, should we not allow any divorce people to ever marry again?

 

No.

 

So tell us Wade, what should we take away from this diatribe?  I would like to know.

 

You should take away what was explicitly intended (not to be confused with the irrelevant and mistaken presuppositions at the heart of each of your questions above), to wit: "I will now explain how changing the definition of words like 'marriage,' can change the social meaningfulness of those words."

 

In other words, you should take away an expanded understand of how, among several things, diametrically mangling the definition of the word "marriage" may inadvertently reduce the social meaningfulness of the word, and thus diminish its "appeal and virtue and moral impetus." Obviously.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[nebula]

But the deffintion can't be expanded with out destroying the meaning of the word all together. I think honeslty your other points are irrelevant. No one is talking about the worth or lack there of of women.

 

Consider the redefintion of a dog legs. We now expand that definition to include a dogs tail. Tell me how that would make any sense? Words mean things for a reason and we can't change them just because we don't like the meaning of them. I cannot think of a worse reason to redifine a word. If we redefine legs to include tails what would that mean to us in how we view things with tails and legs? Clearly those to things are very different and are not the same. Do you understand?

I think I understand your point. For me, expanding the definition to include two people of any gender doesn't dramatically alter the meaning of the word. The "one man, one woman" part has never held much importance to me, personally, so it's an easy thing to let it go. When I look at it from your point of view, I can see how the change seems significant and harder to accept. That said, if changing the meaning of the word "tail" would grant a minority group equal rights, I would support the change.

[nebula]

I am not sure what exactly you mean by value and virtue, or what exactly are your points of reference.

 

Yes, the term "traditional marriage" would accurately apply to legal marriages between male and female strangers and/or abusive or un-loving heterosexual couples. So?

 

The traditional definition of "marriage" doesn't mention qualitative variables like human character and acquaintance and romantic disposition. It simply speaks quantitatively to fixed elements: numbers and gender composition and in a way, age. Thus, the definition isn't altered in the least by the existence of qualitative variables within the set of "traditional marriage."

 

Whereas, on the other hand, the definition is radically altered by changing the quantitative and fixed elements of the definition, which is precisely what legalizing "gay marriage" does.

 

Why people don't get this seemingly obvious point, is a mystery to me.

 

I will speak to the question of plausible changes in social meaningfulness of "marriage" (not to be confused with the definitional meaning of marriage) when I get a moment.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe I am missing your point. Are we upset simply because the definition of a word is being changed, or because that word describes something of deep sentimental significance? I assumed the latter. I can't imagine rallying so passionately against the change otherwise.

[wenglund]

Maybe I am missing your point. Are we upset simply because the definition of a word is being changed, or because that word describes something of deep sentimental significance?

 

I can't answer your question because it presupposes something that is false. I was not and am not upset. Rather, I have calmly and matter-of-factly and rationally addressed your evident confusion.

 

If you wish to get my point, it may help you to loosen the death grip on your preconceived notions, open your mind beyond the socially indoctrinated cliches, practice the increasing lost art of critical thinking, and mull my comments over a bit before spitting them out. If that doesn't work, then please see my clarification to californiaboy above.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2014 by wenglund

[california boy]

No.

 

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

 

I can't answer since it isn't something I thought or suggested.

 

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

 

You should take away what was explicitly intended (not to be confused with the irrelevant and mistaken presuppositions at the heart of each of your questions above), to wit: "I will now explain how changing the definition of words like 'marriage,' can change the social meaningfulness of those words."

 

In other words, you should take away an expanded understand of how, among several things, diametrically mangling the definition of the word "marriage" may inadvertently reduce the social meaningfulness of the word, and thus diminish its "appeal and virtue and moral impetus." Obviously.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you drawing a difference between gay marriage and all the other moral sins in the world?  Just wondering since I don't think I have ever seen you write such a diatribe concerning any other moral issue except gay marriage.   

