Can We Support Same-Sex Marriage?

[Gray]

In our culture, marriage is now defined as a social or legal contract between 2 consenting adults. Why is it limited to 2? Let's suppose 10 people in a communal relationship wish to call their arrangement marriage because they consent to do so. They are free to do this and can certainly find some kind of holy person who will eagerly perform the ceremony. Why should the state not recognize it as a legal marriage?

Much of the argument recently made in favor of SSM appealed to the personal preferences , convenience, feelings, and legal rights of those seeking the redefinition. The same arguments can and will be made for other combinations of numbers, genders, ages, and personal relationships of those who want their particular inclinations to be given social and legal recognition.

As people explore, exploit, and embrace the possibilities of this new concept of purely contractual marriage, we as a Church have the fallback position of the temple sealing to preserve, at least for a time, the concept of marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. We will find ourselves facing progressively more strident opposition from outside and, unfortunately, inside the Church. Is it worth the fight to resist? I think so.

 

Well, officially the church does recognize the validity of plural marriage under certain circumstances. The definition of marriage even in the church has been fluid historically.

 

Why should the state not recognize polygamy? I don't know. But I don't see how they will be compelled to do so under the constitution. I'm not sure the gay marriage issue is any kind of slippery slope - the legal arguments for gay marriage don't apply to plural marriage. 

[JLHPROF]

And if the early prophets were wrong and God is not a polygamist, is it sacred?

 

Then I would say that marriage is sacred, but plural marriage is no more so than monogamy.

But I don't believe that to be true.

[JLHPROF]

God is polygamous? That isn't taught any more.

 

I'd like to know where that was either denied or changed?  CFR.

Because as far as I know the GA's today have never spoken a word on whether God is polygamous or not.

[Daniel2]

Given your definition, no.

I didn’t say anything about changing the definition of marriage in asking whether there’s any legally compelling reason to prohibit two adult relatives from marrying one another.

So, back up: even under the definition that marriage is between a man and a woman (which is the so-called “traditional marriage” that restricts same-sex couples from marrying, but which says nothing about a pre-existing familial relationship between spouses), what do you believe is a legally compelling reason why relatives should be prohibited from marrying?

Thanks to the SSM movement and soon the Supreme Court, the field is now wide open which is why I believe the concept has been rendered meaningless.

We shall see. It is interesting that a marriage between a person and a cat falls within the new acceptable social, though not legal, definition of marriage.

This is a mischaracterization of what I said. I did not say, nor did I imply, that “marriage between a person and a cat falls within the new acceptable social, though not legal, definition of marriage.”

In fact, I said diametrically the opposite—the actual requirements for a legal marriage require sentience and the ability to consent—both of which non-human animals lack.

I definitely don’t think it’s “socially acceptable” for a person to claim they are married to their cat. In fact, I don’t know anyone that has, or would, do so, and I think that such an act, if it were ernest and not a joke, would prompt most people to socially avoid the individual, rather than socially accept or celebrate such an individual’s self-performed interspecies marriage.

However, as a nation, America preserves individuals’ freedom of speech, as well as property and privacy rights. A person may exercise their freedom of speech by telling everyone that they married their cat (which is their own property), or that she/he has married her/himself, or their car, or whatever else they own--and they wouldn't be violating any law. But their ability to do so is because of their freedom of speech and ownership rights—not because of any definition of marriage. Freedom of speech means that you have the ability to think and say things that others may find absurd, ridiculous, or wrong—and you can do things like claim you’re married to your cat or car or self.

But from a legal perspective, none of those actions could or would carry any legal recognition, and none of them would warrant the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of legal marriage.

Incidentally, this is the same standard that allows many FLDS members to ‘marry’ multiple wives today. Their weddings are not legal realities, but the law cannot prosecute them for freedom of speech or worship, unless their actions violate other laws (such as teen brides that result in underage sexual relations or abuse). FLDS’s beliefs and assertions that they are ‘spiritually married’ is protected by freedom of speech, even though civil marriage is limited to any individual being legally married to only one other individual at a time.

