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

[ERayR]

I can't answer for sunstoned, but in the cases where the wives said they had relations with Joseph, I tend to believe them. There's not really any good reason not to believe them.

 

And IMNSHO that married folks have marital relations is not such a shocking thing.  Much ado about nothing.

[ERayR]

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.

 

And it is pretty obvious she was aware of some of them.

[jkwilliams]

And it is pretty obvious she was aware of some of them.

Some isn't all or even most.

[Thinking]

And IMNSHO that married folks have marital relations is not such a shocking thing.  Much ado about nothing.

 

Unless the marriages were unlawful.

[jkwilliams]

Unless the marriages were unlawful.

Or hidden from the legal spouses.

[Russell C McGregor]

From the guy who claims not to like smoke screens:

 

 

Why draw the line at preventing gays from marrying.  Why not Mormons,  Why not poor people.  Why not people that are too old to have children?  Why not Chinese or Blacks or some other minority?  If we are going to discriminate against minority groups, why stop at gays?

 

You know perfectly well that this is a complete canard. (Evidently you prefer your arguments that way.)

The formerly morally defensible marriage law did NOT "prevent gays from marrying." There was NEVER a "sexual orientation test" or anything like it, for people intending to marry. It simply took it for granted that a union of a man and a woman was an intrinsic part of what marriage actually means.

Which it was; and, notwithstanding the arrogance of five people who are besotted with their own power, it really still is. "Same sex marriage" was always an oxymoron; it's now a legal oxymoron.

Next up, SCOTUS votes to repeal the law of gravity, on the ground that it's unconstitutional.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

That's not obvious to me.

[JLHPROF]

Or hidden from the legal spouses.

 

That really is your sticking point isn't it?

 

The scriptures are very clear why Emma was kept in the dark - because she refused to obey God's command.

In fighting against God's will she lost the right to know.  Pearls before swine as the Savior would have said.

 

Plural marriage was hard for all involved.  Why we make Emma into the poor victim is beyond me?  She had her agency to stay or leave, to obey the law or not.  She had the word of God there to accept or deny.  She knew Joseph had to live plural marriage, and she fought it (mostly).

If Emma was in the dark it was by her own choice, not Joseph's.

[jkwilliams]

That really is your sticking point isn't it?

 

The scriptures are very clear why Emma was kept in the dark - because she refused to obey God's command.

In fighting against God's will she lost the right to know.  Pearls before swine as the Savior would have said.

 

Plural marriage was hard for all involved.  Why we make Emma into the poor victim is beyond me?  She had her agency to stay or leave, to obey the law or not.  She had the word of God there to accept or deny.  She knew Joseph had to live plural marriage, and she fought it (mostly).

If Emma was in the dark it was by her own choice, not Joseph's.

 

I used to make pretty much the same rationalization. 

[longview]

I thought this was an interesting approach gay couples used to use for legal protection. I'm glad they don't have to do that anymore.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/magazine/the-lost-history-of-gay-adult-adoption.html?_r=0

The solution is simple. The answer lies in the name of a famous homosexual national newspaper: "The Advocate." Streamline the laws for designated partners (similar to living trust but cheaper) to specify visitation rights, power of attorney, community property, etc.

 

A majority of Americans favor gay marriage. Most people have the good sense to realize that affording others the same rights as us does nothing to interfere with our own rights.

Only as a result of incessant propaganda warfare, radicalizing the judiciary, indoctrination in public schools (elementary thru H.S.), etc. It is completely unnecessary for homosexuals to want to "piggy back" on the traditional institution of marriage.  They are radically different lifestyles, different purposes.

 

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."     

Any further "perversion" to lifestyle choices will continue to put a greater burden on society in its ultimate objective in protecting the basic unit. Any kind of "rights" in regard to "partners" is still phony. They do not need legal protection. Only the basic unit needs protection. I utterly reject your extreme social engineering (which is designed to trivialize and undermine the basic unit).

 

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 disagree strongly that any significant segment would support placing children in same sex household. See my CFR response below that includes descriptions of problems occurring in same sex arrangements.

 

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).

Then you have been reading extreme left publications almost exclusively and remain ignorant of almost all conservative sources. I have seen numerous blogs, several books, many years of reading Ann Lander's columns (a source of great wisdom in my early years), evidence of many homosexual "activists" who support (or are sympathetic to) for adult sex with children, etc. It would take too much time to pick a particular reference so I will simply refer you to Ann Coulter's books with its wonderful extensive footnoting (she has also commented on crimes that occurred in homosexual adoptions).

 

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.     

We need to keep the basic unit (and its legal protections) separate from the social engineering. We need to continue with policing extreme behaviors (such as mass sex orgies in restrooms of the local bus depot and outrageous homosexual parades).

[canard78]

Same way abortion doesn't affect me, harm me, directly impact my life or harm my moral choices? Wrong is wrong, no matter how many people don't agree.

 

Strange comparison. If you consider a fetus to be a human, or potential human, then I can understand the opposition to abortion. It's a strange example to use in comparison to two consenting adults making a loving and legal commitment to each. How is ending the life of a child (if the fetus is viewed as such), who certainly didn't consent to the abortion, remotely comparable to gay marriage?

 

Perhaps this is why members have left over gay marriage, because ongoing opposition to it seems like such wasted effort on something that the majority is learning to accept.

 

I don't really believe the 1mn figure, and there's certainly no evidence for it in the hyperbolic article... but certainly it has been a factor in some exit stories.

[canard78]

So was it so important for gay marriage activists to spend the hours of angst and dollars of campaigning on the issue?  Or do you see that as a waste of money?

 

More money was spent to fight banning same sex marriage than to support the ban:

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-moneymap-htmlstory.html

 

Hi, thanks Calm. Interesting question. I think that there is a difference. These people are campaigning to have an inequality removed. I think campaigning against inequality is a worthwhile cause. I wish the church spent more time campaigning inequality. Instead its leaders have spent years speaking against equality.

[canard78]

There are things that I view the legality of as being my business, even though their legality won't undermine my ability to live based on the morals I hold.

Abortion is an easy one to come up with. Certain nondiscrimination laws are another.

 

I already responded to busybees comparison to abortion.

 

Your nondiscrimination example as being something that you consider your business seems slightly ironic given it's discrimination the church has supported in regards to gay marriage.

[Teancum]

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.

Legally they were not his wives.

[Teancum]

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.

All we have is Joseph telling us God said it was a ok to take on multiple wives. Pretty covenient for Jospeh no? Do you allow oth enigmatic religious leaders that took on additional wives the same latitude? Let me guess....nope. But Joseph Smith is the special one.

[Teancum]

And IMNSHO that married folks have marital relations is not such a shocking thing.  Much ado about nothing.

So if your neighbor was having sex with six women you would be fine with it if he told you he was married to them all right?

[jkwilliams]

So if your neighbor was having sex with six women you would be fine with it if he told you he was married to them all right?

 

How does that work? A husband finds out his wife has married another man and has consummated the marriage, but she says it's OK because the other man said the husband is not worthy of her. But the husband is supposed to remain married to her, right?

[JLHPROF]

So if your neighbor was having sex with six women you would be fine with it if he told you he was married to them all right?

 

Depends on the man, the woman, the marriages, etc.

I'd have an issue if my neighbor had sex with one woman he said was his wife unless I believed a valid marriage was there.

[Teancum]

Depends on the man, the woman, the marriages, etc.

I'd have an issue if my neighbor had sex with one woman he said was his wife unless I believed a valid marriage was there.

So how do you determine this?

[jkwilliams]

This is a weird thread. On the one hand, it's perfectly fine to hide your sexual relationships from your legal wife if she doesn't approve of them, but on the other, a couple wishing to openly and legally commit to a loving partnership is immoral and threatens the fiber of our civilization. 

[KevinG]

The weirdness comes from conflating God's laws with mans laws. Which is why we have this problem of church vs. state in the USA to begin with.

[jkwilliams]

The weirdness comes from conflating God's laws with mans laws. Which is why we have this problem of church vs. state in the USA to begin with.

 

So, you're on board with the idea that it's OK to conceal your sexual relationships from your wife because, once she has refused to consent, she has forfeited the right to know? 

[JLHPROF]

Legally they were not his wives.

 

So what?

[Thinking]

The scriptures are very clear why Emma was kept in the dark - because she refused to obey God's command.

In fighting against God's will she lost the right to know.  Pearls before swine as the Savior would have said.

 

It's interesting the way this was all laid out in D&C 132.

 

In order to take another wife, a man must obtain the consent of the first wife. (D&C 132:61)

 

However, if Emma refuses to allow Joseph to take other wives, she will be destroyed. (D&C 132:52-54)

[Teancum]

So what?

So this is what we call adultery...oh wait for everyone accept Joseph Smith and his 19th century followers.