Same Sex Marriage Poll

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You can uphold the law of the land without approving of it.

In true Section 134 fashion!

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm curious how we do that?  Wouldn't upholding that gay marriage be legal, as in defending it, also mean you are approving it? 

 

I can acknowledge the legality of it without approving of it. To me, upholding means you don't do anything to violate the law. I don't intend to violate it.

That doesn't mean I defend it. I have spoken against it and will likely continue to do so on occasion.

Quote

 

or

Would you suggest that one can accept that it's a law (not because they are want to defend the institution, but because it is settled as law), but disapprove of that law? 

 

This is a fair statement of my position.

Quote

Would upholding this law suggest one is approving the reasons why it is law?  And, wouldn't that suggest upholding means one approves of it?

Not in the way I am using uphold.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In true Section 134 fashion!

Yes, that's a good guide.

[Duncan]

One thing about attraction to anyone, that I don't think is proper, is claiming revelation for someone else without their input or knowledge. Basically, "I got a revelation that you and I are supposed to be together and God said it so you buy the flowers and i'll get the cake" That can be said for everyone is the sexual spectrum. It happened last fall when my Mum's RS Pres. (now the Stake RS Pres and she's single, never married and maybe 60's) received "revelation" that her and one of the sister missionaries' in her her ward were going to together forever. When she told all the sisters in RS about this revelation my Mum said what if she doesn't want to be with you, nope she is going to be with me for eternity. I don't know if she told the sister missionary this, of whom she would have barely known anyways. Their are a legion of stories about guys getting revelation about girls they should marry, when the girl isn't so inclined to do so...........

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this. It came as no surprise to me that the Church would deem same-sex marriage on the part of its members as amounting to apostasy. I would have been surprised had the Church not taken that stance.

And despite the Supreme Court ruling two years ago, I still disapprove of the redefinition of marriage as being harmful to the institution of marriage as God-ordained it and as reaffirmed in "The Family: a Proclamation to the World."

I would refer everyone to the top two quotes in the signature of each of my posts.

It is interesting.  Back when the LDS members were want to redefine marriage to include women having multiple husbands and men having multiple wives, when outsiders disapproved, the disapprovers won out.  The Church, then, had to back down, and completely, eventually, did.  What was harmful about polygamy as practiced by early Latter-day Saints?  The Church couldn't defend itself well enough, it seems.  Harm seemed less the issue.  The position polygamy is immoral seemed to rule the day back 127 yearsish ago. 

I wonder if your view will ever be accepted as reasonable, again, and if we will therefore see good reason to really do some redefining of things.  As of now, it seems your view is growing more and more a minority.  Some might say because as your view has been considered far and wide it has been proven weak and useless.  Testing claims or ideas in the marketplace surely isn't perfect, though.  It just so happens that it is really the best we have.  With that said, what harm has come as a result of legalizing gay marriage?  I think that question will always remain out there, unaddressed as before.  And with it out there as long as it has been, the whole culture has been turned on it's head in a way.  The silence, or inability to articulate the perceived "problem" has been the very thing that has turned us all around.  The comparison is kind of funny though, because polygamy is not a necessity for heterosexuals to find loving relationships.  Back in say the 70s or 80s or 90s for that matter, there was far more out there accepting that gay marriage is immoral then today.  I'm curious if the silence in addressing the main question is that which has caused that change, as much as anything. 

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can acknowledge the legality of it without approving of it. To me, upholding means you don't do anything to violate the law. I don't intend to violate it.

That doesn't mean I defend it. I have spoken against it and will likely continue to do so on occasion.

This is a fair statement of my position.

Not in the way I am using uphold.

 

Ok.  I look up the word uphold and I'm not sure what you mean:

Dictionary.com:

Quote

verb (transitive) -holds, -holding, -held

1.

to maintain, affirm, or defend against opposition or challenge

2.

to give moral support or inspiration to

3.

(rare) to support physically

4.

to lift up

 

verb (used with object), upheld, upholding.

1.

to support or defend, as against opposition or criticism:

 

2.

to keep up or keep from sinking; support:

 

3.

to lift upward; raise:

 

4.

British.

1. to upholster.
2. to maintain in good condition; take care of.

 

Mirriam-websters:

Quote

Definition of uphold

upheld

play \(ˌ)əp-ˈheld\;

upholding

1. transitive verb

2. 1a :  to give support tob :  to support against an opponent

3. 2a :  to keep elevatedb :  to lift up

I hate to get all persnickety here, though.  So say it however you please.  It just makes me wonder what you mean, I guess. 

If upholding the law regarding same sex marriage does not mean to support it, but means you don't break it, what would be breaking it? 

Edited June 29, 2017 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  I look up the word uphold and I'm not sure what you mean:

Dictionary.com:

Mirriam-websters:

I hate to get all persnickety here, though.  So say it however you please.  It just makes me wonder what you mean, I guess. 

