Maedros Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 On 1/1/2016 at 10:58 PM, JLHPROF said: Anyone doubting that polygamy will be eventually legalized isn't paying attention. First SSM, then more acceptance of "open" relationships. How can anyone think polygamy won't be legal in the near future? I think because it would justify early LDS polygamy and I doubt that the servants of satan who uphold his work will be too pleased with anything that justifies mormon doctrine or practice. Perhaps anything but polygamy will be legal.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 6 hours ago, Gray said: Marriage isn't an exclusive country club. They let the gays in now. But how you define your own marriage is entirely up to you. Nothing has changed that way. People's ideas about marriage have been in constant flux. So I take it, then, that this indeed is not about saying bad behavior only "counts" when it's "gay people doing it." It appears that was a straw-man argument you are now walking away from. What it is about is just as I have noted: an Orwellian movement to redefine marriage in such a way that it is effectively defined out of existence. I repeat, given the Church's longtime and strong doctrinal emphasis on the family as a God-ordained and eternal unit, is it any wonder that the leaders of the Church would have opposed efforts to redefine marriage? 1
Zakuska Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What it is about is just as I have noted: an Orwellian movement to redefine marriage in such a way that it is effectively defined out of existence. I repeat, given the Church's longtime and strong doctrinal emphasis on the family as a God-ordained and eternal unit, is it any wonder that the leaders of the Church would have opposed efforts to redefine marriage? And yet in a religious context its "Definition" that saves the church from ever performing a SSM in our temples. since we do not perform "marriages" in our temples but a strictly religious rite of "sealing". According to my Bishop and SP the church never was in danger weather marriage was redefined or not. So why then the tremendous uproar and wasting of money fighting for something that didn't effect the church one I-O-Ta? 1
Gray Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So I take it, then, that this indeed is not about saying bad behavior only "counts" when it's "gay people doing it." It appears that was a straw-man argument you are now walking away from. What it is about is just as I have noted: an Orwellian movement to redefine marriage in such a way that it is effectively defined out of existence. I repeat, given the Church's longtime and strong doctrinal emphasis on the family as a God-ordained and eternal unit, is it any wonder that the leaders of the Church would have opposed efforts to redefine marriage? Many in this thread were acting as if bad behavior of some gay people was an indictment of gay marriage. But they didn't seem willing to apply the same standard to straight people, and indeed were ignoring the apparently good behavior of lesbian couples. I was just looking for a little consistency. As marriage has never been "defined" in the way you suggest, there is really nothing Orwellian about the gay marriage movement. It's just another phase for an institution that has been constantly evolving. It's not even a major change, in the grand scheme of things. Gay people represent just a tiny portion of the population, and so their marriages represent a small number of the total. Edited January 6, 2016 by Gray 1
Calm Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 I am more concerned with the attitudes towards marriage that remove sexual as well as other forms of fidelity from the relationship (whether hetero or homosexual), though attitudes are often expressed through behaviour. But people can desire and work towards supporting an ideal even when they fall way short. However, if they never believe in an ideal in the first place (as it appears many gay activists do not), they will definitely not be actively supporting it...in this case sexual fidelity. At this point all we have are individual comments that can only be judged really on the standing of the individual in the community and the standing of the venue publishing their position (I am reminded of Linus Pauling who had significant standing in one area, but whose radical views on Vit C was not supported by being published in his community's---science---mainstream serious publications) plus studies of behaviour that hint at attitudes unless the memory is failing me. Studies that show attitudes towards sexual fidelity (as well as other components) in the terms of what individuals see as the ideals of relationship would be very helpful.
Gray Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 8 minutes ago, Calm said: I am more concerned with the attitudes towards marriage that remove sexual as well as other forms of fidelity from the relationship (whether hetero or homosexual), though attitudes are often expressed through behaviour. But people can desire and work towards supporting an ideal even when they fall way short. However, if they never believe in an ideal in the first place (as it appears many gay activists do not), they will definitely not be actively supporting it...in this case sexual fidelity. At this point all we have are individual comments that can only be judged really on the standing of the individual in the community and the standing of the venue publishing their position (I am reminded of Linus Pauling who had significant standing in one area, but whose radical views on Vit C was not supported by being published in his community's---science---mainstream serious publications) plus studies of behaviour that hint at attitudes unless the memory is failing me. Studies that show attitudes towards sexual fidelity (as well as other components) in the terms of what individuals see as the ideals of relationship would be very helpful. Probably the best way to help foster a culture of fidelity is for churches to accept and celebrate gay marriage, while holding to tradition values of marital fidelity. 3
JLHPROF Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 7 hours ago, Maedros said: I think because it would justify early LDS polygamy and I doubt that the servants of satan who uphold his work will be too pleased with anything that justifies mormon doctrine or practice. Perhaps anything but polygamy will be legal. I see your point. But I think Satan and his servants benefit more from providing a corrupted counterpart to the sacred law. You'd be surprised how few fundamentalists (and early polygamists in the Church) ever wanted polygamy legalized. The last thing they want is people living a sacred law with no spiritual backing. All they wanted was an end to persecution and prosecution, not for legal polygamy. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gray said: Many in this thread were acting as if bad behavior of some gay people was an indictment of gay marriage. But they didn't seem willing to apply the same standard to straight people, and indeed were ignoring the apparently good behavior of lesbian couples. I was just looking for a little consistency. Again, I haven't seen that in this thread. And I notice that you have not been forthcoming with any specific examples. Quote As marriage has never been "defined" in the way you suggest, there is really nothing Orwellian about the gay marriage movement. This is pure bilge water. The very concept of marriage traditionally has incorporated the idea that spouses will remain faithful to one another. "Forsaking all others," as I recall, is the language in some wedding ceremonies in the past. Only with the advent of the sexual revolution (and perhaps you are so young you don't remember how things were prior to it) has the idea come into vogue that spouses need not practice marital fidelity. Quote It's just another phase for an institution that has been constantly evolving. As I said: Orwellian redefinition. In this case though, it doesn't serve the state so much as it does rampant attitudes rejecting the cardinal virtues of commitment and responsibility. Edited January 7, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 3
Gray Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Again, I haven't seen that in this thread. And I notice that you have not been forthcoming with any specific examples. See posts 1 and 2 in this thread, to start. 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: This is pure bilge water. The very concept of marriage traditionally has incorporated the idea that spouses will remain faithful to one another. "Forsaking all others," as I recall, is the language is some wedding ceremonies in the past. I was referring to gay marriage, not open marriage. 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Only with the advent of the sexual revolution (and perhaps you are so young you don't remember how things were prior to it) has the idea come into vogue that spouses need not practice marital fidelity. Again, not really what I was talking about. I believe marital fidelity is the only way. 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: As I said: Orwellian redefinition. In this case though, it doesn't serve the states so much as rampant attitudes rejecting the cardinal virtues of commitment and responsibility. Again, I was not talking about open marriage - that is a concept I reject. Edited January 6, 2016 by Gray
Scott Lloyd Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 18 minutes ago, Gray said: See posts 1 and 2 in this thread, to start. I have seen posts 1 and 2, and I don't see in them what you are claiming. No suggestion there of giving a pass to heterosexuals for bad behavior. Quote I was referring to gay marriage, not open marriage. But that open marriage is exactly what the gay-advocacy opinion leaders are championing, with their notion that there is "no pressure" on gay partners to remain faithful to each other. Quote Again, not really what I was talking about. I believe marital fidelity is the only way. Quote Again, I was not talking about open marriage - that is a concept I reject. Then I don't get all this talk from you about marriage evolving. You are confusing me, and when I get confused, I quickly lose interest in the conversation. 1
