Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?

[JLHPROF]

And how do you see SSM being inevitably thrown together with yours or the churches beliefs?  Just what do you fear will happen as a result of the Supreme Court giving equal rights to gays just like the Civil Rights acts gave equal rights to Black Americans?

 

Do I really need to explain this for the umpteenth time?

 

If people are completely equal under the law and any class of people are guaranteed all the same rights, all it takes is one court case arguing that they are being discriminated against as a protected class.

There were suits against the boy scouts.  There will be suits against any Church that limits as well.

You are probably correct that all the Church has to do as far as temple marriage is concerned is end the marriage part and just do sealings based on worthiness as in other countries.

 

But there could easily be other discrimination suits brought.

[california boy]

Call For Reference that every single federal and district judge in this country believes there is a correlation between civil rights of Black Americans being treated equally under the law and gay Americans being treated equally under the law......in the context of this discussion on marriage. No one proposes denying gay couples the right to vote, to eat in a diner, to ride in the front of a bus. Race cannot be equated with sexual preference.

 

By your argument, every person has the right to marry whomever or whatever he/she wishes, because to deny any person that right would be to deny him/her equal protection. The question is, how far are we willing to take this redefinition of the fundamental building block of society? 

 

 

except that is not what I said.  What I said is that every single federal and district judge that has ruled in favor of gay marriage issued that ruling based on the government not being allowed to discriminate.  The civil right laws were all based on this same principle.  That is the correlation between the two.  

[california boy]

Do I really need to explain this for the umpteenth time?

 

If people are completely equal under the law and any class of people are guaranteed all the same rights, all it takes is one court case arguing that they are being discriminated against as a protected class.

There were suits against the boy scouts.  There will be suits against any Church that limits as well.

You are probably correct that all the Church has to do as far as temple marriage is concerned is end the marriage part and just do sealings based on worthiness as in other countries.

 

But there could easily be other discrimination suits brought.

 

So you think the courts will rule that the church has to marry gays??  Is that your position?

 

Yes there were lawsuits against the Boy Scouts.  And the Boy Scouts won.  The courts ruled that a private group does have the right to discriminate.  

 

No one ever sued or won a court case forcing the church to marry blacks in the temple.  What is different this time around?  Churches are allowed to discriminate all they want for any reason.  There has never been a case in the history of this country where any church was forced to admit members, marry members or baptize anyone.  So what do you base your fear of churches being forced to perform gay marriages?  

 

So I ask again 

And how do you see SSM being inevitably thrown together with yours or the churches beliefs?

 

 

Or is it just unfounded fear.

[tonie]

There is nothing in the statement you quoted that could possibly lead you to the conclusion that I equate the two. That you think I am comparing ssm to incest demonstrates to me that you do not understand what the discussion is all about.

 

You are correct what I quoted was not you comparison to incest, you made your comparison to incest in a later post quoted below.

 

 

After all, who are we to tell someone who or what they can love and marry? Who are we to judge? How would it damage your marriage if I marry my uncle?

 

 

 

 

 

My purpose is to show that the same arguments used to promote ssm can and will be used to gain social and legal approval for other arrangements. Any objections to incest can be overcome using these arguments. While these are among a number of practices that deviate from what was once considered marriage does not mean they are the same.

 

Except you are not using the same arguments. You are making up arguments. You have not shown one ACTUAL LEGAL ARGUMENT used to defend ssm - the arguments used in Court and upheld by the Court. Again, due to your unwillingnes to use the ACTUAL LEGAL ARGUMENTS, demonstrates you are only interested in fear mongering.

 

I ask again, will you use the ACTUAL LEGAL ARGUMENTS used to defend ssm, to demonstrate that the same arguments can be used to defend incest.

Edited March 27, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

There is nothing in the statement you quoted that could possibly lead you to the conclusion that I equate the two. That you think I am comparing ssm to incest demonstrates to me that you do not understand what the discussion is all about. Rather, your appear to be

interested in demonizing and marginalizing opposition to the redefinition of marriage. My purpose is to show that the same arguments used to promote ssm can and will be used to gain social and legal approval for other arrangements. Any objections to incest can be overcome using these arguments. While these are among a number of practices that deviate from what was once considered marriage does not mean they are the same.

 

 

Bernard, here is a different question. Please explain how the arguments in favor of "traditional marriage" can not be used to support incest.

 

The arguments used were in favor of traditional marriage were:

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman

Procreation between a man and woman

Childer deserve a Mother and Father

 

So a heterosexual incestuous marriage (which produces offspring) is supported by the argument in favor of traditional marriage. But it isn't that simple is it?