I've already explained what I mean, so there's really no need for you to wonder.

If it conflicts with some dictionary definitions, well, I guess that's my problem. I'm using uphold as a synonym for sustain. One online dictionary definition of sustain is "to admit as valid."

Edited June 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already explained what I mean, so there's really no need for you to wonder.

If it conflicts with some dictionary definitions, well, I guess that's my problem.

Ok.  So what would you consider to be violating the law regarding same sex marriage? 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It is interesting.  Back when the LDS members were want to redefine marriage to include women having multiple husbands and men having multiple wives, when outsiders disapproved, the disapprovers won out.  The Church, then, had to back down, and completely, eventually, did.  What was harmful about polygamy as practiced by early Latter-day Saints?  The Church couldn't defend itself well enough, it seems.  Harm seemed less the issue.  The position polygamy is immoral seemed to rule the day back 127 yearsish ago. 

 

Polygamy as practiced by early Mormons was not a redefinition of marriage. God had sanctioned plural marriage from Old Testament times, though He only ever allowed it conditionally and temporarily. It did conflict with the cultural norms of 19th century American society, but it was not a redefinition. Same-sex "marriage," on the other hand, is a redefinition. There has never been a time in recorded history when it was accepted before.

Quote

I wonder if your view will ever be accepted as reasonable, again, and if we will therefore see good reason to really do some redefining of things.  As of now, it seems your view is growing more and more a minority. 

Danial Peterson had an interesting blog post on this yesterday. Here is a relevant excerpt:
 

Quote

 

Attitudes toward same-sex “marriage” are changing dramatically now, in the aftermath of Justice Kennedy’s decision in the Obergefell case.  Whether for good or ill continues to be a matter of disagreement, though my side is, quite clearly, now in the minority.

 

Those who support same-sex marriage will, of course, be delighted at the change.  But we should all take warning that, given the law’s teaching power, changes in law should be carefully weighed.  Obviously, it can teach for bad as well as for good.  (Very few today, I trust, would support the Nazis’ anti-Jewish laws or American laws enacting racial segregation.)

 

One lesson that should probably not be drawn is that young people are always better and wiser than old people — if you’re tempted to think so, consider the Hitlerjugend, Mao’s Red Guards, and the child soldiers of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge — or that the march toward the future is, on the whole, an inevitable march toward the better.  Change can be good or bad.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  So what would you consider to be violating the law regarding same sex marriage? 

Never really thought about it. Since I don't intend to violate the law, there's not much use in my considering how I might do it.

I suppose one way would be to deny benefits -- if one were in a position to do so -- to a same-sex "married" couple to which they were legally entitled.

 

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It is interesting.  Back when the LDS members were want to redefine marriage to include women having multiple husbands and men having multiple wives, when outsiders disapproved, the disapprovers won out.

Changing a legal definition is one thing and holding to a religious definition is another. Wanting to redefine (which is not what the LDS were doing, but rather adding spouses as already legally permitted) and legally succeeding in that redefinition are two different things also.

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  I look up the word uphold and I'm not sure what you mean:

I think the latter-day scriptures see the befriending of the U.S. Constitution (D&C 98:5-6) as the first tier of law to be upheld and the basis for upholding the government (D&C 134:6) and “obeying, honoring and sustaining the law” as the second tier of law, being created under and by the constitutional government (AoF 12). If we disagree with the laws they enact (which is perfectly permissible in “holding sacred the freedom of conscience”), we uphold the constitutional process by obeying them and seeking change through legitimate means.

[thesometimesaint]

I think we get ourselves into trouble when we try to use God as an excuse for doing something.

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Polygamy as practiced by early Mormons was not a redefinition of marriage. God had sanctioned plural marriage from Old Testament times, though He only ever allowed it conditionally and temporarily. It did conflict with the cultural norms of 19th century American society, but it was not a redefinition. Same-sex "marriage," on the other hand, is a redefinition. There has never been a time in recorded history when it was accepted before.

I disagree.  Was marriage in Joseph Smith's day and culture not a monogamous union between man and woman?  I think it was.  To add to that that marriage was also many such unions between many women and men (thus both men and women were simultaneously married to more than one spouse)
 is a redefinition.  It doesn't matter if polygamy was practiced at some points in history or not, it was still, clearly, a redefinition.  We know that because it was illegal--the definition of what was terms polygamy was spelled out as illegal.  If it weren't a redefinition as you suggest, then there'd be no way to spell out the definition of polygamy (different than what was considered marriage in Joseph's day - monogamous unions) as illegal. 

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Danial Peterson had an interesting blog post on this yesterday. Here is a relevant excerpt:
 

Quote

Attitudes toward same-sex “marriage” are changing dramatically now, in the aftermath of Justice Kennedy’s decision in the Obergefell case.  Whether for good or ill continues to be a matter of disagreement, though my side is, quite clearly, now in the minority.

 

Those who support same-sex marriage will, of course, be delighted at the change.  But we should all take warning that, given the law’s teaching power, changes in law should be carefully weighed.  Obviously, it can teach for bad as well as for good.  (Very few today, I trust, would support the Nazis’ anti-Jewish laws or American laws enacting racial segregation.)

 

One lesson that should probably not be drawn is that young people are always better and wiser than old people — if you’re tempted to think so, consider the Hitlerjugend, Mao’s Red Guards, and the child soldiers of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge — or that the march toward the future is, on the whole, an inevitable march toward the better.  Change can be good or bad.

 

Yes, I agree, change can be good or bad.  I guess saying it is bad, also, does not mean it is bad, though.  The Church's effort to stop Equal rights work perhaps held the same reasoning--change is not always good.  But as it turns out change inevitably must happen, in some cases, and good sometimes results.  The problem for you side, is, of course, you weren't able to express how there is harm to the institute of marriage before it was legal and you can't demonstrate that there has been anything harmful since it's been made legal.  Right?  So, perhaps your concern that this change is bad, is not something to be concerned with at all.  Perhaps, as has been the case many times in the past, those who oppose certain changes were wrong. 

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Changing a legal definition is one thing and holding to a religious definition is another. Wanting to redefine (which is not what the LDS were doing, but rather adding spouses as already legally permitted) and legally succeeding in that redefinition are two different things also.

Sure. The 19 Century Church was not able to succeed in getting polygamy, a redefinition of what was marriage in their day and culture, legal. 

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the latter-day scriptures see the befriending of the U.S. Constitution (D&C 98:5-6) as the first tier of law to be upheld and the basis for upholding the government (D&C 134:6) and “obeying, honoring and sustaining the law” as the second tier of law, being created under and by the constitutional government (AoF 12). If we disagree with the laws they enact (which is perfectly permissible in “holding sacred the freedom of conscience”), we uphold the constitutional process by obeying them and seeking change through legitimate means.

I'd agree.  So if we, or any one of us, disagrees with a law (like making SSM legal) we should not uphold that law, but seek to change it, I would think.  Thus, all my confusion. 

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure. The 19 Century Church was not able to succeed in getting polygamy, a redefinition of what was marriage in their day and culture, legal. 

I'd agree.  So if we, or any one of us, disagrees with a law (like making SSM legal) we should not uphold that law, but seek to change it, I would think.  Thus, all my confusion. 

I am going to ask you for a reference that shows the LDS Church was seeking a constitutional redefinition of marriage and not just legal protection for the freedom of religion and religious expression in the practice of plural marriage.

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think we get ourselves into trouble when we try to use God as an excuse for doing something.

I think people who use God as an excuse are in trouble already--that is only a symptom!

I think we obviously get in trouble when we obey God, but the faithful don't shrink from it.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am going to ask you for a reference that shows the LDS Church was seeking a constitutional redefinition of marriage and not just legal protection for the freedom of religion and religious expression in the practice of plural marriage.

I didn't comment on what the LDS Church was seeking in this.  I simply suggested the law didn't change, and thus the definition of polygamy (different than what was defined as marriage back then) was illegal and remained illegal.  The Church was not able, whether it tried or not, able to get the definition of marriage changed.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I disagree.  Was marriage in Joseph Smith's day and culture not a monogamous union between man and woman?  I think it was.  To add to that that marriage was also many such unions between many women and men (thus both men and women were simultaneously married to more than one spouse)
 is a redefinition.  It doesn't matter if polygamy was practiced at some points in history or not, it was still, clearly, a redefinition.  We know that because it was illegal--the definition of what was terms polygamy was spelled out as illegal.  If it weren't a redefinition as you suggest, then there'd be no way to spell out the definition of polygamy (different than what was considered marriage in Joseph's day - monogamous unions) as illegal. 

 

Marriage was not invented in 19th century American culture. It had already existed for many centuries, and, for much of that time and in many cultures, included polygamy. For you to say that it as a redefinition because people in Jacksonian America didn't like it is a myopic perspective indeed.

Quote

Yes, I agree, change can be good or bad.  I guess saying it is bad, also, does not mean it is bad, though.  The Church's effort to stop Equal rights work perhaps held the same reasoning--change is not always good.  But as it turns out change inevitably must happen, in some cases, and good sometimes results.  The problem for you side, is, of course, you weren't able to express how there is harm to the institute of marriage before it was legal and you can't demonstrate that there has been anything harmful since it's been made legal.  Right?  So, perhaps your concern that this change is bad, is not something to be concerned with at all.  Perhaps, as has been the case many times in the past, those who oppose certain changes were wrong. 

i'm convinced it is harmful and society will eventually reap the whirlwind for its folly. But I'm powerless to do anything about it now as pertains to secular society.

However, I can and do support the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ in saying that marriage redefinition must not be embraced in the Savior's Church.

 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Marriage was not invented in 19th century American culture. It had already existed for many centuries, and, for much of that time and in many cultures, included polygamy. For you to say that it as a redefinition because people in Jacksonian America didn't like it is a myopic perspective indeed.

I'm not convinced at all.  Marriage back then was between a man and a woman, not a woman and many men nor a man and many women.  This has nothing to do with whether 19th century America invented the definition of the word.  It has to do with what they used the word to mean.  They did not use it to mean polygamy, obviously.   

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

i'm convinced it is harmful and society will eventually reap the whirlwind for its folly. But I'm powerless to do anything about it now as pertains to secular society.

However, I can and do support the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ in saying that marriage redefinition must not be embraced in the Savior's Church.

 

And you can assume whatever you like.  That certainly doesn't mean you are right.  The problem seems to be not that it became legal, but that that those who opposed it becoming legal were unable to keep the majority of people convinced as the issue ran it's course through the market place of ideas.  And, as it turns out, despite the heavy bias put in by societies past reason wins out in the long run. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Polygamy as practiced by early Mormons was not a redefinition of marriage. God had sanctioned plural marriage from Old Testament times, though He only ever allowed it conditionally and temporarily. It did conflict with the cultural norms of 19th century American society, but it was not a redefinition. Same-sex "marriage," on the other hand, is a redefinition. There has never been a time in recorded history when it was accepted before.

Danial Peterson had an interesting blog post on this yesterday. Here is a relevant excerpt:
 

 

Really?  When did God allow men to marry other men's wives?  Since you are relying on the Old Testament for your belief, can you point to a scripture where God told his prophets to marry other men's wives?  

I would say Joseph Smith redefined marriage in a way that had never been done before that I am aware of.  And he certainly redefined marriage in the United States.  

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't comment on what the LDS Church was seeking in this.  I simply suggested the law didn't change, and thus the definition of polygamy (different than what was defined as marriage back then) was illegal and remained illegal.  The Church was not able, whether it tried or not, able to get the definition of marriage changed.

So if anything, the Church was seeking to legalize plural marriage in the interests of protecting religious freedom, not defining the constitutional right for men and women to marry. Decriminalization is not redefinition.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So if anything, the Church was seeking to legalize plural marriage in the interests of protecting religious freedom, not defining the constitutional right for men and women to marry. Decriminalization is not redefinition.

Perhaps so.  But we're kidding ourselves if the majority of 19 Century America would not have seen a redefinition of marriage if polygamy was going to be marriage allowed by law. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps so.  But we're kidding ourselves if the majority of 19 Century America would not have seen a redefinition of marriage if polygamy was going to be marriage allowed by law. 

Of course... if, if, if... and then again probably not; we're kidding ourselves if we think the majority wouldn't have seen the decriminalization of polygamy not as a valid expression of religious freedom, but in terms of an opposing religious (sectarian) morality and visceral common-sense decency -- no time for this legal redefinition rebuttal nonsense... And they were far more vicious in expressing their disagreement, LOL No more sense in wondering how they would have perceived ssm.

Edited June 29, 2017 by CV75

[Jude2]

What do you mean by support? I believe it is scripturally and temple covenant wrong however I'm not going to tear someone out of their bed room or etc. Etc.

 What I really feel is deep down wrong and extremely selfish are gay couples deliberately adopting babies or creating babies to raise without a mother or father; two women getting pregnant with donated sperm or two men finding a womb to borrow. That has got to be one of the most selfish acts there can be, they are only thinking of themselves and not the needs of the child. The first woman a little boy knows is his mother who feeds him at her breast, a gay couple can't give that experience to a baby. A father teaches a little girl to respect herself, the way a father treats a little girl's mother teaches her how a boy should treat her. Father's teach their children to respect their mother and lest mine did. All he had to say was Do What Your Mom Said! and we all jumped.   They are not forming a real family but a mock image of it, ok throw something at me but that is the truth. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Really?  When did God allow men to marry other men's wives?  Since you are relying on the Old Testament for your belief, can you point to a scripture where God told his prophets to marry other men's wives?  

I would say Joseph Smith redefined marriage in a way that had never been done before that I am aware of.  And he certainly redefined marriage in the United States.  

I think you're missing some of nuances of what went on, and haven't given it a very respectful representation, but the answers to your questions are found in the D&C.

Joseph Smith did not seek to legally redefine marriage, only to practice according to his religious conscience. In the decades after his death, the Church certainly sought constitutional protection for her members' religious freedom to practice plural marriage, which likely entailed decriminalizing religious polygamy. But never was it about the constitutional right for a man and woman to marry.