Gray Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I have seen posts 1 and 2, and I don't see in them what you are claiming. No suggestion there of giving a pass to heterosexuals for bad behavior. But that open marriage is exactly what the gay-advocacy opinion leaders are championing, with their notion that there is "no pressure" on gay partners to remain faithful to each other. Then I don't get all this talk from you about marriage evolving. You are confusing me, and when I get confused, I quickly lose interest in the conversation. What is happening is not that straight people are given a pass for bad behavior, but that straight marriage is not being defined by bad behavior of its participants, where gay marriage is. I fail to see what a few cherry picked quotes from gay activists has to do with gay marriage generally. Each gay person is an individual and must speak for himself or herself. A few radicals on that front don't really have a role in "defining" what marriage means to most people. What I mean by marriage evolving is that marriage has changed regarding power dynamics between spouses, the nature of romantic love, the number of spouses, the nature of the legal arrangement, and the gender of spouses. This has been constantly evolving. Gay marriage is just one tiny step in that evolution. Edited January 6, 2016 by Gray
jwhitlock Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 19 hours ago, california boy said: The total monogamy and fidelity issue is also significantly absent in the majority of straight marriages. Read the stats. I wonder if straight people realize what they are supporting when they say they support straight marriage. You seem to have this mistaken belief that we're saying gays are responsible for all the deterioration of marriage over the years. I'm not aware that anyone who supports traditional marriage has said or in any way inferred that. It seems to be a strawman set up by you as some kind of rationalization for your attacks on me and others. What you don't seem to get is that we, as LDS, have ->always<- emphasized total monogamy and fidelity in marriage. That is the expectation attached to marriage. It has been the expectation in society, despite what you claim. One of the grounds for divorce has always been adultery. Those in society who have tried - before SSM - to water down commitment in marriage have never been successful. And now we have SSM. The normal expectation that comes with SSM is that total fidelity is optional. In fact, there are efforts by gays (see the OP and other related articles) to "prove" that cheating SSM partners are more "well adjusted". You and other gays have not, to my knowledge, expressed concern about this or condemned this. Instead, you've concocted strawman arguments telling us that this is what straight people really want. But you miss the point that from our perspective, it's not what we want. And since SSM is now legally defined as being part of marriage overall, optional fidelity has officially become part of overall marriage. SSM was the tipping point that caused full commitment in marriage to be officially discarded. Now, you may think that full commitment isn't all that important. If you do, you're wrong. When commitment in marriage is optional, commitment in everything else is also optional. SSM did not introduce a lack of commitment; it simply planted the final nail in the coffin in which full commitment has been buried. That will be quite the feather in SSM's cap. 2
jwhitlock Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 11 hours ago, Gray said: Given all the bad behavior by straight couples, are you sure you realize what you're actually supporting? Or does bad behavior only count when it's gay people doing it? I've been clear that I support full fidelity in marriage. Is there some confusion on your part about it? That's certainly not what's being supported by the vast majority of gays, who expect that full commitment in marriage will be optional. I also support long term total commitment in marriage, something that is - believe it or not - rather common in normal marriages. It is, on the other hand, rather sparse in gay relationships in general, including SSM. SSM, by being defined as marriage, codifies full commitment as being optional, which is something that most straight people have not supported in normal marriage. 2
jwhitlock Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So I take it, then, that this indeed is not about saying bad behavior only "counts" when it's "gay people doing it." It appears that was a straw-man argument you are now walking away from. What it is about is just as I have noted: an Orwellian movement to redefine marriage in such a way that it is effectively defined out of existence. I repeat, given the Church's longtime and strong doctrinal emphasis on the family as a God-ordained and eternal unit, is it any wonder that the leaders of the Church would have opposed efforts to redefine marriage? Marriage provides the strongest possible environment for raising children. It provides that environment because of two things - total commitment of parents to each other and to the family, and the complementary strengths of men and women in parenting that can be matched in no other way. Despite the tripe being bandied about that our church leaders are "out of touch", I think that they can see down the road of cause and effect better than anyone else. Anything that waters down marriage - and SSM is something that does that - is not beneficial to individuals or societies in the long term. 2
Danzo Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 3 hours ago, Gray said: Probably the best way to help foster a culture of fidelity is for churches to accept and celebrate gay marriage, while holding to tradition values of marital fidelity. Are there churches out there that do that?
carbon dioxide Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 4 hours ago, Gray said: Probably the best way to help foster a culture of fidelity is for churches to accept and celebrate gay marriage, while holding to tradition values of marital fidelity. I am not sure accepting one bad practice to sustain something good is the best way to go. 2
strappinglad Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) I was unfamiliar with the acronym MGTOW so I dutifully youtubed it and listen to several videos . This MGTOW stuff is troubling if it gains strength . Apparently there is a major problem in Japan as men refuse to marry or even have any kind of relationship with women. In North America men can point to many areas in society and law etc. where they are at such a disadvantage that they are now shying away from marriage . Within the black community ,there is the problem of the vast majority if children being born to single moms while the men reject any responsibility. For some recent stats. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/ Edited January 7, 2016 by strappinglad
california boy Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 7 hours ago, jwhitlock said: SSM was the tipping point that caused full commitment in marriage to be officially discarded. This is the problem that I have with your attitudes towards gay marriage. CFR that gay marriage is a tipping point for straight marriages infidelity. Show me where gay marriage is causing straight marriages to be more promiscuous because of the behavior of some gay couples. What do you base this statement on? Gays hardly invented infidelity. 2
Gray Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, jwhitlock said: I've been clear that I support full fidelity in marriage. Is there some confusion on your part about it? That's certainly not what's being supported by the vast majority of gays, who expect that full commitment in marriage will be optional. I also support long term total commitment in marriage, something that is - believe it or not - rather common in normal marriages. It is, on the other hand, rather sparse in gay relationships in general, including SSM. SSM, by being defined as marriage, codifies full commitment as being optional, which is something that most straight people have not supported in normal marriage. Are you sure about a "vast majority"? What about lesbian couples? There are certainly a greater number of straight couples in open marriages than gay couples. And marital infidelity is pretty common in straight couples, which isn't really that different from the open marriage thing. Open marriage and gay marriage are two different subjects. To support one is not to automatically support the other, any more than supporting straight marriage means supporting adultery. Edited January 7, 2016 by Gray 1
Gray Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 17 hours ago, Danzo said: Are there churches out there that do that? Some, more every year, probably. Churches are only recently starting to accept gay marriage.
Gray Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: I am not sure accepting one bad practice to sustain something good is the best way to go. Assuming gay marriage is bad means that gay couples will not have the benefit of attending many churches.
mfbukowski Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 On 1/6/2016 at 4:32 AM, Gray said: Given all the bad behavior by straight couples, are you sure you realize what you're actually supporting? Or does bad behavior only count when it's gay people doing it? No just when people with bad behavior are trying to change the definition of good behavior. And incidentally I wanted to answer your post on a now closed thread My theory of truth is the same as Alma's and President Kimball, and many of the faculty at BYU. Is that "Mormon" enough for you? https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng 1
Gray Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: No just when people with bad behavior are trying to change the definition of good behavior. And incidentally I wanted to answer your post on a now closed thread My theory of truth is the same as Alma's and President Kimball, and many of the faculty at BYU. Is that "Mormon" enough for you? https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng I think you'll find very few people would advocate open marriage, no matter where they stand on gay marriage. Of course you can always cherry pick whichever talking heads you find most alarming to try to build a case, but they don't speak for anyone but themselves. This reminds me about all the rhetoric in the past that the civil rights movement was really a communist conspiracy. Forgive me, but I see no resemblance between President Kimball's concept of truth and your own. What views on truth do you think you hold in common? Edited January 7, 2016 by Gray
Danzo Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 32 minutes ago, Gray said: Some, more every year, probably. Churches are only recently starting to accept gay marriage. I know some accept gay marriage, what I am wondering is if those churches also strongly advocate for complete fidelity within those marriage.
Danzo Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 40 minutes ago, Gray said: There are certainly a greater number of straight couples in open marriages than gay couples. You talking percentages or absolute numbers? Any reference to that?
Recommended Posts