Edited March 28, 2015 by tonie

[Bernard Gui]

except that is not what I said. What I said is that every single federal and district judge that has ruled in favor of gay marriage issued that ruling based on the government not being allowed to discriminate. The civil right laws were all based on this same principle. That is the correlation between the two.

In my call for reference I quoted your claim in its entirety. It is exactly what you said. The call stands unanswered. Please honor it or retract the claim.. Edited March 29, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

In my call for reference I quoted your claim in its entirety. It is exactly what you said. The call stands unanswered. Please honor it or retract the claim..

Then I withdraw the claim and state this.

Every single federal and district judge that has ruled in favor of gay marriage issued that ruling based on the government not being allowed to discriminate.  The civil right laws were all based on this same principle.  That is the correlation between the two.  

[Bernard Gui]

Tonie...we are talking past each other . I have clearly been criticizing the popular arguments that promoted the practice

of gay marriage, not the legal arguments. For example, "How will gay marriage damage your heterosexual marriage" is a ubiquitous challenge we have heard. A logical response could be, "How does marrying my uncle hurt your gay marriage?" If it was a fair question for one, why not the other? Who does it hurt? If my uncle and I want to marry, why should we not? Who is to judge?

in other words, thanks to this egregious redefinition of marriage, it has become meaningless except as a contract between two consenting adults. And even that is being and will be challenged. You are free to disagree.

[Bernard Gui]

tonie......here's how I see this issue....

The legal arguments for ssm center around the supposed constitutional right to privacy and the equal protection clause.

Courts have also cited progressive changes in social mores expressed in public sentiment and the entertainment media to force the acceptance of ssm. The new definition of legal marriage....a contract between 2 consenting adults....overcomes the traditional defenses such as moral and [edit] religious sensibilities, the expectation of reproduction, and child/family welfare which have been brushed aside.

The same arguments can and will be used to legitimize more deviations from tradition. These will be fueled again by public opinion and the entertainment media. One may object against a slippery slope argument such as I am making, but even the most vocal proponents of ssm seem to be surprised at how rapidly all the interim concessions such as legislation for visitation, adoption,and inheritance rights, and legal unions have fallen by the way. This slope has indeed been proved slippery.[edit]

Edited March 29, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[webbles]

No one ever sued or won a court case forcing the church to marry blacks in the temple.  What is different this time around?  Churches are allowed to discriminate all they want for any reason.  There has never been a case in the history of this country where any church was forced to admit members, marry members or baptize anyone.  So what do you base your fear of churches being forced to perform gay marriages?

Has there ever been a lawsuit or threat of lawsuit to force a church to do something that it doesn't want to do and the church won? I know of the LDS polygamy fight and the peyote case (which caused the federal RFRA to be passed) but in both of those, the church or religious belief lost. Also, while reading about the RFRA, it seems that there are several were the church or religious belief won because of the RFRA. Is there any where a church won without the RFRA or in states that don't have an RFRA?

I'm asking because just saying that a church has never been forced to marry blacks doesn't seem to be a valid argument. It doesn't appear that blacks ever attempted to force a church to marry them (I'd love to see an example if one exists). It appears to me that most of the legal precedant in fights between religion and federal laws comes down against religion. So if a gay couple actually did file a lawsuit, the legal precedent is on their side and they have a good chance at winning.

[thesometimesaint]

Has there ever been a lawsuit or threat of lawsuit to force a church to do something that it doesn't want to do and the church won? I know of the LDS polygamy fight and the peyote case (which caused the federal RFRA to be passed) but in both of those, the church or religious belief lost. Also, while reading about the RFRA, it seems that there are several were the church or religious belief won because of the RFRA. Is there any where a church won without the RFRA or in states that don't have an RFRA?

I'm asking because just saying that a church has never been forced to marry blacks doesn't seem to be a valid argument. It doesn't appear that blacks ever attempted to force a church to marry them (I'd love to see an example if one exists). It appears to me that most of the legal precedant in fights between religion and federal laws comes down against religion. So if a gay couple actually did file a lawsuit, the legal precedent is on their side and they have a good chance at winning.

 

Not really; Churches are exempt from anti-discrimination lawsuits. 

[Daniel2]

Bernard, here is a different question. Please explain how the arguments in favor of "traditional marriage" can not be used to support incest.

The arguments used were in favor of traditional marriage were:

Marriage is between a man and a woman

Procreation between a man and woman

Childer deserve a Mother and Father

So a heterosexual incestuous marriage (which produces offspring) is supported by the argument in favor of traditional marriage. But it isn't that simple is it?

LDS beliefs indicate that incestuous procreation resulted in the creation of our extended human family... after all, the children of Adam and Eve had to parter incestuously... and Christ was born of a daughter impregnated by her Father.

[Bernard Gui]

LDS beliefs indicate that incestuous procreation resulted in the creation of our extended human family... after all, the children of Adam and Eve had to parter incestuously... and Christ was born of a daughter impregnated by her Father.

Not too sure that LDS beliefs support the practice of incest because of what may or may not have been the situation in Eden, if that is what you are implying. Perhaps you can document this assertion?

Having been on this board for a while, you must know that the second part of your statement is disingenuous.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Conception

Edited March 29, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[tonie]

Bernard, whether Daniel misunderstands LDS teachings isn't the issue.  The issue incest marriage, which you brought up, has a better chance of being made legal using the arguments that favor traditional marriage. 

Edited March 29, 2015 by tonie

[ERayR]

Bernard, whether Daniel misunderstands LDS teachings isn't the issue.  The issue incest marriage, which you brought up, has a better chance of being made legal using the arguments that favor traditional marriage. 

 

I can't see it.  Pleas explain how that works.  There would need be a lot more than that.

[Daniel2]

Not too sure that LDS beliefs support the practice of incest because of what may or may not have been the situation in Eden, if that is what you are implying. Perhaps you can document this assertion?

I don't follow what you mean by "what may or may not have been the situation in the garden of Eden." Can you clarify what situation you're referring to?

LDS beliefs indicate that Adam and Eve were historical figures and the father and mother of the entire human race. Their children would have had to have entered into incestuous relationships in order to procreate. Unless you're suggesting Mormons believe there were additional progenitors of the human family besides Adam and Eve...?

Having been on this board for a while, you must know that the second part of your statement is disingenuous.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Conception

Not disingenuous at all. I very deliberately didn't say that Christ was the result of incestuous intercourse (which is what your link argues against), and very deliberately said he was the result of incestuous procreation, which is very different because procreation can occur without intercourse, but still allows for God's paternity while allowing both Mary's maternity and virginity (i.e. impregnation without intercourse).

It is still incestuous procreation, given that both an immortal father and his mortal daughter contributed of their physical substance to become the parents of Christ's earthly tabernacle.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Daniel2

[JLHPROF]

I don't follow what you mean by "what may or may not have been the situation in the garden of Eden." Can you clarify what situation you're referring to?

LDS beliefs indicate that Adam and Eve were historical figures and the father and mother of the entire human race. Their children would have had to have entered into incestuous relationships in order to procreate. Unless you're suggesting Mormons believe there were additional progenitors of the human family besides Adam and Eve...?

Not disingenuous at all. I very deliberately didn't say that Christ was the result of incestuous intercourse (which is what your link argues against), and very deliberately said he was the result of incestuous procreation, which is very different because procreation occurs without intercourse, but still allows for God's paternity while allowing both Mary's maternity and virginity (i.e. impregnation without intercourse).

It is still incestuous procreation, given that both an immortal father and his mortal daughter contributed of their physical substance to become the parents of Christ's earthly tabernacle.

 

Using that argument we are all incestuous.  We are all spirit brothers and sisters with the same immortal father.

I think we might misunderstand the word "incest" and how it applies to immortal perfect beings.

 

As for Adam and Eve - scripturally we are all descended from incest too:

Moses 5

2 And Adam knew his wife, and she bare unto him sons and daughters, and they began to multiply and to replenish the earth.

3 And from that time forth, the sons and daughters of Adam began to divide two and two in the land, and to till the land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters.

 

But the antediluvian bodies were clearly more perfect and less subject to genetic issues since they all lived to be hundreds of years old.

 

So our ancestors are incestous.  We commit incest by marrying our spirit siblings.  Christ is the result of a union between immortal father and transfigured daughter.

Seems "incest" among more perfect beings might need a rethink.

Edited March 30, 2015 by JLHPROF

[TheSkepticChristian]

But why would we want to support something our leaders have declared to be sinful (homosexual relations)?

 

Allowing it to be legal and supporting it are two different things. 

 

Recently, the church said, "Some vote one way, some another. A person’s Mormon beliefs do not dictate political identification. The range of political opinions throughout the worldwide Church is a healthy and productive thing"

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/citizenship-and-conscience

 

To be clear, I don't have a position on the legalizing SSM issue yet 

Edited May 7, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian