1 Million Members Have Left Over Gay Marriage????

[JLHPROF]

I don't think there is a problem if some of them did have sexual relations with him, since "to raise up seed" (Jacob 2:30) is one of the reasons for the principle.

But I have yet to see any convincing proof that he had sexual relations with those women who were already married to someone else. Those sealings were meant for the next life.

 

And to me absolutely NONE of that makes any difference.

 

Were they his wives?  Yes

Was the marriage approved by God?  Yes, those who accept D&C 132 believe so

Are husbands and wives in marriages approved by God permitted to have sex?  Yes

 

So who cares whether Joseph had sex with his wives or not.  It's crazy how much discussion this creates.  Husbands and wives have sex (usually  ).

 

And I have never accepted the "sealed but not married" idea because it contradicts the words spoken in the sealing ceremony.

[jkwilliams]

And to me absolutely NONE of that makes any difference.

 

Were they his wives?  Yes

Was the marriage approved by God?  Yes, those who accept D&C 132 believe so

Are husbands and wives in marriages approved by God permitted to have sex?  Yes

 

So who cares whether Joseph had sex with his wives or not.  It's crazy how much discussion this creates.  Husbands and wives have sex (usually  ).

 

And I have never accepted the "sealed but not married" idea because it contradicts the words spoken in the sealing ceremony.

 

I think the issue for some people is whether Emma or the husbands consented. It's pretty obvious that Emma was unaware of many, if not most, of the marriages.

[Daniel2]

 It is not just the phony issue of homosexual rights.

 

I agree--the concept of "homosexual rights" is phony.

 

That is why we have accurately approached the issue as a matter of the universal human right for couples to choose their own spouse, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  

 

Couples comprised of any configuration of genders, and any configuration of  sexual orientations (whether heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, or whatever) all share the same universal human civil right to civil marriage.

 

Marriage equality, therefore, isn't limited to either "heterosexual rights" OR to "homosexual rights"--it's a matter of equal human rights for all sexual orientations.

 

So, at least we're on the same page regarding the "phony issue of homosexual rights."     

Edited October 20, 2015 by Daniel2

[filovirus]

I agree--the concept of "homosexual rights" is phony.

 

That is why we have accurately approached the issue as a matter of the universal human right for couples to choose their own spouse, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  

 

Couples comprised of any configuration of genders, and any configuration of  sexual orientations (whether heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, or whatever) all share the same universal human civil right to civil marriage.

 

Marriage equality, therefore, isn't limited to either "heterosexual rights" OR to "homosexual rights"--it's a matter of equal human rights for all sexual orientations.

 

So, at least we're on the same page regarding the "phony issue of homosexual rights."     

Except for polygamy, apparently. It doesn't appear to be a human right or a civil right for one man to be in multiple marriages in the United States.

[Daniel2]

Yeah, I guess you are tickled PINK that the social engineering and legislating from the bench has FINALLY overcome the "silent" majority that prefer to safeguard the stability and protection of the BASIC unit which provides the best possible outcome for children and society.

 

I wouldn't phrase it the way you did... I would say that I am joyful that the majority of Americans agree with the principle of equal protection of the law, when it comes to civil marriage for all couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  And I believe the majority support that Americans now demonstrate shows they believe that children being raised by same-sex parents, as well as the same-sex couples themselves, are equally as deserving as the same protections that our straight counterparts deserve and rightfully enjoy.

 

I have seen no evidence of a "'silent majority' that prefer to safeguard the stability and protection of the BASIC unit which provides the best possible outcome for children and society" which you speak of existing today--what evidence do you have to support such a claim? (consider this a CFR).

 

BUT I will never give up standing against the assaults on the family that are coming from many directions.

I agree that any assaults that tear families apart or weaken family stability should be met with strong opposition, and share your desire to safeguard principles that promote and support family stability and the best interests of children.  That's why I support marriage equality for all eligible couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.     

[Buckeye]

I wouldn't phrase it the way you did... I would say that I am joyful that the majority of Americans agree with the principle of equal protection of the law, when it comes to civil marriage for all couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  And I believe the majority support that Americans now demonstrate shows they believe that children being raised by same-sex parents, as well as the same-sex couples themselves, are equally as deserving as the same protections that our straight counterparts deserve and rightfully enjoy.

 

I have seen no evidence of a "'silent majority' that prefer to safeguard the stability and protection of the BASIC unit which provides the best possible outcome for children and society" which you speak of existing today--what evidence do you have to support such a claim? (consider this a CFR).

