Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?

[McCulloch]

I don't think gay marriage is immoral by any means, I just oppose it because I support traditional family values.

But gay marriage does not harm nor does it challenge traditional family values. I don't want to close down the Indian restaurant up the road because I like Italian food.

It challenges the future of the nuclear family, which is generally one mother and one father and a # of children. Anything that does not include these factors (such as single motherhood, foster homes, divorces, and gay marriage) should be avoided in order to preserve traditional family values.

Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?
Are Traditional Family Values in any danger of not being preserved?

[dianaiad]

<snip>
You are "slippery sloping" here where it need not apply. Where churches are not receiving public funding they are free to discriminate against whomever they choose.

Oh, please tell that to someone who isn't a Mormon, 'K? We know better. Been there, done that, using the T-shirt to clean paint brushes. In fact, the government is quite good at going after churches that don't toe the government line.

<I mean, really, all this fuss over a word?

Well, if it's not that important, why do gay couples, who HAVE all the civil rights of married couples in California, insist upon marriage? The word seems pretty important to them....and the importance isn't in 'equal rights,' either, because they have those.

The importance is the forced cultural and religious approval of their relationships. It's not what they have in and of themselves, legally. It's acceptance and approval; they want to force those who honestly do not see homosexual relationships as true marriages to publically acknowledge that they ARE.

I can't do that.

I can't say that 'some of my best friends are gay,' though I do have gay friends. I have absolutely no problem with living next door to them, entrusting my children to them, having them over for dinner or eating at their homes--of rejoicing with them when they adopt a child or (in the case of one of my favorite pair of people) both get pregnant at the same time. Of course, in the latter case I thought they were both absolutely freakin' nuts, but that was for practical, not moral, reasons.

It is because I honestly feel that they have the right to the same legal protections for their relationships that I had for my marriage that I think the way to fix it is...not to deny them, but to, in a very real way, deny me. That is, make 'marriage'
something that is strictly personal and religious, and all the legal stuff--something legal and contractual.

We all win, that way.

The way everybody is fighting it now? We all lose.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 31:

You are "slippery sloping" here where it need not apply. Where churches are not receiving public funding they are free to discriminate against whomever they choose.

Oh, please tell that to someone who isn't a Mormon, 'K? We know better. Been there, done that, using the T-shirt to clean paint brushes. In fact, the government is quite good at going after churches that don't toe the government line.

I would think one who complains about encroachment on their religious beliefs would be reticent to enforce their beliefs onto others (by stripping a commonly, and culturally understood word from the government's lexicon).

I mean, really, all this fuss over a word?

Well, if it's not that important, why do gay couples, who HAVE all the civil rights of married couples in California, insist upon marriage? The word seems pretty important to them....and the importance isn't in 'equal rights,' either, because they have those.

This says nothing about the federal government enacting laws that disallow gay marriages. Nor does it address an attempt to remove a common word from the government lexicon because you disapprove of its use when applied to homosexual unions.

The word is already in use. Why should we toss it as a term when it is so well understood?

The importance is the forced cultural and religious approval of their relationships. It's not what they have in and of themselves, legally. It's acceptance and approval; they want to force those who honestly do not see homosexual relationships as true marriages to publically acknowledge that they ARE.

Do you not understand you are "forcing" your "cultural and religious approval" when you seek to remove a commonly recognized word from the government lexicon?

I can't say that 'some of my best friends are gay,' though I do have gay friends. I have absolutely no problem with living next door to them, entrusting my children to them, having them over for dinner or eating at their homes--of rejoicing with them when they adopt a child or (in the case of one of my favorite pair of people) both get pregnant at the same time. Of course, in the latter case I thought they were both absolutely freakin' nuts, but that was for practical, not moral, reasons.

That's mighty big of you.

It is because I honestly feel that they have the right to the same legal protections for their relationships that I had for my marriage that I think the way to fix it is...not to deny them, but to, in a very real way, deny me. That is, make 'marriage'

Notice here, you are perfectly happy calling your union a "marriage", but would ostensibly deny this right to others (as you state the term should be stricken now that homosexuals want in on it).

How does the government recognizing homosexual unions as a "marriage" deny you the right to not accept those unions?

We all win, that way.

