Stone holm Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 The economic system is threatened by the decline of the nuclear family (you've confused cause for effect) and same-sex families are part of this decline.-guerreiro9Ah, no would have to disagree with that.
The Nehor Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Strategically the promotion of Prop 8 from the pulpit was a blunder. I disagree. If anything that makes the Church vilified by the rest of the world is a blunder then we are blundering idiots but I do not buy the idea that blunders are defined by a popularity contest. By that standard Abinadi was one of the biggest blunderers who ever lived and also made a strategic mistake. 1
tonie Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Lawrence v Texas decriminalized same-sex sexual relations, and allowed same-sex couples to form long-term intimate relationships with their chosen partner without threat of prosecution.This intimacy is what defines a marriage, not which tax advantages one receives.Marriages existed long before governments recognized them and they will continue to exist after governments stop recognizing them.-guerreiro9 Intimacy defines what marriage is? good grief.
Stone holm Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Lawrence v Texas decriminalized same-sex sexual relations, and allowed same-sex couples to form long-term intimate relationships with their chosen partner without threat of prosecution.This intimacy is what defines a marriage, not which tax advantages one receives.Marriages existed long before governments recognized them and they will continue to exist after governments stop recognizing them.-guerreiro9Under the common law intimacy and cohabitation after 7 years became a marriage, I know of no country anywhere which considered sexual intimacy as constituting marriage. To say which came first is a bit murky since most governments were originally theocratic tribal affairs. It wasn't until much later that governments separated from Churches. Since most of our ideas regarding marriage come from the Romans who were monogamous and considered marriage primarily a matter of certain legal rights, I would say, well maybe, but not as clear as you argue.
guerreiro9 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Ah, no would have to disagree with that.On what grounds? Or would you like the discussion to end here?-guerreiro9
Stone holm Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I disagree. If anything that makes the Church vilified by the rest of the world is a blunder then we are blundering idiots but I do not buy the idea that blunders are defined by a popularity contest. By that standard Abinadi was one of the biggest blunderers who ever lived and also made a strategic mistake.Blunder in the sense that the involvement of Churches ultimately triggered a political backlash that sped up and hastened legal recognition . I believe at the time it may have been the popular thing to do, as most polls at the time dis favored SSM. But once the proponents of SSM could say that someone else's religion was being crammed down their throats they awakened people to the fact that this was the Christian Right doing its political thing. That ultimately pushed people who were at best previously indifferent into a pro SSM stance. I don't think there would have been any backlash against Churches saying not in our Church, at least not like the tsunami that occurred, but the idea of forcing others to conform to your religious beliefs just doesn't sit well with many Americans. Americans weren't keen on homosexuality, but they were even less keen on religious intolerance. Had the Churches stayed out of it, the cultural taboos would have kept SSM at bay for much longer. IMNSHOP.
Stone holm Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 When economic system wiped out family businesses, and wages stagnated to the point that both parents had to have careers to maintain middle class status, then the nuclear family became less critical to economic survival. You want to save the nuclear family, then implement economic reforms that favor the family instead of working against it. In fact an argument could be made that SSM actually strengthens the concept of a nuclear family, and is causing a profound change within the gay community which is becoming more sensitive to family values and less hedonistic.