So, it’s not “a new acceptable social definition of marriage” that would allow a person to claim she’s married to her cat (which would likely result in her being socially mocked and ostracized)—it’s because of America’s longstanding protections of freedom of speech and property rights.

No slander was intended toward you personally, though I lament the changes. But considering the radical and destructive changes that have been made to the fundamental concept of marriage, further dissolution is not only conceivable, but inevitable. There are current trends that are moving against the very restrictions and limitations you so ably describe.

Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry is no more “destructive” to the foundational concept of marriage than allowing women or black people to vote was “destructive” to the foundational concept of voting, or recognizing the inherent full humanity of negro slaves was “destructive” to the foundational concept of citizenship, or extending full married rights to interracial couples was “destructive” to the foundational concept of marriage. Any time a civil right is extended to a minority group, it doesn’t “destroy” the nature of the right.

What it DOES potentially destroy is any perceived sense of self-superiority that the former, exclusionary majority saw within themselves, as well as any unjust repression of members of the minority that accompanied their exclusion.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not alter the fundamental reality that marriage, at it’s core, is the civil and social contract through which couples and their children are civilly protected and preserved.

If the marriages of other people—people who you don’t even know—impacts your own attitude and convictions towards marriage, merely because you disagree with how those others live their lives and conduct themselves within their own marriages, then your changed attitude speaks more to the lack of your own convictions than to any imaginary ‘damage’ or’ violence’ they have done to you or your own marriage. Put blame where blame is due, instead of scapegoating by playing victim to someone else’s choices.

To clarify your position, would you agree that the next restriction to be removed will be numerical?

I believe that any restrictions against so-called ‘spiritual marriage’ will (and should) be removed. Individuals whose personal or religious beliefs include the practice of spiritual polygamy should not be persecuted for such beliefs or spiritual practices.

However, I am skeptical that our government will allow individuals to civilly claim more than one spouse at a time. In the name of equality, it makes sense to avoid prohibiting any two individuals from civilly marrying based on the status of a protected class. Regardless of individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, disability, veteran status, or (increasingly) sexual orientation, it is equitable for every person to be able to be married to one other person at a time—because everyone can choose one.

It seems to me that an argument could be made against polygamy that allowing multiple civil marriages actually violates the principle of equality—and even self-determination—because it creates inherently unequal civil circumstances. For example, when two individuals marry, they receive a variety of benefits of marriage—but let’s examine just two: health coverage and a shared, equal claim to property (50/50). No matter what the individuals’ race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, disability, veteran status, or (increasingly) sexual orientation, a married couple share the same ability to receive health insurance (often subsidized by their employer) and the same ability to half of their spouse’s estate. There is a single standard across any geographic or corporate boundaries in administering those benefits, because there are always only two spouses, along with any children they raise together.

Let’s consider your argument: that civil plural marriages be allowed. In so doing, the state automatically creates inequality in how the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage must be administered. Let’s say a company is hiring, for example, and they are presented with two potential candidates, both of whom they would be required to administer equally their health insurance benefits. One of them is monogamously married with 3 kids, and the other employee is polygamously married to five spouses with 36 children. Should the company be forced to bear the cost of the polygamously-married candidate, when the monogamously married candidate would cost the company so much less…? By introducing an unequal numerical consideration into marital contracts, it creates an immediate inequality, numerically speaking, that impacts benefits, and companies, in very real ways.

Now let’s consider the equal claim (50/50) to property… When two individuals marry, unless they have a prenup in place or some other type of binding document, they receive an immediate equal claim to 50% of their shared family assets. If one spouse goes on disability or passes away, the remaining spouse is able to share the benefits of their spouse’s disability or inherits 100% if the assets, pension, etc—that is part of the marital contract. However, what if the husband wants to marry an additional wife, but wife #1 disagrees? In the name of ‘freedom of choice,’ what if the husband marries an additional wife, even without the first wife’s consent? If he chooses to do so, wife #1 automatically forfeits her full marital claim of pension, inheritance, and any other marital benefits—even if she is entirely against the additional marriage. By allowing the man to marry while still married, it automatically creates inherent inequality in his marriage, through no fault or choice of his first wife. In fact, it robs wife #1 of her ability to retain what previously had been legally hers.