The way everybody is fighting it now? We all lose.

Don't we all lose if we ask the government to remove a commonly understood word from its lexicon?

Now, as to points dianaiad has skipped from the referenced post...

I am suggesting that ALL relationships sanctioned by the government that are now called 'marriage' be termed 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts' or whatever. That means not just gays, but straight people, too. Everybody has the same precise contractual and civil rights.

That is exactly what I object to. The term marriage has cultural significance, and many homosexuals seek marriage, not a "civil union", not a "civil contract". You are ostensibly denying them this term (which the government currently finds plenty acceptable for heterosexuals) because you object to its use when applied to homosexual unions.

The problem here is that - if I may put words in your mouth - the term "marriage" is fine, until homosexuals seek to use the term, then it should be stricken from our government's lexicon.

If, as you say or imply, you have no problem with homosexuals calling their unions marriage, why do you object to the government recognizing these unions for what homosexuals would call them?

I (and I trust the observer) notice there was no attempt to address my point here.

Refer to your partner as your spouse. G'head. All I want to do is to keep y'all out of MY religious business. I do not want to see some gay couple suing my faith (or anybody else's) for discrimination because, guess what, the rules for working for a church owned business include being married according to the rules of the church you are getting paid by.

Do you not understand that when you ask the government to not use a term because you have religious objections, it is YOU who starts getting into other folks' "religious business"?

What of a religion that accepts homosexual unions as marriages, are you not interferring with their "religious business" when you ask the government to remove that term (where that religion would be asking the government to keep such language)?

I (and I trust the observer) notice there was no attempt to address the points here.

[TheLibertarian]

I wonder if she'd have felt the same way when the Mormons were persecuted for introducing polygamy into American cultural life? But of course not. That might require her to examine the plank in her own eye.

[dianaiad]

From Post 31:

You are "slippery sloping" here where it need not apply. Where churches are not receiving public funding they are free to discriminate against whomever they choose.

Oh, please tell that to someone who isn't a Mormon, 'K? We know better. Been there, done that, using the T-shirt to clean paint brushes. In fact, the government is quite good at going after churches that don't toe the government line.

I would think one who complains about encroachment on their religious beliefs would be reticent to enforce their beliefs onto others (by stripping a commonly, and culturally understood word from the government's lexicon).

I mean, really, all this fuss over a word?

Well, if it's not that important, why do gay couples, who HAVE all the civil rights of married couples in California, insist upon marriage? The word seems pretty important to them....and the importance isn't in 'equal rights,' either, because they have those.

This says nothing about the federal government enacting laws that disallow gay marriages. Nor does it address an attempt to remove a common word from the government lexicon because you disapprove of its use when applied to homosexual unions.

The word is already in use. Why should we toss it as a term when it is so well understood?

"well understood?" By whatset of logical processes do you come to the conclusion that this is 'well understood,' when the entire fight is about how differently people DO understand the meaning?

The importance is the forced cultural and religious approval of their relationships. It's not what they have in and of themselves, legally. It's acceptance and approval; they want to force those who honestly do not see homosexual relationships as true marriages to publically acknowledge that they ARE.

Do you not understand you are "forcing" your "cultural and religious approval" when you seek to remove a commonly recognized word from the government lexicon?

Nope. I simply propose to even the playing field, so that everybody can have both the civil rights...AND the right to call themselves 'married' if they wish, according to their own beliefs and inclinations, while leaving others the freedom to define marriage according to their own ideals. Everybody wins. Gays and straights get the rights AND the marriages--and nobody is forced to change their doctrine and beliefs to accomodate someone ELSE'S opinion. Fair enough for everybody, I think.

I can't say that 'some of my best friends are gay,' though I do have gay friends. I have absolutely no problem with living next door to them, entrusting my children to them, having them over for dinner or eating at their homes--of rejoicing with them when they adopt a child or (in the case of one of my favorite pair of people) both get pregnant at the same time. Of course, in the latter case I thought they were both absolutely freakin' nuts, but that was for practical, not moral, reasons.

That's mighty big of you.

What, you think it would be more comfortable for you if I planted 'God hates you" in their front yards?

The point is, m'friend, I'm not trying to get them to live my way, or believe my way, or accept my lifestyle as admirable and acceptable, or to change the way they worship/describe/treat others because I want them to.

