Reinstatement

[Kenngo1969]

1. If I have a "right" to get married, does that mean I can bop someone I think would make a suitable candidate over the head, have the requisite ceremony performed while she's unconscious, and ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually when she wakes up?  (I realize my analogy is imperfect, since, ostensibly, we're talking about mutually willing partners, but it does illustrate one of the potential problems with saying that marriage is a "right.")

Historically, marriage (until recent Court decisions) has been a state institution rather than a federal one.  Are we now going to tear up the Tenth Amendment (though, to be sure, gay marriage is far from the first assault on it: it was pretty much in tatters before gay marriage)?

In your view, do we, then, know all we need to know as a society (in terms of psychological, sociological, and other implications) about why heterosexual marriage has been privileged, and why, heretofore, a fence had been erected marking same-sex marriage as previously-forbidden territory?

Are you sure that the "marriage-between-any-two-consenting-adults-should-be-valid" "tail" will never begin to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" and "sex-outside-of-marriage-is-wrong" "dogs"? 

[Stargazer]

You may need to get re-baptized. I'm not too sure how the process works or how long ago you sent in your first letter.

 

Having been peripherally involved in the process, I can tell you that after your name is removed from the records, your baptism is null and void, and will need to be performed again.  However, interestingly, after rebaptism the original baptismal date will be restored.

[Bexyboo]

 

1. If I have a "right" to get married, does that mean I can bop someone I think would make a suitable candidate over the head, have the requisite ceremony performed while she's unconscious, and ... well, she'll get used to the idea eventually when she wakes up?  (I realize my analogy is imperfect, since, ostensibly, we're talking about mutually willing partners, but it does illustrate one of the potential problems with saying that marriage is a "right.")
3. Historically, marriage (until recent Court decisions) has been a state institution rather than a federal one.  Are we now going to tear up the Tenth Amendment (though, to be sure, gay marriage is far from the first assault on it: it was pretty much in tatters before gay marriage)?
5. In your view, do we, then, know all we need to know as a society (in terms of psychological, sociological, and other implications) about why heterosexual marriage has been privileged, and why, heretofore, a fence had been erected marking same-sex marriage as previously-forbidden territory?
7. Are you sure that the "marriage-between-any-two-consenting-adults-should-be-valid" "tail" will never begin to wag the "marriage-between-a-man-and-a-woman-is-ordained-of-God" and "sex-outside-of-marriage-is-wrong" "dogs"? 

 

 

Very interesting points, i'm not sure how to respond though, i need to think about these points some more. The only thing i can say is that if all humans are considered equal under the law, doesn't that make all humans equally entitled the rite of marriage. A church and or religious institution can claim they have owner ship over the rite of marriage but non religious countries have also been performing marriage rites for thousands of years. Of course the LBGTI argument isn't so much about the rite as it is the right to call it marriage, most religions and cival institutions are happy to allow LBGTI 'cival partnership" but of course that is not what the LBGTI community wants, they want the right to call it marriage and the 'romance' that goes with that. As one woman said "i don't want to ask my girlfriend to cival partner with me,i want to ask her to marry me" and after all isn't that what "all humans are equal under the law means, no segregation and by the very nature of changing titles for what is effectively the same rite, you ultimately segregate people. That's my 2 cents anyway

[Bexyboo]

Having been peripherally involved in the process, I can tell you that after your name is removed from the records, your baptism is null and void, and will need to be performed again.  However, interestingly, after rebaptism the original baptismal date will be restored.

 

I spoke to my bishop this afternoon, he said i will need to meet with him and the stake president but he will look into reinstatement. As a police officer, he recognized that the disassociation letter was not written by a person but most likely a organisation, so he wasn't surprised when i told him it was given to me by someone who found it on Mormon think. Because of the nature of the letter and his job, he wasn't able to perform the usual practice of meeting with me prior to resignation as such he is not sure if the resignation can be rescinded or not. Either way i will still need to meet with him and the stake president, so when he has a time, he will call me back to arrange a meeting.

[Ham Clam]

I spoke to my bishop this afternoon, he said i will need to meet with him and the stake president but he will look into reinstatement. As a police officer, he recognized that the disassociation letter was not written by a person but most likely a organisation, so he wasn't surprised when i told him it was given to me by someone who found it on Mormon think. Because of the nature of the letter and his job, he wasn't able to perform the usual practice of meeting with me prior to resignation as such he is not sure if the resignation can be rescinded or not. Either way i will still need to meet with him and the stake president, so when he has a time, he will call me back to arrange a meeting.