And those are just two simple examples. I am sure there would be more that would pop up than we could even anticipate…

So, while I believe restrictions against a religious or personal practice of polygamy should be dropped, when it comes to the practicality of civil regulation of such a practice, it would create inherent inequality that would create unjust burdens on corporations, and violate even the rights of spouses who are opposed to their own spouse marrying someone new and being required to forfeit what the law currently specifies is already theirs

In sum, then: no, I don’t agree that the next restriction to be removed from civil marriage will be numerical, but I do believe that prohibitions and punishments against individuals who wish to live in polygamous relationships (spiritually married or otherwise) will and should be abolished.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Daniel2

[ksfisher]

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
Now heaven knows, anything goes

Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four letter words writing prose, anything goes

The world has gone mad today and good's bad today
And black's white today and day's night today
When most guys today that women prize today
Are just silly gigolos

So though I'm not a great romancer
I know that you're bound to answer
When I propose, anything goes

[HappyJackWagon]

I'd like to know where that was either denied or changed?  CFR.

Because as far as I know the GA's today have never spoken a word on whether God is polygamous or not.

Back at you.

 

CFR for modern teaching that God is polygamous

[JLHPROF]

Back at you.

 

CFR for modern teaching that God is polygamous

 

Not necessary.  A prophet taught it.  No prophet has untaught it.  That means the teaching stands.

Edited March 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

Not necessary.  A prophet taught it.  No prophet has untaught it.  That means the teaching stands.

 

"The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

 

- Elder Anderson

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

Edited March 25, 2015 by Gray

[Senator]

Should it?

 

One wouldn't think so.

[JLHPROF]

"The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

 

- Elder Anderson

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

 

A modern teaching of current policy.

 

"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible"

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually."

Brigham Young

 

Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: "There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day." "And now," said he, "when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books." When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth." Wilford Woodruff

 

And for something a little more modern:

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-10-scriptures?lang=eng

 

"When the Lord’s servants speak or write under the influence of the Holy Ghost, their words become scripture (see D&C 68:4)."

 

Most recorded revelations don't even make it into the 4 standard works.  They are never canonized.  But Christ taught us to live by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.  Not just the ones we vote on.

If a prophet taught while inspired by the spirit that God was a polygamist, then it's as official as it needs to be.

[Bernard Gui]

Well, officially the church does recognize the validity of plural marriage under certain circumstances. The definition of marriage even in the church has been fluid historically.

 

Why should the state not recognize polygamy? I don't know. But I don't see how they will be compelled to do so under the constitution. I'm not sure the gay marriage issue is any kind of slippery slope - the legal arguments for gay marriage don't apply to plural marriage. 

We shall see. We live in interesting times.

[Bernard Gui]

One wouldn't think so.

No, one wouldn't.

[Bernard Gui]

In olden days a glimpse of stocking

Was looked on as something shocking

Now heaven knows, anything goes

Good authors too who once knew better words

Now only use four letter words writing prose, anything goes

The world has gone mad today and good's bad today

And black's white today and day's night today

When most guys today that women prize today

Are just silly gigolos

So though I'm not a great romancer

I know that you're bound to answer

When I propose, anything goes

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm

After they've seen Paree'?

How ya gonna keep 'em away from Broadway,

Jazzin around and paintin' the town?

How ya gonna keep 'em away from harm? That's a mystery.

They'll never want to see a rake or plow,

And who the deuce can parleyvous a cow?

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm

After they've seen Paree'?

[Bernard Gui]

I didn’t say anything about changing the definition of marriage in asking whether there’s any legally compelling reason to prohibit two adult relatives from marrying one another.  

In fact, I said diametrically the opposite—the actual requirements for a legal marriage require sentience and the ability to consent—both of which non-human animals lack.  

So, back up: even under the definition that marriage is between a man and a woman (which is the so-called “traditional marriage” that restricts same-sex couples from marrying, but which says nothing about a pre-existing familial relationship between spouses), what do you believe is a legally compelling reason why relatives should be prohibited from marrying?This is a mischaracterization of what I said. I did not say, nor did I imply, that “marriage between a person and a cat falls within the new acceptable social, though not legal, definition of marriage.” 