But you are trying to do that to me. I'm simply proposing an idea that would fix the problem. In fact, the only people, I notice, who dislike it are those who are looking, not for equality, but for...I don't know...revenge? They don't want legal equality; they want to be theologically vindicated and accepted.

Well, there are many religious faiths out there who do accept them theologically. They can't have everything...they will have to accept equality and be happy with that.

It is because I honestly feel that they have the right to the same legal protections for their relationships that I had for my marriage that I think the way to fix it is...not to deny them, but to, in a very real way, deny me. That is, make 'marriage'

Notice here, you are perfectly happy calling your union a "marriage", but would ostensibly deny this right to others (as you state the term should be stricken now that homosexuals want in on it).

Of course. I did mention that in my religion 'marriage' can only be between members of the opposite sex, right? I CANNOT accept that homosexual unions are 'marriage' as defined by God. In fact, this is so ingrained in the basic doctrine of my beliefs that it's a rather prominant aspect of salvation for us. Marriage is eternal, it's between members of the opposite sex, and homosexual relationships don't qualify. Not so much because they are sinful (sin requires a knowledge that one is sinning, after all), but because they simply don't fit the definition for us. IT's the old 'you can call a cat a dog all you want to, but it's still going to go meow and have retractable claws." A cat is not a canine, and a homosexual relationship is not a marriage, by definition, for us.

For US. That doesn't mean that I think that because *I* do not believe that these relationships are 'marriage,' that they cannot be a; afforded equal civil rights and b: be married according to their own beliefs. What must not happen, though, is that we be forced to recognize, in any official way, their marriage as we define marriage to be.

And THAT, sir, is what will happen. It's what lawsuits are in the wings already attempting to force.

How does the government recognizing homosexual unions as a "marriage" deny you the right to not accept those unions?

It does so by suddenly making certain requirements for, oh...employment and housing illegal, for one thing--and you can be certain that gay rights organizations will sue.
...and boy, is their agenda obvious! For instance, just recently the CoJCoLDS came out publically in SUPPORT of an anti-discrimination law adding 'sexual orientation' to the list of people it is illegal to discriminate against in terms of housing....and gay rights advocates are absolutely in full bore critical mode against the church for doing so. Article after article go on and on about how the church has to be forced to accept gay marriage within employment/church culture. One group even wants to sue to force the church to allow gays to marry in the Temple, since once marriage is considered to include gay couples, then LDS gays who qualify in all other ways MUST be allowed full access--since of course anything less would be illegal discrimination.

My proposal would prevent that...while allowing gays to have the civil rights AND the right to be married--just not by us.

We all win, that way.

The way everybody is fighting it now? We all lose.

Don't we all lose if we ask the government to remove a commonly understood word from its lexicon?

It would be...if indeed the word WERE 'commonly understood.' Evidently it isn't, since it is a minority which seeks to redefine it.

Now, as to points dianaiad has skipped from the referenced post...

I am suggesting that ALL relationships sanctioned by the government that are now called 'marriage' be termed 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts' or whatever. That means not just gays, but straight people, too. Everybody has the same precise contractual and civil rights.

That is exactly what I object to. The term marriage has cultural significance, and many homosexuals seek marriage, not a "civil union", not a "civil contract". You are ostensibly denying them this term (which the government currently finds plenty acceptable for heterosexuals) because you object to its use when applied to homosexual unions.

I have the right to answer, or not answer, any point I wish in any post, m'friend. As to this, I did answer it; that you didn't like the answer is not the same thing as my not addressing it.

The fact is, the vast majority of Americans commonly understand that the term 'marriage' pertains to unions between members of the opposite sexes. Which means that the 'common understanding' of the term is not being changed by me, but by the minority that wishes now, against all tradition and custom, to be included in it. The common understanding doesn't include gay couples...has never included gay couples, and the resistance to including gay couples now does not reflect MY wish to change things.

The problem here is that - if I may put words in your mouth - the term "marriage" is fine, until homosexuals seek to use the term, then it should be stricken from our government's lexicon.

It's a way to get everybody what they want, yes.

If, as you say or imply, you have no problem with homosexuals calling their unions marriage, why do you object to the government recognizing these unions for what homosexuals would call them?

The power of government regulation.

I (and I trust the observer) notice there was no attempt to address my point here.

I addressed it. As I said, that you didn't like the way I did it doesn't mean the answer was invisible.

Refer to your partner as your spouse. G'head. All I want to do is to keep y'all out of MY religious business. I do not want to see some gay couple suing my faith (or anybody else's) for discrimination because, guess what, the rules for working for a church owned business include being married according to the rules of the church you are getting paid by.

Do you not understand that when you ask the government to not use a term because you have religious objections, it is YOU who starts getting into other folks' "religious business"?

Nope. Please note: I'm not asking anybody else to abide by my rules. I'm simply proposing a way that allows all parties to the conflict to win. Frankly, those that object to this idea seem to have gone past the desire to have equal civil rights and the right to marry; they don't want merely to win; they wish their opponents to LOSE. I see this here in your argument.

What of a religion that accepts homosexual unions as marriages, are you not interferring with their "religious business" when you ask the government to remove that term (where that religion would be asking the government to keep such language)?

How in the world would I be doing that? It doesn't affect them in any way. They may continue to perform marriages for gay couples...and accept those marriages as valid under God. What they cannot do is force ME to recognize those marriages as valid under God. The only thing my proposal would do is make the civil and legal rights of such unions (and for the unions of members of the opposite sex, as well) the purview of the government alone, so that...rather like they do in England and France now...all couples who wish to marry must be civilly joined first, and then have a religious ceremony.

It simply separates the legal from the religious--and solves the whole mess.

I (and I trust the observer) notice there was no attempt to address the points here.

Well, perhaps you noticed it, but I don't think any observer but you did, because of course those points were addressed.

[TheLibertarian]

What people have to realize is that, under the Mormon conception of things, marriage is every bit a 'sacred' institution. So sacred is it, in fact, that after death a Mormon man expects to be given his own planet somewhere in outer space by Jehovah to reign over for eternity, along with a harem of women to rule alongside him. They may pretend to be monogamous in this life, but Kingdom come and there will be free love for everyone. But gay marriage would ruin this conception - imagine, if you will, a spiritual polygamist marriage made up only of men. Who would dominate? Who submit?

Which is why it's so of the essence that they fight and defeat gay marriage. If two men were permitted to marry, it destroys the entire theological structure of these celestial marriages of theirs. And so diana is quite right when she says that

I CANNOT accept that homosexual unions are 'marriage' as defined by God. In fact, this is so ingrained in the basic doctrine of my beliefs that it's a rather prominant aspect of salvation for us. Marriage is eternal, it's between members of the opposite sex, and homosexual relationships don't qualify.

For a Mormon, marriage most certainly is eternal. In point of fact, in the afterlife, it is polygamous marriage that will be eternal.

[nygreenguy]

,snip to here> If I was gay and I decided to marry me a handsome feller there, and we were both religious folks, what then of "only religious folks should use the term"? Would it be like how in the Army you only hafta call a Warrant Officer "sir" once a day? Would we be able to tell folks we were "married" when we first speak to them, and thereafter would be required to use some other term you, dianaid find less offensive?

I don't think you understand my proposal in this area.

I am suggesting that ALL relationships sanctioned by the government that are now called 'marriage' be termed 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts' or whatever. That means not just gays, but straight people, too. Everybody has the same precise contractual and civil rights.

Wonderful idea. That will happen when pigs fly. Hell might (and will) freeze over first, because Michigan is very cold in the winter

I also agree its a great idea. Marriage should be a totally religions issue, because it is. The legal aspect should only be civil unions and be granted to any 2 people.

[TheLibertarian]

,snip to here> If I was gay and I decided to marry me a handsome feller there, and we were both religious folks, what then of "only religious folks should use the term"? Would it be like how in the Army you only hafta call a Warrant Officer "sir" once a day? Would we be able to tell folks we were "married" when we first speak to them, and thereafter would be required to use some other term you, dianaid find less offensive?

I don't think you understand my proposal in this area.

I am suggesting that ALL relationships sanctioned by the government that are now called 'marriage' be termed 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts' or whatever. That means not just gays, but straight people, too. Everybody has the same precise contractual and civil rights.