 

 

 

I agree that any assaults that tear families apart or weaken family stability should be met with strong opposition, and share your desire to safeguard principles that promote and support family stability and the best interests of children.  That's why I support marriage equality for all eligible couples, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.     

 

Would you stop being so reasonable and kind? You're making it very hard to disagree with gay marriage.

[Daniel2]

Except for polygamy, apparently. It doesn't appear to be a human right or a civil right for one man to be in multiple marriages in the United States.

 

According to the dictionary, "Equality" is defined as follows:

 

equality

[ih-kwol-i-tee]

1.the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability

.

Marriage "equality" allows for all citizens to civilly marry one person of their choice, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, fertility status, prison status, etc.  

 

"Equality" means that every person can choose one spouse with which to receive the same civil, legal, and financial benefits and shoulder the same civil, legal, and financial responsibilities "in quality, degree, value, rank, and ability," because everyone gets an EQUAL benefit of ONE spouse.

 

Civil polygamy, by it's very nature, would ask for MORE benefits in "quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability."  By INCREASING the number of participants, new law would need to be written to take into account how to divide the rights, responsibilities, and protections of marriage.

 

For example:

 

How would inheritance be divided among multiple spouses?

 

How is custody or child support or alimony determined in the event of divorce?  How are the best interests of children served by the application of family law when they have multiple parents and their parental configuration changes through death or divorce?

 

How is divorce law applied if one spouse in a group marriage wants to leave, but others don't?  Is the marriage between individuals, or to the group as a whole?  How does this affect children if the relationship configuration changes....?

 

How are health insurance premiums, life insurance policies, or other marriage-related benefits calculated when they are subsidized by employers? 

 

So, filovirus, I actually agree with and support the concept that polygamous marriages should be legalized and civilly recognized.  However, new law needs to be enacted to account for the many differences of "quality, degree, value, rank, and ability." 

Edited October 20, 2015 by Daniel2

[JAHS]

And to me absolutely NONE of that makes any difference.

 

Were they his wives?  Yes

Was the marriage approved by God?  Yes, those who accept D&C 132 believe so

Are husbands and wives in marriages approved by God permitted to have sex?  Yes

 

So who cares whether Joseph had sex with his wives or not.  It's crazy how much discussion this creates.  Husbands and wives have sex (usually  ).

 

And I have never accepted the "sealed but not married" idea because it contradicts the words spoken in the sealing ceremony.

But are the words we speak now in the sealing ceremony the same as were spoken when Joseph was sealed to the other women?

Joseph was also being sealed to other men(Law of Adoption). Women were being sealed to him after he died. 

[JLHPROF]

But are the words we speak now in the sealing ceremony the same as were spoken when Joseph was sealed to the other women?

 

 

Yes, at least once the endowment was restored.

 

 

Joseph was also being sealed to other men(Law of Adoption). Women were being sealed to him after he died. 

 

1. Law of Adoption sealing is parent to child - different wording.

2. Posthumous sealings are work for the dead.  Wording would match current marriage sealings performed for the dead.

[Gray]

Except for polygamy, apparently. It doesn't appear to be a human right or a civil right for one man to be in multiple marriages in the United States.

 

Well, gay marriage bans were overturned based on the idea equal protection under the law. Are polygamists a protected class? Or a class at all? Unlike race, gender or sexual orientation, polygamy isn't an immutable characteristic of the self. At least as far as I know, it isn't.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

According to the dictionary, "Equality" is defined as follows:

 

.

Marriage "equality" allows for all citizens to civilly marry one person of their choice, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, fertility status, prison status, etc.  

 

"Equality" means that every person can choose one spouse with which to receive the same civil, legal, and financial benefits and shoulder the same civil, legal, and financial responsibilities "in quality, degree, value, rank, and ability," because everyone gets an EQUAL benefit of ONE spouse.

 

Civil polygamy, by it's very nature, would ask for MORE benefits in "quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability."  By INCREASING the number of participants, new law would need to be written to take into account how to divide the rights, responsibilities, and protections of marriage.

 

For example:

 

How would inheritance be divided among multiple spouses?

 

How is custody or child support or alimony determined in the event of divorce?  How are the best interests of children served by the application of family law when they have multiple parents and their parental configuration changes through death or divorce?

 

How is divorce law applied if one spouse in a group marriage wants to leave, but others don't?  Is the marriage between individuals, or to the group as a whole?  How does this affect children if the relationship configuration changes....?

 

How are health insurance premiums, life insurance policies, or other marriage-related benefits calculated when they are subsidized by employers? 