That first letter did seem very extreme. I was wondering about that.

[Kenngo1969]

Very interesting points, i'm not sure how to respond though, i need to think about these points some more.

 

 

 

Thank you, and thank you for your willingness to ponder.  I believe you will benefit greatly from your desire to keep an open mind and an open heart.   If, ultimately, you decide that we have irreconcilable disagreements regarding marriage and gay marriage, I hope you also will realize that I bear you absolutely no ill will, whatever our disagreements.

 

The only thing i can say is that if all humans are considered equal under the law, doesn't that make all humans equally entitled the rite of marriage.

 

 

Saying that all humans are entitled to marriage, though, doesn’t resolve the question of what marriage is, or of what it should be.  If marriage is integral to the formation of families (as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches (see, e.g., here, last accessed today: https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation), and as many people – many religious people, to be sure, but also many others, such as many sociologists – believe), then simply calling a union a “marriage,” or redefining marriage to include other partnerships (partnerships in which, no matter how much the partners might love each other, they, of themselves, are incapable of having families without the intervention of third parties to facilitate necessary biological processes) is insufficient. 

 

Although it is true that many heterosexual couples are infertile, and, thus, require third-party intervention to have families as a result of their infertility, and many couples may marry past childbearing age, that does nothing to counter the proposition that only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and that marriage and family are central to God’s plan for His children, as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches.  Married heterosexual couples may or may not (be able to) have children, but the fact remains that one of the very purposes of marriage is to provide the best environment in which to bear, rear, and nurture children.  Disregarding that purpose, redefining marriage to include other partnerships, and otherwise weakening traditional marriage not only goes contrary to God’s purposes, also weakens the very fabric of society, as the Proclamation I linked above also points out. 

 

A church and or religious institution can claim they have owner ship over the rite of marriage but non religious countries have also been performing marriage rites for thousands of years.

 

 

With due respect, you have that exactly backward: it is marriage as a religious rite that has existed for thousands of years.  Marriage as a legal or governmental institution is of comparatively recent vintage.  For what it’s worth, you are not the only member of the Church of Jesus Christ (and you would not even be the only faithful member) to struggle with questions relating to gay marriage and to the proper role of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in promoting traditional marriage in the public arena.  While, unfortunately, there has been no shortage of purportedly-faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ who have actively opposed the Church’s efforts to preserve and to promote traditional marriage, there is also no shortage of members who, although they personally may hold differing views regarding marriage, realize that they “see through a glass, darkly” and that God’s ways are not man’s ways, and are determined to follow the living prophet, whatever their personal views.

 

God may not reveal to you all of the “whys” for the leaders of His Church defending traditional marriage, but I do promise you that, if you pray and ponder sufficiently, and with a sufficiently-open heart, God can reveal to you that we are led by a living prophet, in this matter as well as in all other material matters relating to how His Church is run on the earth today.

 

Thank you for reading.  I wish you well.   

Edited December 9, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Very interesting points, i'm not sure how to respond though, i need to think about these points some more. The only thing i can say is that if all humans are considered equal under the law, doesn't that make all humans equally entitled the rite of marriage. A church and or religious institution can claim they have owner ship over the rite of marriage but non religious countries have also been performing marriage rites for thousands of years. Of course the LBGTI argument isn't so much about the rite as it is the right to call it marriage, most religions and cival institutions are happy to allow LBGTI 'cival partnership" but of course that is not what the LBGTI community wants, they want the right to call it marriage and the 'romance' that goes with that. As one woman said "i don't want to ask my girlfriend to cival partner with me,i want to ask her to marry me" and after all isn't that what "all humans are equal under the law means, no segregation and by the very nature of changing titles for what is effectively the same rite, you ultimately segregate people. That's my 2 cents anyway

I see that when disussing this a standard definition should be made. What is a marriage, what is not a marraige. Once that is defined then we can go about administering "equallity" under the law.

 

Are all relationship equal? Should all relationship be treated the same?

 

When we understand that definitions matter the argument that ""i don't want to ask my girlfriend to cival partner with me,i want to ask her to marry me", become red herrings because 2 women or men getting "married" is not a marriage but something else. They want to call a leg a tail because it suites their purposes. But that leg will never be a tail because it is a leg and has all the traits of a leg.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Calm]

This part of the thread needs to be moved to in the news so it doesn't get this thread locked, I am thinking, if a mod wanders by....

[Kenngo1969]

I'll bow out.  I took the discussion in a direction it shouldn't have gone.  Apologies.