Wonderful idea. That will happen when pigs fly. Hell might (and will) freeze over first, because Michigan is very cold in the winter

I also agree its a great idea. Marriage should be a totally religions issue, because it is. The legal aspect should only be civil unions and be granted to any 2 people.

Why do you fail to mention the fact that there are already religious institutions which embrace gay marriage, and so defeat her at her own game?

[dianaiad]

What people have to realize is that, under the Mormon conception of things, marriage is every bit a 'sacred' institution. So sacred is it, in fact, that after death a Mormon man expects to be given his own planet somewhere in outer space by Jehovah to reign over for eternity, along with a harem of women to rule alongside him. They may pretend to be monogamous in this life, but Kingdom come and there will be free love for everyone. But gay marriage would ruin this conception - imagine, if you will, a spiritual polygamist marriage made up only of men. Who would dominate? Who submit?

Which is why it's so of the essence that they fight and defeat gay marriage. If two men were permitted to marry, it destroys the entire theological structure of these celestial marriages of theirs. And so diana is quite right when she says that

I CANNOT accept that homosexual unions are 'marriage' as defined by God. In fact, this is so ingrained in the basic doctrine of my beliefs that it's a rather prominant aspect of salvation for us. Marriage is eternal, it's between members of the opposite sex, and homosexual relationships don't qualify.

For a Mormon, marriage most certainly is eternal. In point of fact, in the afterlife, it is polygamous marriage that will be eternal.

(grin)

Y'know, I really hate doing this, because of course this poster is actually, in a way, supporting me. Sort of.

The problem is that his first paragraph is somewhat on the....incorrect...side. We don't actually believe that "...[a]Mormon man expects to be given his own planet somewhere in outer space by Jehovah to reign over for eternity, along with a harem of women to rule alongside him." I know, I know...it ruins the whole National Enquirer fun of the thing, but, well....we don't.

Sorry.

Diana

[dianaiad]

,snip to here> If I was gay and I decided to marry me a handsome feller there, and we were both religious folks, what then of "only religious folks should use the term"? Would it be like how in the Army you only hafta call a Warrant Officer "sir" once a day? Would we be able to tell folks we were "married" when we first speak to them, and thereafter would be required to use some other term you, dianaid find less offensive?

I don't think you understand my proposal in this area.

I am suggesting that ALL relationships sanctioned by the government that are now called 'marriage' be termed 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts' or whatever. That means not just gays, but straight people, too. Everybody has the same precise contractual and civil rights.

Wonderful idea. That will happen when pigs fly. Hell might (and will) freeze over first, because Michigan is very cold in the winter

I also agree its a great idea. Marriage should be a totally religions issue, because it is. The legal aspect should only be civil unions and be granted to any 2 people.

That's exactly right...though if this is strictly a legal thing, one MIGHT make allowances for more than two, as long as the contractual relationships are made very clear. There is, after all, no legal reason to limit this to two, is there? Shoot, I know of one woman who lives with two men...they've been a 'group' for nearly ten years now, and are quite happy with the situation.

Taking religion right out of the mix, what's wrong with allowing THEM contractual and legal protections for a relationship that obviously works for them?

[dianaiad]

,snip to here> If I was gay and I decided to marry me a handsome feller there, and we were both religious folks, what then of "only religious folks should use the term"? Would it be like how in the Army you only hafta call a Warrant Officer "sir" once a day? Would we be able to tell folks we were "married" when we first speak to them, and thereafter would be required to use some other term you, dianaid find less offensive?

I don't think you understand my proposal in this area.

I am suggesting that ALL relationships sanctioned by the government that are now called 'marriage' be termed 'civil unions' or 'civil contracts' or whatever. That means not just gays, but straight people, too. Everybody has the same precise contractual and civil rights.

Wonderful idea. That will happen when pigs fly. Hell might (and will) freeze over first, because Michigan is very cold in the winter

I also agree its a great idea. Marriage should be a totally religions issue, because it is. The legal aspect should only be civil unions and be granted to any 2 people.

Why do you fail to mention the fact that there are already religious institutions which embrace gay marriage, and so defeat her at her own game?

How in the world would that 'defeat' me? All my proposal would do is support them in this.