 

Given the new definition that marriage is a contract between 2 consenting adults, I see no reason. Even the argument that progeny may be genetically defective can easily be defeated.

 

Here is what you said. It seems clear, but I may have misunderstood your intentions:

 

Short answer: you already can privately marry your cat. If you hold a wedding ceremony between you and your cat, no one will arrest you. It's just not legally recognized, nor will it ever be, because animals cannot consent and cannot fulfill even the most basic obligations that legal contracts between two parties require.

 

 

 

I definitely don’t think it’s “socially acceptable” for a person to claim they are married to their cat. In fact, I don’t know anyone that has, or would, do so, and I think that such an act, if it were ernest and not a joke, would prompt most people to socially avoid the individual, rather than socially accept or celebrate such an individual’s self-performed interspecies marriage. 

 

Gay marriage was not "socially acceptable" for a very long time, and those who advocated for and celebrated it did so only with the approval of other like-minded individuals. While interspecies marriage may seem a bizarre joke, there are those who advocate for it and celebrate it.

 

However, as a nation, America preserves individuals’ freedom of speech, as well as property and privacy rights. A person may exercise their freedom of speech by telling everyone that they married their cat (which is their own property), or that she/he has married her/himself, or their car, or whatever else they own--and they wouldn't be violating any law. But their ability to do so is because of their freedom of speech and ownership rights—not because of any definition of marriage. Freedom of speech means that you have the ability to think and say things that others may find absurd, ridiculous, or wrong—and you can do things like claim you’re married to your cat or car or self.  

But from a legal perspective, none of those actions could or would carry any legal recognition, and none of them would warrant the rights, benefits, and responsibilities of legal marriage.  Precisely the same arguments once used against the concept and legality of gay marriage.Incidentally, this is the same standard that allows many FLDS members to ‘marry’ multiple wives today. Their weddings are not legal realities, but the law cannot prosecute them for freedom of speech or worship, unless their actions violate other laws (such as teen brides that result in underage sexual relations or abuse). FLDS’s beliefs and assertions that they are ‘spiritually married’ is protected by freedom of speech, even though civil marriage is limited to any individual being legally married to only one other individual at a time. 

 

 

So, it’s not “a new acceptable social definition of marriage” that would allow a person to claim she’s married to her cat (which would likely result in her being socially mocked and ostracized)—it’s because of America’s longstanding protections of freedom of speech and property rights.

 

 

On the contrary. It is precisely the new definition that would allow someone to countenance such a socially questionable action and to receive considerable sympathy and support.

 

Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry is no more “destructive” to the foundational concept of marriage than allowing women or black people to vote was “destructive” to the foundational concept of voting, or recognizing the inherent full humanity of negro slaves was “destructive” to the foundational concept of citizenship, or extending full married rights to interracial couples was “destructive” to the foundational concept of marriage. Any time a civil right is extended to a minority group, it doesn’t “destroy” the nature of the right. 

What it DOES potentially destroy is any perceived sense of self-superiority that the former, exclusionary majority saw within themselves, as well as any unjust repression of members of the minority that accompanied their exclusion. 

 

I do not agree there is a correlation between civil rights of Black Americans and the supposed right of any combination of consenting adults to marry. Many Black Americans would find that connection deplorable.

 

 

Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not alter the fundamental reality that marriage, at it’s core, is the civil and social contract through which couples and their children are civilly protected and preserved.

 

  

Wait......no one has mentioned children. This is an argument that was used by proponents of gay marriage.....that childless heterosexual marriages are acceptable, so homosexual marriages that are inherently

incapable of producing children except through a third party should also be accepted. The definition of marriage, a contract between 2 consenting adults, has nothing to do with children.

 

If the marriages of other people—people who you don’t even know—impacts your own attitude and convictions towards marriage, merely because you disagree with how those others live their lives and conduct themselves within their own marriages, then your changed attitude speaks more to the lack of your own convictions than to any imaginary ‘damage’ or’ violence’ they have done to you or your own marriage. Put blame where blame is due, instead of scapegoating by playing victim to someone else’s choices. 