[Calm]

I think it's a little premature given nebula's short posting history to assume her "notions" on the subject have a death grip on anyone. I'd wait until she's participated in another hundred or so threads on the subject...iow, give her at least until next week to draw such conclusions.

[nebula]

I can't answer your question because it presupposes something that is false. I was not and am not upset. Rather, I have calmly and matter-of-factly and rationally addressed your evident confusion.

 

If you wish to get my point, it may help you to loosen the death grip on your preconceived notions, open your mind beyond the socially indoctrinated cliches, practice the increasing lost art of critical thinking, and mull my comments over a bit before spitting them out. If that doesn't work, then please see my clarification to californiaboy above.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My intention wasn't to accuse you, personally, of being upset. By "we" I meant all of us-- we as a nation, we as a community hotly debating an issue-- and I was genuinely seeking an answer to my question: would we (all of us, not you specifically) be discussing the definition of marriage so passionately if the issue at hand were mere semantics? Isn't this an important issue BECAUSE of its emotional significance? The fact that we are willing to defend the definition of marriage so strongly is evidence that we assign value to the concept-- value that some fear will be tainted or lost if same-sex marriage becomes the norm. The point I was trying to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) in my earlier posts is that the current definition of marriage already encompasses a host of unsavory unions and has done so since time immemorial, so that any value of the word comes not from its legal definition but from our own perception.

I understand that a defensive position is the default here, but I would appreciate it if you'd ease up on personal attacks. I don't assume that you're incapable of critical thinking, and I'm certain you don't really believe that I am, either. Considering that we're all willing to engage in conversation with those who hold opinions diametrically opposed to our own, I'd say that no one on this forum is particularly closed-minded. We're just debating, which is what we're here to do. I'm glad to be able to hear your side and I am trying to understand your position as best I can.

[wenglund]

Are you drawing a difference between gay marriage and all the other moral sins in the world? 

 

No. I happen to be speaking to a burning issue of our day, and the topic of this thread. Obviously.

 

Just wondering since I don't think I have ever seen you write such a diatribe concerning any other moral issue except gay marriage.

 

 

Here, and on my blog, I have written much on a variety of topics, both moral and unrelated to morals, whether you are aware of them or not (since you tend to hone in almost exclusively to gay topics on this board, it is little wonder that you are unaware of my other writings). If interested, here is a link to the subject index to one of my more prolific blogs:  Leftist LUNC of the Week.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

My intention wasn't to accuse you, personally, of being upset. By "we" I meant all of us-- we as a nation, we as a community hotly debating an issue-- and I was genuinely seeking an answer to my question: would we (all of us, not you specifically) be discussing the definition of marriage so passionately if the issue at hand were mere semantics? Isn't this an important issue BECAUSE of its emotional significance? The fact that we are willing to defend the definition of marriage so strongly is evidence that we assign value to the concept-- value that some fear will be tainted or lost if same-sex marriage becomes the norm.

 

I see now what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree.

 

However, while I can certainly accept that many people take a strong emotional approach to the issue, and assign emotional significance and value, I have determined to consider it rationally and pragmatically, and assign significance and value accordingly. To me, it isn't so much about how people "feel," but what makes sense and works best to everyone's benefit, though I respect if people see it differently. To each their own.

 

 

 

The point I was trying to make (perhaps unsuccessfully) in my earlier posts is that the current definition of marriage already encompasses a host of unsavory unions and has done so since time immemorial, so that any value of the word comes not from its legal definition but from our own perception.

 

I get that.

 

For reasons indicated, though, I see the value and meaningfulness of the word being a product of both the legal definition and our own perception. To each their own.

 

 

I understand that a defensive position is the default here, but I would appreciate it if you'd ease up on personal attacks. I don't assume that you're incapable of critical thinking, and I'm certain you don't really believe that I am, either. Considering that we're all willing to engage in conversation with those who hold opinions diametrically opposed to our own, I'd say that no one on this forum is particularly closed-minded. We're just debating, which is what we're here to do. I'm glad to be able to hear your side and I am trying to understand your position as best I can.

