Buckeye Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. Sorry, but there can be only one 80's movie reference per topic. I dropped one in comment #8. Please try to keep up. Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Yes they were. No disagreement here. Even in Heaven the numbers don't add up given the high mortality of children under 8 throughout history and the fact that more boys die before 8 than girls. A good discussion here:http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/12/01/its-raining-men-celestial-demographics-again/ So you are arguing that at a minimum 80% of Church members can not reach exaltation? That wouldn't even make sense for BY to say, and he said some pretty off the wall things.
Senator Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 My views are consistent with the Church's on this topic.Which, from your understanding, is what?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) So you are arguing that at a minimum 80% of Church members can not reach exaltation?No. I personally think polygamy is absurd and as practiced it was not inspired. That wouldn't even make sense for BY to say, and he said some pretty off the wall things.I don't judge the historical accuracy of things by my ability to make sense of them. General Authorities taught polygamy was required. I have examined primary evidence from more than one of my ancestors from the period and they believed it was required. I have read many talks from the period as recorded in the journal of discourses and have come to the conclusion that polygamy was taught as a requirement for exaltation. Maybe not obtainable by all in this life, but required of all in the next.I hear all the time that polygamy will be required in the heaven to balance the numbers of men and women (I believe this is Brian Hales position). The members that put this forward talk about how many more righteous women than men there are. Why is it such a stretch to believe that early church members thought the same thing but to a larger degree? Why should we reinterpret what they said and taught to match our modern sensibilities? Edited April 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Which, from your understanding, is what?From the Mormon newsroom:PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother. Edited April 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
frank_jessop Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 http://nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/I think that we can see from this article what can happen when marriage leaves the traditional man/woman definition behind. We now have throuples where three women can be married together and have a baby.I think that polygamy will soon be legal.What is traditional marriage? And what does a non-legal,non-binding, unenforceable verbal commitment of 3 lesbians have to do with "traditional marriage"?I do agree that those who promote polygamy (polygamy is not traditional marriage by any means of tradition in US History) will have to accept same-sex "throuples". 1
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 What is traditional marriage?Traditional marriage is a man going out with a club, hitting an attractive woman, and dragging her back to his cave by the hair. It is heavily under attack. I tried for a traditional marriage and was arrested for assault and now have to register in every community I move into.I hope others will join me in defending traditional marriage. 4
Daniel2 Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Those who support same sex marriage will also need to support same sex throuples marrying. There can be no discrimination between marrying adults. But it is still the logical direction when same sex marriage was allowed.While I personally believe that polygamous marriage should be legal, your statement above is not true, WhyMe.My support of polygamous marriage is far more the result of my LDS heritage and polygamist ancestry than it is the result of my support for same-sex couples.Most same-sex marriage supporters I know disagree with polygamous marriage rights, and there are solid legal arguments for their distinctions, as explicitly detailed in the link to the recent amicus brief filed in the VA case by those states that recognize same-sex marriage, which I shared in the thread dealing with same-sex marriage in the "News" section of the board.
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Last weekend I was told I was one of the most handsome guys the person had ever seen. I was flattered but it was a guy talking. If I support gay marriage can I get a sugardaddy and get exalted?
why me Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 You do realize that these same arguments were used to deny Mormons their religious rights? And this is the irony that I am speaking about. Now, a hundred years later, it is Mormons on the soap box defending society from marital corruption. I just can't quit smiling about this for some reason.We are not speaking about religious rights but about marriage. I don't think that it benefits society at all to allow anarchy in marriage relations. I don't think that it helps society at all if 3 women decide to marry and have a child as one family. Nor do I think that it benefits society to have 3 men marry one another and adopt a child. Nor do I think that it is good for a woman to have one husband and two wives. The enhancement of individual rights can hamper society and not enhance it.
why me Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 It's good for the kind of society that I want to live in. If you want to live in a society that prevents consenting adults from forming familial (and yes, sexual) bonds with those they love and care about, then we are at odds as to the direction we want society to take, and I will try to thwart you at every opportunity. This is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. I would also point out that there are cultures where these configurations have existed for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, so you may want to check your definition of "traditional."If you think that one woman should be able to marry two other women and have a child then we are at odds with each other. Nor do I think that a brother and a sister should have the right to marry. I suppose that I am just old fashion.
rockpond Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 If this is true, then we can only blame ourselves for not engaging in the public sphere to help gay couples acquire all of the benefits of marriage except for the name. Maybe our time and dollars would have been better spent on those efforts than on Prop 8. If polygamy really is the next marriage "front," maybe we should get ahead of the game and start actively supporting marriage benefits for polygamous couples, except for the name "marriage." Who's game? Yes, if we really believed in religious freedom we should be promoting the freedoms of all, not fighting against those who believe differently. 1
why me Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 why me, I ask this in all sincerity, can you please enumerate how your "individual rights" have been sacrificed, jeopardized or even affected by the rights being granted to gay couples to marry?By giving gay couples the right to marry we have opened a pandora's box of possibilties as shown in the link. Do three women marrying hamper my rights? No. But is it good for society to have such marriages. Perhaps not. Likewise, I don't think that if a brother and sister would gain the right to marry would matter to me as an individual but as a society, I don't think that it would be good. Likewise, if I married two women and a man and had children by the two women and adopted a child for the man and I would hinder anyone's rights. But, would it be good for a society ...perhaps not.
rockpond Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 My views are consistent with the Church's on this topic. So you are opposed to civil unions for gay couples as well.
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Yes, if we really believed in religious freedom we should be promoting the freedoms of all, not fighting against those who believe differently.No, we should not actively try to remove their political freedom to exercise their religion. We are free to fight them in any other way.
stemelbow Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Or communal marriage, open to all comers regardless of sexual orientation. It would seem the easiest way to destroy the concept of the family is to blur its defintion. You mean like having a Heavenly Father and the human family as His children? We're all family? can't blur the lines any more than that. Family ties are to be strong and binding. Why not open up such strong and binding possibilities to more people?
stemelbow Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 No, we should not actively try to remove their political freedom to exercise their religion. We are free to fight them in any other way. All that does is open up a can of worms about what is exercising their religion. Any gay couple could feel the religious motive to get married, just as any other religious couple, no?
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Family ties are to be strong and binding. Why not open up such strong and binding possibilities to more people?So this community was the marriage ideal?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community
why me Posted April 24, 2014 Author Posted April 24, 2014 In fact, the article states: No state in the union recognizes three-way marriages — but these women insist their unconventional union is very real to them. and Massachusetts law-enforcement sources said they wouldn’t go after any of the lovebirds unless the third “wife” sought some kind of recognized marital benefit, such as filing joint tax returns.True. However, there is no reason to prevent such marriages. Once we take marriage outside the the man/woman pardigm we allow for others to push the boundaries too. Thus, we have the throuples. And why deny them the right to marry? Why deny anyone the right to marry whomever they wish? Why should I be allowed 4 women? Especially if we love eachother? All rights should be respected between consenting adults. Thus is the logic now being applied in US society.
stemelbow Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 So this community was the marriage ideal?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community Whose speaking marriage ideals? I'm just pointing out blurring the lines of the family is already out there if'n you believe God is our Father. In a sense we're all family.
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Whose speaking marriage ideals? I'm just pointing out blurring the lines of the family is already out there if'n you believe God is our Father. In a sense we're all family.Okay, now the incest taboo is really going to mess with my head. Thanks.
thesometimesaint Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 No. I personally think polygamy is absurd and as practiced it was not inspired. I don't judge the historical accuracy of things by my ability to make sense of them. General Authorities taught polygamy was required. I have examined primary evidence from more than one of my ancestors from the period and they believed it was required. I have read many talks from the period as recorded in the journal of discourses and have come to the conclusion that polygamy was taught as a requirement for exaltation. Maybe not obtainable by all in this life, but required of all in the next.I hear all the time that polygamy will be required in the heaven to balance the numbers of men and women (I believe this is Brian Hales position). The members that put this forward talk about how many more righteous women than men there are. Why is it such a stretch to believe that early church members thought the same thing but to a larger degree? Why should we reinterpret what they said and taught to match our modern sensibilities? I don't have a personal problem with polygamy other than not wanting for myself. IF it is asked of me in Heaven. I'll worry about it then. I believe it was inspired for the reasons given To raise up righteous seed. I also believe discontinuing it was inspired. I seriously doubt that BY made it a requirement when as prophet and governor he granted divorces out like candy. Exaltation isn't obtainable in this life. I don't believe Brian Hales establishes Church doctrine. I don't believe that women will outnumber men in Heaven. It doesn't make sense for BY times or for ours.
rockpond Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) True. However, there is no reason to prevent such marriages. Once we take marriage outside the the man/woman pardigm we allow for others to push the boundaries too. Thus, we have the throuples. And why deny them the right to marry? Why deny anyone the right to marry whomever they wish? Why should I be allowed 4 women? Especially if we love eachother? All rights should be respected between consenting adults. Thus is the logic now being applied in US society. I think that was also the logic that was being applied in the early years of our church: Brigham Young married 55 women... some for time, some for eternity, some who were married to other men, and at least one who was sealed to Joseph Smith but was still married and lived with her other husband. He only lived with 16 of his wives and had 57 children. Our society seemed to survive taking marriage outside of the man/woman paradigm. Edited April 24, 2014 by rockpond
rockpond Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 So this community was the marriage ideal?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community They believed in free love, not marriage/commitment. So I don't really see a comparison. But, does there need to be a single ideal for society?
stemelbow Posted April 24, 2014 Posted April 24, 2014 Okay, now the incest taboo is really going to mess with my head. Thanks. You can thank the scriptures, not me.
Recommended Posts