 

Nonsense.  This argument would apply to anyone who would dare object to a great-grandmother marrying a great-grandchild....or any other aberration, which is my point. 

 

I believe that any restrictions against so-called ‘spiritual marriage’ will (and should) be removed. Individuals whose personal or religious beliefs include the practice of spiritual polygamy should not be persecuted for such beliefs or spiritual practices.  

 

That will certainly be the result of the new definition of marriage.

 

However, I am skeptical that our government will allow individuals to civilly claim more than one spouse at a time. In the name of equality, it makes sense to avoid prohibiting any two individuals from civilly marrying based on the status of a protected class. Regardless of individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, disability, veteran status, or (increasingly) sexual orientation, it is equitable for every person to be able to be married to one other person at a time—because everyone can choose one.  

 

 

 

You may be skeptical, but that does not really carry much weight. Skepticism doesn't hold up in court.  I don't follow your logic. We marry only one at a time because we can choose one? What if we want to choose 3 or 20? To be equitable, that choice should be allowed everyone. Who are we to judge how many people you can love at one time?

 

It seems to me that an argument could be made against polygamy that allowing multiple civil marriages actually violates the principle of equality—and even self-determination—because it creates inherently unequal civil circumstances. For example, when two individuals marry, they receive a variety of benefits of marriage—but let’s examine just two: health coverage and a shared, equal claim to property (50/50). No matter what the individuals’ race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, citizenship, disability, veteran status, or (increasingly) sexual orientation, a married couple share the same ability to receive health insurance (often subsidized by their employer) and the same ability to half of their spouse’s estate. There is a single standard across any geographic or corporate boundaries in administering those benefits, because there are always only two spouses, along with any children they raise together.  

 

Really? Simple math can divide an estate between any number of people. What is magical about 50/50? Any lawyer could write this contract in her sleep.

 

Let’s consider your argument: that civil plural marriages be allowed. In so doing, the state automatically creates inequality in how the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage must be administered. Let’s say a company is hiring, for example, and they are presented with two potential candidates, both of whom they would be required to administer equally their health insurance benefits. One of them is monogamously married with 3 kids, and the other employee is polygamously married to five spouses with 36 children. Should the company be forced to bear the cost of the polygamously-married candidate, when the monogamously married candidate would cost the company so much less…? By introducing an unequal numerical consideration into marital contracts, it creates an immediate inequality, numerically speaking, that impacts benefits, and companies, in very real ways. 

 

In the interest of equity and diversity, the corporation would be guilty of discrimination against the employee with the gigantic family. What if the candidate had been married and widowed 5 times and had 25 children from the 5 wives? 

 

Now let’s consider the equal claim (50/50) to property… When two individuals marry, unless they have a prenup in place or some other type of binding document, they receive an immediate equal claim to 50% of their shared family assets. If one spouse goes on disability or passes away, the remaining spouse is able to share the benefits of their spouse’s disability or inherits 100% if the assets, pension, etc—that is part of the marital contract. However, what if the husband wants to marry an additional wife, but wife #1 disagrees? In the name of ‘freedom of choice,’ what if the husband marries an additional wife, even without the first wife’s consent? If he chooses to do so, wife #1 automatically forfeits her full marital claim of pension, inheritance, and any other marital benefits—even if she is entirely against the additional marriage. By allowing the man to marry while still married, it automatically creates inherent inequality in his marriage, through no fault or choice of his first wife. In fact, it robs wife #1 of her ability to retain what previously had been legally hers. 

 

Not if the 1st wife gives her legal consent to a 33.3% share, or the 4th wife to a 25% share. They are consenting adults and should be able to make their own decisions, don't you think?

 

So, while I believe restrictions against a religious or personal practice of polygamy should be dropped, when it comes to the practicality of civil regulation of such a practice, it would create inherent inequality that would create unjust burdens on corporations, and violate even the rights of spouses who are opposed to their own spouse marrying someone new and being required to forfeit what the law currently specifies is already theirs . In sum, then: no, I don’t agree that the next restriction to be removed from civil marriage will be numerical, but I do believe that prohibitions and punishments against individuals who wish to live in polygamous relationships (spiritually married or otherwise) will and should be abolished.

 

But if there is no longer a limit of one spouse, all the rest can be worked out equitably between consenting adults making legal contracts. Think of the money lawyers will be able to make! 

 

Do I understand you correctly? Multiple-partner marriages should be socially acceptable but not legal? That heaps unfair legal burdens on the participants. Would you allow them the alternative of a civil union? I wonder how they

would feel about not being able to marry their chosen partners.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

In olden days a glimpse of stocking

Was looked on as something shocking

Now heaven knows, anything goes

Good authors too who once knew better words

Now only use four letter words writing prose, anything goes

The world has gone mad today and good's bad today

And black's white today and day's night today

When most guys today that women prize today

Are just silly gigolos

So though I'm not a great romancer

I know that you're bound to answer

When I propose, anything goes

 

 

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm

After they've seen Paree'?

How ya gonna keep 'em away from Broadway,

Jazzin around and paintin' the town?

How ya gonna keep 'em away from harm? That's a mystery.

They'll never want to see a rake or plow,

And who the deuce can parleyvous a cow?

How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm

After they've seen Paree'?

I tried to find a 1960s pop song about creeping immorality. I failed.

 

Wrong decade, I suppose.

[Teancum]

In our culture, marriage is now defined as a social or legal contract between 2 consenting adults. Why is it limited to 2? Let's suppose 10 people in a communal relationship wish to call their arrangement marriage because they consent to do so. They are free to do this and can certainly find some kind of holy person who will eagerly perform the ceremony. Why should the state not recognize it as a legal marriage?

Much of the argument recently made in favor of SSM appealed to the personal preferences , convenience, feelings, and legal rights of those seeking the redefinition. The same arguments can and will be made for other combinations of numbers, genders, ages, and personal relationships of those who want their particular inclinations to be given social and legal recognition.

As people explore, exploit, and embrace the possibilities of this new concept of purely contractual marriage, we as a Church have the fallback position of the temple sealing to preserve, at least for a time, the concept of marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. We will find ourselves facing progressively more strident opposition from outside and, unfortunately, inside the Church. Is it worth the fight to resist? I think so.

How does the historical position of the LDS church on plural marriage play into this? Certianly in 1879 your position may not be that the LDS church promoted,

[ksfisher]

I tried to find a 1960s pop song about creeping immorality. I failed.

 

Wrong decade, I suppose.

 

1960

 

                                                                                       She was afraid to come out of the locker

She was as nervous as she could be

She was afraid to come out of the locker

She was afraid that somebody would see

One, two, three, four, tell the people what she wore

It was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini

That she wore for the first time today

An itsy, bitsy, teentie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini

So in the locker she wanted to stay

Two, three, four, stick around we'll tell you more

She was afraid to come out in the open

And so a blanket around she wore

She was afraid to come out in the open

And so she sat bundled up on the shore

Two, three, four, tell the people what she wore

It was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini

That she wore for the first time today

An itsy, bitsy, teentie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini

So in the blanket she wanted to stay

Two, three, four, stick around we'll tell you more

Now she is afraid to come out of the water

And I wonder what she's gonna do

Now she is afraid to come out of the water

And the poor little girl's turning blue

Two, three, four, tell the people what she wore

It was an itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini

That she wore for the first time today

An itsy, bitsy, teentie, weenie, yellow polka-dot bikini

So in the water she wanted to stay

(From the locker to the blanket)

(From the blanket to the shore)

(From the shore to the water)

Yes, there isn't any more

Edited March 26, 2015 by ksfisher

[california boy]

I do not agree there is a correlation between civil rights of Black Americans and the supposed right of any combination of consenting adults to marry. Many Black Americans would find that connection deplorable.

 

Well you may not agree, but 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.  Some black Americans like Loretta Scott King wife of Martin Luther King believe there is a connection some do not. Both your opinion and some Black Americans opinion is completely irrelevant.  The only question before the court is do gay couples have equal protection under the 14th amendment.  So far, all the courts have said resoundingly YES.  

 

This is not a difficult concept.  Both you and the church can believe whatever you want.  Gay couples really don't care what you or the church believe.  They are just demanding the equal protection that is guaranteed them.  Black Americans demanded the same rights guaranteed them.  They got it.  So will gay couples.  So what is the point of arguing about SSM? 

[JLHPROF]

This is not a difficult concept.  Both you and the church can believe whatever you want.  Gay couples really don't care what you or the church believe.  They are just demanding the equal protection that is guaranteed them.  Black Americans demanded the same rights guaranteed them.  They got it.  So will gay couples.  So what is the point of arguing about SSM? 

 

This may surprise you, but I agree with this.  People have their agency to do whatever they want that doesn't harm another.

My issue comes with any notion of meshing the SS community and its new legal marriages with my firm religious beliefs as a member of the Church.

They are 100% incompatible (speaking for myself, not for the Church).

 

Right now they can exist separately and happily.

When they are inevitably thrown together then the argument will be VERY loud.

[tonie]

In our culture, marriage is now defined as a social or legal contract between 2 consenting adults. Why is it limited to 2? Let's suppose 10 people in a communal relationship wish to call their arrangement marriage because they consent to do so. They are free to do this and can certainly find some kind of holy person who will eagerly perform the ceremony. Why should the state not recognize it as a legal marriage?

Much of the argument recently made in favor of SSM appealed to the personal preferences , convenience, feelings, and legal rights of those seeking the redefinition. The same arguments can and will be made for other combinations of numbers, genders, ages, and personal relationships of those who want their particular inclinations to be given social and legal recognition.

As people explore, exploit, and embrace the possibilities of this new concept of purely contractual marriage, we as a Church have the fallback position of the temple sealing to preserve, at least for a time, the concept of marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman. We will find ourselves facing progressively more strident opposition from outside and, unfortunately, inside the Church. Is it worth the fight to resist? I think so.

 

That you would compare ssm to incest, demonstrates to me that you are not interested in discussion. Rather, you are interested in fear mongering fatalism. Perhaps you would be willing to demonstrate how the legal arguments in support of ssm (actual legal arguments not your made up ones) can be used to justify incest or group marriage.

Edited March 26, 2015 by tonie

[california boy]

This may surprise you, but I agree with this.  People have their agency to do whatever they want that doesn't harm another.

My issue comes with any notion of meshing the SS community and its new legal marriages with my firm religious beliefs as a member of the Church.

They are 100% incompatible (speaking for myself, not for the Church).

 

Right now they can exist separately and happily.

When they are inevitably thrown together then the argument will be VERY loud.

 

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?

[Bernard Gui]

I tried to find a 1960s pop song about creeping immorality. I failed.

 

Wrong decade, I suppose.

In the 60s, immorality took off on a sprint. No more creeping around. 

[Bernard Gui]

How does the historical position of the LDS church on plural marriage play into this? Certianly in 1879 your position may not be that the LDS church promoted,

Good question. I believe the answer is in Jacob 2:

 

 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any ^aman among you have save it be ^bone ^cwife; and concubines he shall have none;

 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the ^achastity of women. And ^bwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or ^acursed be the land for their sakes.

 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up ^aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

[Bernard Gui]

Well you may not agree, but 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.  Some black Americans like Loretta Scott King wife of Martin Luther King believe there is a connection some do not. Both your opinion and some Black Americans opinion is completely irrelevant.  The only question before the court is do gay couples have equal protection under the 14th amendment.  So far, all the courts have said resoundingly YES.  

 

This is not a difficult concept.  Both you and the church can believe whatever you want.  Gay couples really don't care what you or the church believe.  They are just demanding the equal protection that is guaranteed them.  Black Americans demanded the same rights guaranteed them.  They got it.  So will gay couples.  So what is the point of arguing about SSM? Well, there is no point any more, which is my point. 

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? 

Edited March 26, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

That you would compare ssm to incest, demonstrates to me that you are not interested in discussion. Rather, you are interested in fear mongering fatalism. Perhaps you would be willing to demonstrate how the legal arguments in support of ssm (actual legal arguments not your made up ones) can be used to justify incest or group marriage.

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.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Bernard Gui