 

Nicely said, and I agree and apologize. My comment to you was mostly intended in jest, but I can see how they can easily be taken in earnest.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2014 by wenglund

[nebula]

Thanks for your reply. I admit that it's difficult for me to step back and consider this issue objectively, and I admire your attempt to see things that way. This particular issue hits close to home, for me-- and that's partly why I joined this forum, to try to understand the view from the other side. I am not a member of the church, but I had some enlightening discussions with Mormon missionaries last year, and their compassion and open-mindedness was inspiring. They cared enough to speak candidly about their beliefs, so I care enough now to learn more about the faith that made them so kind-hearted and vibrant. I didn't come here to fight-- and if I make any thoughtless or accusatory comments while I'm here, I'd be glad if someone would set me straight. (No pun intended!)

[Stone holm]

Thanks for your reply. I admit that it's difficult for me to step back and consider this issue objectively, and I admire your attempt to see things that way. This particular issue hits close to home, for me-- and that's partly why I joined this forum, to try to understand the view from the other side. I am not a member of the church, but I had some enlightening discussions with Mormon missionaries last year, and their compassion and open-mindedness was inspiring. They cared enough to speak candidly about their beliefs, so I care enough now to learn more about the faith that made them so kind-hearted and vibrant. I didn't come here to fight-- and if I make any thoughtless or accusatory comments while I'm here, I'd be glad if someone would set me straight. (No pun intended!)

You haven't as far as I can see. You have to understand that we all are not necessarily on our best behavior. Some can come off very arrogant and condescending, I doubt they are really like that in real life. We push the edge on this Board in I think an attempt to gain better insight into the Faith

[Alan]

Although this argument gets floated out from time to time, it's really faux law. Churches can be incorporated and that does not affect their status as such. Not being incorporated in the past has caused issues sorting out what was the Church's property and what was the Prophets when the Prophet died. It is good to keep the entanglement to a minimum, and in fact that is one of the First Amendment Establishment Clause tests.

 

President Harold B. Lee wanted to disincorporate the church but died before he could move ahead on it.

The problem with being a corporation is that the church is subject to corporate law. Therefore, the US government can force the church to adopt practicesif that becomes part of the corporate law and the church can, in reality, do nothing about it.

We play by Babylon's rules, we lose. Simple.

[Buzzard]

Thank you for responding.  And I appreciate your perspective.  I do have a question or two.  Do you think that all gay couples wanting to get married think they are committing sin if they don't marry?  If they do think that gay relations are a sin, do you think that after they are married they don't think it is a sin?  And is there any reason for them to think that? I'm not is a position to know what gay couples think.  What is clear to members of the church is that heterosexual acts are only allowed within marriage, and homosexual acts are  not allowed, even if the secular state considers a couple married.

 

Maybe the more interesting part of your response for me is your admitting that you too have sins.  But you still feel the need to stop people who do not even hold the same religious beliefs from sinning.  Do you feel that way about other sins by non members or just gay sins? I wish all of us, Jew and Gentile, member and non-member, would sin a lot less. But this thread isn't about theft or losing our temper at our kids, or any of a myriad of sins, it's about state recognition and blessing, if you can call it that, of an intrinsically destructive sin. To be sure, I consider adultery and predatory fornication to be every bit as serious as homosexual behavior.  I think that is in line with what the church teaches.