 

So, filovirus, I actually agree with and support the concept that polygamous marriages should be legalized and civilly recognized.  However, new law needs to be enacted to account for the many differences of "quality, degree, value, rank, and ability." 

 

Good points. Legalizing polygamy would raise all kinds of legal questions. 

[JAHS]

Yes, at least once the endowment was restored.

 

 

1. Law of Adoption sealing is parent to child - different wording.

2. Posthumous sealings are work for the dead.  Wording would match current marriage sealings performed for the dead.

 

So were the husbands of the already married women OK with Joseph having sex with their wives? Did they agree to this before the polyandrous marriage?

[jkwilliams]

So were the husbands of the already married women OK with Joseph having sex with their wives? Did they agree to this before the polyandrous marriage?

 

It's hard to say. Given that Sister Lyon kept her daughter's paternity a secret for so long, I would imagine no one knew but her and Joseph.

[JLHPROF]

So were the husbands of the already married women OK with Joseph having sex with their wives? Did they agree to this before the polyandrous marriage?

 

I didn't say Joseph had sex with his wives.  I just said that if we believe they were his wives as per the sealing ceremony why would that be a problem?  The polyandrous marriages may all have been celibate, but I don't see why it makes a bit of difference.  Sex between spouses isn't a sin.

 

As for their husbands...define "ok".  Henry Jacobs was "ok" and definitely not "ok" at the same time.

And I do believe each polyandrous marriage case to be unique.  Sometime the men weren't worthy of their wives.  Sometimes they were members in good standing who agreed to give up their wives and posterity in eternity to Joseph (similar to marriage for time only).

 

I don't know which wives Joseph had sex with and which he didn't.  My point remains, they were his wives, so it really doesn't matter.

[jkwilliams]

I didn't say Joseph had sex with his wives.  I just said that if we believe they were his wives as per the sealing ceremony why would that be a problem?  The polyandrous marriages may all have been celibate, but I don't see why it makes a bit of difference.  Sex between spouses isn't a sin.

 

As for their husbands...define "ok".  Henry Jacobs was "ok" and definitely not "ok" at the same time.

And I do believe each polyandrous marriage case to be unique.  Sometime the men weren't worthy of their wives.  Sometimes they were members in good standing who agreed to give up their wives and posterity in eternity to Joseph (similar to marriage for time only).

 

I don't know which wives Joseph had sex with and which he didn't.  My point remains, they were his wives, so it really doesn't matter.

 

So, if a husband is deemed unworthy of his wife, that means someone else can have sex with her? If he's unworthy, why is the wife still married to him while having sex with someone else? If my wife discovered I was having sex with another woman, I guarantee you that "it's OK, her husband wasn't worthy of her" would not be accepted as a valid excuse. And I'd be walking funny for at least a month.

[JLHPROF]

So, if a husband is deemed unworthy of his wife, that means someone else can have sex with her? If he's unworthy, why is the wife still married to him while having sex with someone else? If my wife discovered I was having sex with another woman, I guarantee you that "it's OK, her husband wasn't worthy of her" would not be accepted as a valid excuse. And I'd be walking funny for at least a month.

 

If your wife discovered you were having sex with another woman you'd deserve it.

If you were discovered having sex with your wife, where is the problem?  Once again, they were JOSEPH'S WIVES.

 

Until we stop differentiating between Emma and the other wives, and recognize that they were ALL equally his wives, we will never get plural marriage figured out.  All wives.  All equal.  All authorized to have relations with their husband.

Edited October 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[jkwilliams]

If your wife discovered you were having sex with another woman you'd deserve it.

If you were discovered having sex with your wife, where is the problem?  Once again, they were JOSEPH'S WIVES.

 

Until we stop differentiating between Emma and the other wives, and recognize that they were ALL equally his wives, we will never get plural marriage figured out.  All wives.  All equal.  All authorized to have relations with their husband.

 

If I married another woman and didn't tell my wife about it, her response would be the same if she discovered what I was doing. This isn't that hard. It's hard to call a wife "equal" when you have to conceal the marriage from your first wife and everyone else.

[JLHPROF]

If I married another woman and didn't tell my wife about it, her response would be the same if she discovered what I was doing. This isn't that hard. It's hard to call a wife "equal" when you have to conceal the marriage from your first wife and everyone else.

 

Yes.  It would be hard to call wives equal and make the marriage public when you are being fought by family, friends, society and tradition for doing what God commanded you to do.

Joseph has my sympathy and admiration for his faith.

[jkwilliams]

Yes.  It would be hard to call wives equal and make the marriage public when you are being fought by family, friends, society and tradition for doing what God commanded you to do.

Joseph has my sympathy and admiration for his faith.

 

Then we shouldn't claim some kind of equality for the marriages, as if they were the same as his marriage to Emma. As far as I can see, these weren't really marriages in the same way that we think of people living together as husband and wife.

[JLHPROF]

Then we shouldn't claim some kind of equality for the marriages, as if they were the same as his marriage to Emma. As far as I can see, these weren't really marriages in the same way that we think of people living together as husband and wife.

 

Because of design or forced by circumstance?

Which defines what kind of marriage they were?  Is it defined by the goal or the difficulty achieving the goal?

 

They were supposed to be the same, but were prevented from being so.  It wasn't until Utah that the saints were able to live polygamy as multiple families, but it was always the goal.  I judge Joseph's marriages as equal because I see the goal, not what he was prevented from achieving.

[jkwilliams]

Because of design or forced by circumstance?

Which defines what kind of marriage they were?  Is it defined by the goal or the difficulty achieving the goal?

 

They were supposed to be the same, but were prevented from being so.  It wasn't until Utah that the saints were able to live polygamy as multiple families, but it was always the goal.  I judge Joseph's marriages as equal because I see the goal, not what he was prevented from achieving.

 

The main reason for secrecy was Emma. 

[JAHS]

If your wife discovered you were having sex with another woman you'd deserve it.

If you were discovered having sex with your wife, where is the problem?  Once again, they were JOSEPH'S WIVES.

 

Until we stop differentiating between Emma and the other wives, and recognize that they were ALL equally his wives, we will never get plural marriage figured out.  All wives.  All equal.  All authorized to have relations with their husband.

If you have some time check out what Brian Hales said in a article he wrote on the subject, where he argues that a polyandrous marriage does not mean that the woman had two husbands.

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-joseph-smiths-sexual-polyandry-and-the-emperors-new-clothes-on-closer-inspection-what-do-we-find

[jkwilliams]

If you have some time check out what Brian Hales said in a article he wrote on the subject, where he argues that a polyandrous marriage does not mean that the woman had two husbands.

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-joseph-smiths-sexual-polyandry-and-the-emperors-new-clothes-on-closer-inspection-what-do-we-find

 

Yeah, I've read that before. At best, she had one legal husband and another man who was sleeping with her by authorization of a non-legal marriage.

[filovirus]

According to the dictionary, "Equality" is defined as follows:

.

Marriage "equality" allows for all citizens to civilly marry one person of their choice, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, fertility status, prison status, etc.

"Equality" means that every person can choose one spouse with which to receive the same civil, legal, and financial benefits and shoulder the same civil, legal, and financial responsibilities "in quality, degree, value, rank, and ability," because everyone gets an EQUAL benefit of ONE spouse.

CFR that equality means that every person can choose one spouse.

Civil polygamy, by it's very nature, would ask for MORE benefits in "quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability." By INCREASING the number of participants, new law would need to be written to take into account how to divide the rights, responsibilities, and protections of marriage.

The number of participants is not increased. Each marriage is between one man and one woman, not one man and multiple women. Each woman is not married to the other women. They could theoretically live hundreds of miles apart and never interact with each other.

For example:

How would inheritance be divided among multiple spouses?

How is custody or child support or alimony determined in the event of divorce? How are the best interests of children served by the application of family law when they have multiple parents and their parental configuration changes through death or divorce?

How is divorce law applied if one spouse in a group marriage wants to leave, but others don't? Is the marriage between individuals, or to the group as a whole? How does this affect children if the relationship configuration changes....?

How are health insurance premiums, life insurance policies, or other marriage-related benefits calculated when they are subsidized by employers?

Because it is too hard to do they don't get their "human right". Jacob/Israel had 12 sons between two wives and two concubines. He figured out a way to do it. I'm sure our smart lawyers could come up with solutions.

So, filovirus, I actually agree with and support the concept that polygamous marriages should be legalized and civilly recognized. However, new law needs to be enacted to account for the many differences of "quality, degree, value, rank, and ability."

Edited October 21, 2015 by filovirus

[filovirus]

Well, gay marriage bans were overturned based on the idea equal protection under the law. Are polygamists a protected class? Or a class at all? Unlike race, gender or sexual orientation, polygamy isn't an immutable characteristic of the self. At least as far as I know, it isn't.

Heterosexuality is a protected class. Again, each marriage is separate. Each marriage is a separate, binding contract, joining one man and one woman in marriage.