guerreiro9 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Intimacy defines what marriage is? good grief.Yes intimacy. In the short response I gave intimacy is probably the best description. A marriage is a commitment between two people to share all the intimate aspects of their being for life (or eternity as LDS believe). Physical, social, emotional, sexual intimacy.At least this is how I would describe my marriage.How would you describe it? "Well when we file a tax return we can do so jointly"....-guerreiro9 Edited June 28, 2015 by guerreiro9
guerreiro9 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Under the common law intimacy and cohabitation after 7 years became a marriage, I know of no country anywhere which considered sexual intimacy as constituting marriage. To say which came first is a bit murky since most governments were originally theocratic tribal affairs. It wasn't until much later that governments separated from Churches. Since most of our ideas regarding marriage come from the Romans who were monogamous and considered marriage primarily a matter of certain legal rights, I would say, well maybe, but not as clear as you argue.OK let me ask you a hypothetical question then. Is it possible for two people to be married if there is no government there to recognize it? Is the belief by members of the LDS church that Adam and Eve were married in the garden of Eden (assume they were real people for the sake of argument) impossible as there were no legal rights to bestow?Whose recognition of a marriage is more valid the two or more people in a marriage or those outside of it?-guerreiro9
carbon dioxide Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 OK let me ask you a hypothetical question then. Is it possible for two people to be married if there is no government there to recognize it?Is the belief by members of the LDS church that Adam and Eve were married in the garden of Eden (assume they were real people for the sake of argument) impossible as there were no legal rights to bestow?Whose recognition of a marriage is more valid the two or more people in a marriage or those outside of it?-guerreiro9Sure. What government agency did Abraham or Jacob go to for their marriage license? If a nuclear war happens tomorrow and all the governments collapse, those that survive will still be able to get married. 1
carbon dioxide Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Yes intimacy. In the short response I gave intimacy is probably the best description. A marriage is a commitment between two people to share all the intimate aspects of their being for life (or eternity as LDS believe). Physical, social, emotional, sexual intimacy.At least this is how I would describe my marriage.How would you describe it? "Well when we file a tax return we can do so jointly"....-guerreiro9People can get married for different reasons. Some might even do it just for tax reasons and live apart from each other.
PeterPear Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 So how come there were no SSM marriages recognized by the government in the 1990s?This article explains it. It was a trap. States had never defined marriage between a man and woman. It was naturally implied. But were forced to due to activism. This, per SCOTUS' (ridiculous) reasoning meant marriage involved 'animus.' Please read the article.http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/the-marriage-trap-has-been-sprung/ 1
guerreiro9 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 People can get married for different reasons. Some might even do it just for tax reasons and live apart from each other.I don't deny that people receive legal recognition of their marriage for a variety of reasons, but I do vehemently deny that the legal rights granted to same-sex marriages by the SCOTUS are what define a marriage.All of the legal protections, tax advantages, and legal recognition now afforded to homo and hetero sexual marriages could be revoked at any time if the populous feels they are no longer useful.But would that mean that marriage would cease in the United States?-guerreiro9
jwhitlock Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 The morally bankrupt and apostate WHOLE of Christendom should not have a dog in this fight. They continue to show how completely ridiculous they are. Look at the pastor who expressed sentiments of setting himself on fire if SCOTUS declared the way they did. He hasn't but the ridiculousness remains intact. Yep. Tarring all religion for the acts of the few really is the Progressive Thing, isn't it. Nice, convenient rationalization. 1
jwhitlock Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Nice to see you as arbiter of she judges are actually doing their job. <sarcasm and eye roll>Marriage doesn't belong to religion. That is an outright lie. These ignoramuses need to stop whining that marriage has been redefined. In our so enlightened society, heaven forbid that the People should disagree with the unelected elites who dictate how they should think and believe. Shut up, pay your taxes and do what we tell you. Who was it that agreed with your sentiment? That person who said that "religion is the opiate of the masses"? I think he was spiritual mentor of one of the greatest, enlightened societies that we have ever seen - a society that sought the same path you seek to impose on us by telling us to shut up and quit whining about our oh-so-benevolent government that is "just doing their job". That society didn't turn out well, did it? Well, some of us, at least, can learn from failed experiments. That doesn't include five activists overstepping their bounds. 1
jwhitlock Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 When economic system wiped out family businesses, and wages stagnated to the point that both parents had to have careers to maintain middle class status, then the nuclear family became less critical to economic survival. You want to save the nuclear family, then implement economic reforms that favor the family instead of working against it. In fact an argument could be made that SSM actually strengthens the concept of a nuclear family, and is causing a profound change within the gay community which is becoming more sensitive to family values and less hedonistic. CFR on the bolded part.
Tacenda Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 When economic system wiped out family businesses, and wages stagnated to the point that both parents had to have careers to maintain middle class status, then the nuclear family became less critical to economic survival. You want to save the nuclear family, then implement economic reforms that favor the family instead of working against it. In fact an argument could be made that SSM actually strengthens the concept of a nuclear family, and is causing a profound change within the gay community which is becoming more sensitive to family values and less hedonistic.I agree.
jwhitlock Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 This article explains it. It was a trap.States had never defined marriage between a man and woman. It was naturally implied. But were forced to due to activism. This, per SCOTUS' (ridiculous) reasoning meant marriage involved 'animus.' Please read the article.http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/26/the-marriage-trap-has-been-sprung/ Interesting article.
guerreiro9 Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) When economic system wiped out family businesses, and wages stagnated to the point that both parents had to have careers to maintain middle class status, then the nuclear family became less critical to economic survival. You want to save the nuclear family, then implement economic reforms that favor the family instead of working against it. In fact an argument could be made that SSM actually strengthens the concept of a nuclear family, and is causing a profound change within the gay community which is becoming more sensitive to family values and less hedonistic.It has been interesting reading articles of many from the early days of the gay movement bemoan the loss of the gay identity as it's being transformed to match the straight identity they once despised. The victory at SCOTUS has been bitter-sweet for them.Same-sex marriage does nothing to strengthen nuclear families, and cannot by its very definition. It weakens it by promoting the concept that all familial configurations provide equal value to the state. They do not.I'm not disagreeing that certain economic reforms couldn't help families, but your assertion that nuclear families have become less critical to economic survival is the exact opposite of my observed experience.What have you observed in yours that would lead you to this conclusion?(Off topic comment: It is continued comments like this that strengthen my belief that our country has become too large and too diverse to be governed by a single central government. Policies and procedures that work well in some areas are devastating in others, yet they continue to be imposed by our overlords who know better than the locals what is needed.)-guerreiro9 Edited June 28, 2015 by guerreiro9 1
california boy Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I have so many friends who are up in arms over the SCOTUS decision.And I am just as firmly opposed to SSM as any of them.But yet the SCOTUS decision doesn't bother me in the least. It just seems like the more wicked the world becomes the sooner God will have to step in. I'm not going to get myself all worked up trying to do God's work for him. I have a hard enough time keeping myself from participating in wicked acts without trying to police the whole world.People have their agency to "marry" (and I use that word very lightly here) whomever they want and I'll let God pass judgement and consequences according to its validity and righteousness. He instituted marriage on this planet after all, we didn't. I can't make other people righteous - that was Satan's plan. So why get all up in arms?It seems like the gay community owes a thanks to the church for supporting prop 8 and as a result speeding up the legal right to marryA Be the church owes a thanks to the gay community for speeding up the second coming. It's a win win. There should be no hard feelings on either side. We. both get what we want. Now can we all just get along?
SmileyMcGee Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I doubt that ERayR would claim such things publicly make him right, so the comparison is invalid.Nope.
california boy Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Yes intimacy. In the short response I gave intimacy is probably the best description. A marriage is a commitment between two people to share all the intimate aspects of their being for life (or eternity as LDS believe). Physical, social, emotional, sexual intimacy.At least this is how I would describe my marriage.How would you describe it? "Well when we file a tax return we can do so jointly"....-guerreiro9You do realize that you are arguing that there is no real reason to legally get married. All that is required to consider yourself married is to be intimate.
Tacenda Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 An ironic question from someone so concerned with polygamy and its practice.Not really, how do you think you'll continue having children on the other side? Also, all we ever hear is gay couples can't procreate.
Russell C McGregor Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 We needed to mount a political campaign that removed civil rights from a minority in order to communicate the "Lord's position"? Wow, Daniel, Caliboy; that was so clever, I didn't even see your mouth move! That assertion is, of course, the boilerplate "gay marriage" propaganda claim; and that fully explains why you are asserting it.
Russell C McGregor Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) A significant phrase on page 5: Yes Daniel, that is important. Now how about living lives that fully accord with those principles? Does your First Amendment protect that? Edited June 28, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Recommended Posts