 

When a non member marries, it is just for this life.  The marriage is dissolved at death.  When a gay couple legally marries in this life, that marriage is just for this life and that marriage is dissolved at death as well.  So what real eternal damage is done by a non member gay person being married in this life as opposed to just living together?  And if there is no difference in the sin, why would you or any other member care one bit if a gay couple marries rather than live together?  I understand the passion.  It is much more difficult to understand the motivation.  What eternal change do you hope to achieve?  Ah, but remember (and this is, IMHO, the church fights so hard against gay marriage), traditional marriages may not end at death. Once the temple work is done, every person who has lived, will have at least the potential to, for lack of a better way to put it, become a Mormon. Obviously, many will not, but a married couple (lets not dive into the permutations of widowhood or polygamy), though their marriage was dissolved at death, may be sealed by proxy for time and eternity, and have access to all the blessings of an eternal marriage. But a gay couple, even if they marry, can never have those blessings. For that reason, homosexuality, and gay marriage in particular, is an especially damning act.  It is a counterfeit of the central pillar of the Plan of Salvation.  I know that if you are not LDS, you just say that you don't agree. But to only look at this life is the pinnacle of short term thinking. I promise God is not thinking short term.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nevertheless, as indicated, same-sex marriage is corrosive to traditional marriage--not so much on an individual basis, but cumulatively at the cultural level (see HERE). It is one of many straws pilled onto the cultural camel's back in relation to traditional marriage.

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

This essentially was one of my points about the redefinition of the word. I also notice that I probably explained some of my thoughts not as well as I liked.

The confusion seemes to be that people are equating (And it might be partially my fault) that when you redefine a word or expand the words definition that that is the same as adding a new definition to a word. For instance CB noted the my choice of the word "Cool" With that word a separate and distinct defintion was added to that word, were it originially was defined as term that was about tempature, the new definition now was added (not expanded to an original definition) to be something that was awesome or praiseworthy. My point was looking at a definition of a word and expanding it to include things it originally did not. I thought it was obvious what I was saying when I said that a leg is a tail or that the definition of a square now includes triangles. Those would be examples of expanding a defintion not adding a new definition to a word. The main point of all of this is how it diminishes the quality of an ideal as a culture when we redefine words. Wade did a great job of summing up the arguments better than I could have.

 

Too many think when these debates go on that "My marriage has not suffered as a result of this" or they say, "How does this affect my marriage directly". Well to answer your question it doesn't, no one that I know of has ever argued otherwise. But on a social or general level it does indeed directly affect that word and its meaning and how a culture views it. And again Wade has demonstarted amply that this is indeed the case. I really hope that many of us can cast of all the emotion and look at the issue logically. And no I am not suggesting that any one is a wit or a fool. That is not the point of saying what I am. But emotion clouds the mind alot of the time and we cannot see clearly.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

I don't know that we disagree so much as you are confusing the legal definition of marriage with emotional meaning that you attach to the word. You will not find the word "love" and "commitment" even in the newly mangled legal definition, though many people may assign those emotional meanings to the word.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yes, what I described was my personal definition and feelings about marriage.

 

What you describe is some hybrid of personal, cultural, and religious definitions of marriage.  And I understand what you are saying.

 

But what I just said above about my personal definition of marriage and what you describe as the definition of traditional marriage are NOT the same as the legal definition of marriage.  Can we agree on that?

[wenglund]

Thanks for your reply. I admit that it's difficult for me to step back and consider this issue objectively, and I admire your attempt to see things that way. This particular issue hits close to home, for me-- and that's partly why I joined this forum, to try to understand the view from the other side. I am not a member of the church, but I had some enlightening discussions with Mormon missionaries last year, and their compassion and open-mindedness was inspiring. They cared enough to speak candidly about their beliefs, so I care enough now to learn more about the faith that made them so kind-hearted and vibrant. I didn't come here to fight-- and if I make any thoughtless or accusatory comments while I'm here, I'd be glad if someone would set me straight. (No pun intended!)

 

What a wonderful and inspiring attitude! We are all blessed because of it, and would do well to better emulate it. I appreciate you setting me straight.

 

And, while things may seem rough and tumble here at times, I am of a mind that it typically isn't out of spite or looking for a fight, but because we each care deeply about one other, though in our own ways.

 

Looking at it this way helps me to give people the benefit of the doubt, keep things in perspective, and not take things personally or take myself too seriously, for what it is worth.

 

Anyway, I hope your experience here greatly improves over your initial introduction, and that you are benefited by having spent the time.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2014 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

But what I just said above about my personal definition of marriage and what you describe as the definition of traditional marriage are NOT the same as the legal definition of marriage.  Can we agree on that?

well, for kicks and giggles which state are we talking about here?

[rockpond]

well, for kicks and giggles which state are we talking about here?

 

I'm not sure what your asking.  It's regardless of state... personal definition, "traditional" definition, and our legal system definition are separate.

[california boy]

 I'm not is a position to know what gay couples think.  What is clear to members of the church is that heterosexual acts are only allowed within marriage, and homosexual acts are  not allowed, even if the secular state considers a couple married.

You are correct.  You are not in a position to know what gay couples think.  So when you made the statement in post #147 in bold letters

 

Secular gays and their allies do not want acceptance of marriage, they want gay sexual activity and relationships embraced as normal, with real world consequences for those who disagree. 

 

you were stating something that was completely frabricated by you and you had absolutely no concrete reason to make such a statement.  Yet you made that statement to justify your position of denying gay couples their right to marry.  

 

 

 

I wish all of us, Jew and Gentile, member and non-member, would sin a lot less. But this thread isn't about theft or losing our temper at our kids, or any of a myriad of sins, it's about state recognition and blessing, if you can call it that, of an intrinsically destructive sin. To be sure, I consider adultery and predatory fornication to be every bit as serious as homosexual behavior.  I think that is in line with what the church teaches.

 

We all wish that everyone would sin less.  But that is not what I asked.  I was asking that even though you admit you also have sins if.  "You still feel the need to stop people who do not even hold the same religious beliefs from sinning.  Do you feel that way about other sins by non members or just gay sins?" 

 

Ah, but remember (and this is, IMHO, the church fights so hard against gay marriage), traditional marriages may not end at death. Once the temple work is done, every person who has lived, will have at least the potential to, for lack of a better way to put it, become a Mormon. Obviously, many will not, but a married couple (lets not dive into the permutations of widowhood or polygamy), though their marriage was dissolved at death, may be sealed by proxy for time and eternity, and have access to all the blessings of an eternal marriage. But a gay couple, even if they marry, can never have those blessings. For that reason, homosexuality, and gay marriage in particular, is an especially damning act.  It is a counterfeit of the central pillar of the Plan of Salvation.  I know that if you are not LDS, you just say that you don't agree. But to only look at this life is the pinnacle of short term thinking. I promise God is not thinking short term.

 

Well you only dodged the most important part of my question.  So I will state only that part.  If gay marriage is only for this earth life then what are, as you claim, is the "in particular, damning act." How does gay marriage damn gay couples any more than when they live together without marriage?

[nebula]

What a wonderful and inspiring attitude! We are all blessed because of it, and would do well to better emulate it. I appreciate you setting me straight.

 

And, while things may seem rough and tumble here at times, I am of a mind that it typically isn't out of spite or looking for a fight, but because we each care deeply about one other, though in our own ways.

 

Looking at it this way helps me to give people the benefit of the doubt, keep things in perspective, and not take things personally or take myself too seriously, for what it is worth.

 

Anyway, I hope your experience here greatly improves over your initial introduction, and that you are benefited by having spent the time.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you! My opinion so far is overwhelmingly positive.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not sure what your asking.  It's regardless of state... personal definition, "traditional" definition, and our legal system definition are separate.

Yeah but.....

I am sure you are aware that state by state and country by country the definition has changed legally speaking. So I was just trying to get clarification on which legal definition. Are you talking about Utah's article 3 definition or are you talking about CA's legal definition or are you tlaking about Iran's legal definition?

 

How ever I think I understood what you are saying. You were just saying that the 3 definition are interpreted generally differently one from another. And that answer would be obviously (I hope) they are interpreted differently in most cases.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram