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?

[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.

(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

But, well, y'know, you sort of do. After all, how is a man going to continue his family as a 'spirit child' if he's not allowed to take every one of his wives with him?

I would actually have rather the Mormons not have entirely sanitized their religion just to get Utah admitted as a State. It makes the whole thing so much less exciting.

[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?

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

Not even remotely. Your proposal, if followed through upon, would deprive them of their ability to conduct a legal marriage, and all because Joseph Smith preferred polygamy to faggotry (not that it stopped him as a youth, mind). What you're doing is screaming like a red-faced child, "if I can't have it, no one will!". Which is typical Mormon behavior, given how you all reacted to the federalization of Utah's gold mines. Still.

[Kuan]

,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.

Not even remotely. Your proposal, if followed through upon, would deprive them of their ability to conduct a legal marriage, and all because Joseph Smith preferred polygamy to faggotry (not that it stopped him as a youth, mind). What you're doing is screaming like a red-faced child, "if I can't have it, no one will!". Which is typical Mormon behavior, given how you all reacted to the federalization of Utah's gold mines. Still.

Thats not even close. We are not saying give the gays civil unions and we will keep marriage, we are saying give everyone civil unions. It doesnt matter all it is, is a word.

[TheLibertarian]

Thats not even close. We are not saying give the gays civil unions and we will keep marriage, we are saying give everyone civil unions. It doesnt matter all it is, is a word.

No; you are trying to monopolize marriage, but you're too cowardly - in the guise of political correctness - to say what you actually mean. But I am not. If our law had any basis in reason, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would have have been outlawed decades ago, and Utah invaded by the United States military and subsequently razed to the ground. Barring such a divine state of affairs, you will have yourselves to learn to live in a world of varying opinions, not all of which are derived from the ramblings of a failed Yankee soothsayer. Among those opinions are those of religious institutions far more venerable than your cult - I speak, for instance, of Christian denominations not founded upon the basis of Mammon worship, such as the Quakers - who actually believe in human liberty and who wish strongly to conduct marriage. You have no right - none at all - to deprive your betters of their deeply-held sacred institutions to feel better about the gradual failure of your own.

[Kuan]

Thats not even close. We are not saying give the gays civil unions and we will keep marriage, we are saying give everyone civil unions. It doesnt matter all it is, is a word.

No; you are trying to monopolize marriage, but you're too cowardly - in the guise of political correctness - to say what you actually mean. But I am not. If our law had any basis in reason, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would have have been outlawed decades ago, and Utah invaded by the United States military and subsequently razed to the ground. Barring such a divine state of affairs, you will have yourselves to learn to live in a world of varying opinions, not all of which are derived from the ramblings of a failed Yankee soothsayer. Among those opinions are those of religious institutions far more venerable than your cult - I speak, for instance, of Christian denominations not founded upon the basis of Mammon worship, such as the Quakers - who actually believe in human liberty and who wish strongly to conduct marriage. You have no right - none at all - to deprive your betters of their deeply-held sacred institutions to feel better about the gradual failure of your own.

What does monopolizing marriage even do and why would anyone want to do that?
Fine, everyone gets married in "marriage" then religious groups can do civil unions. I dont really care what it is called. Isn't the freedom of religion guaranteed under the constitution? We are living in a world of varying opinions and we hold our own beliefs. We arent forcing them on you, but we are not going to change how we belief because someone wants to murder us and deprive us of our rights. We are not depriving anyone either, I dont care if all the gays got married, good for them. They are happy. What I dont want is someone like you barging through my door and forcing us to contract gay marriages. Also, could you explain how "mormonism" is mammon worship?

Also, you still keep referring to us as a cult but have yet to prove us as a cult.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 34:

I'll be snipping some side issues, but want to acknowledge that just because I don't think a given point was addressed does not mean dianaiad didn't do just that.

The word [marriage] 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 fact folks use it, and it is found in many dictionaries indicates the term is understood - though admittedly folks have different perspectives regarding what actually constitutes a marriage. I'll retract the "well" part of "well understood", as I agree it is rather subjective.

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.

Though you apparently have no problem with forcing folks to accomodate your opinion.

...
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.

You are, however, asking the government to strike a readily usable term from its lexicon.

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.

How is my support of a term an infringement on your right to reject the definition of that term?

I'm not gay, I've no need to seek revenge in this regard.

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.

How is reserving a term for a favored group equality?

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.
...

And therein lies the rub. You base your rejection of the use of a term on a god you can't show exists having an opinion you can't show it has.

I won't bother with the theology, as it is built on an unproven assumption.

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."

I read that to mean, "And we refuse to allow anyone else to use the term unless "we" let them".

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
...

How is it "equal" to disallow the government calling homosexual unions "marriages", when you yourself admit you have no problem with homosexuals calling themselves married?

Why would you restrict the government's use of a term homosexuals may use to describe their own unions?

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.

Are you aware that dictionaries track the usage of words, and that meanings of words are in a constant state of flux?

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

Please cite examples of these "lawsuits... in the wings" for examination.

1st challenge.

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.

Do you object to homosexuals having jobs?

Do you object to homosexuals having housing?

...and boy, is their agenda obvious!

And yours ain't?

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...

Again, do you object to homosexuals having housing?

... and gay rights advocates are absolutely in full bore critical mode against the church for doing so.

I propose if "the church" wasn't attempting to prevent homosexuals from having housing, there'd be little concern of the church being targeted for such.

Where would you have homosexuals live?

Article after article go on and on about how the church has to be forced to accept gay marriage within employment/church culture.

Please present "article after article" for examination.

1st challenge.

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.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

Please present this group and their argument for examination.

1st challenge.

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

Do you consider preventing homosexuals' access to housing is an "equal right"?

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.

I don't see it so much as "redefining" the term as I do "one group steadfastly refuses to accept a changing culture's use of a term".

...
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.

I can accept that angle, while considering the use of the term in a changing culture.

My point is that you have admitted to accepting homosexuals calling their unions "marriages", while rejecting the government's use of the very term you don't have a problem with homosexuals using. Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical?

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

Except homosexuals, who want their unions recognized on a level with heterosexual unions, through the use of a term that holds much cultural, and yes, religious significance. (along with employment, and housing, and who knows what else)

Now, my point with "religious significance" here is that some religious folks are homosexuals who seek to have the government recognize their unions by using what is also a culturally significant term.

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.

Indeed. You seem to worry the government won't regulate your way.

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.

Aren't you? Your "rule" is that the government shouldn't use such a readily recognized term.

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.

Are you not wishing for those who want employment, housing, and to use a term to lose?

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.

You seem only concerned with how it affects you, IMO.

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.

Who is forcing you to recognize homosexual unions as marriages?

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...

If it's the "purview of the government alone", why are you so adamant the government decides this issue your way?

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.

I really don't give two hoots what England and France do, as long as we don't have to bail them out of another war.

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

For the religious. How convenient.


My issue here is that the term marriage holds cultural significance, and now that homosexuals are more adamant about getting married, suddenly folks want to remove that significance for homosexuals. Notice dianaiad herself admits she has no problem with folks calling these unions "marriages" - but objects to the government using a term she's perfectly happy to have homosexuals use.

Me personally, I don't allow the word to even be mentioned in my relationships, but that's me, I hate marriage. But what of those who dream of being married? Is it so bad that the government would recognize their unions as marriages, especially when there is so much "cultural baggage" tied to that term?

Who breaks out their "civil unioning" videos everytime they get a chance? Who goes around saying, "I'd 'civil union' that'n right there if only to spend one night in the 'civil union' bed"?

Who wakes up after a three day binge and says, "Well dangit all, I done gone and got 'civil unioned'?

What are the objections?

"God don't like it."

The problem here is that none have shown their favored god exists to "not like it". Don't make me put up a formal challenge

Are we to restrict such a culturally important term to those folks who declare a god would get upset if we used the term "incorrectly"? I say no. I say religious folks had them a right good run at the term, but the times, they are a-changin'. I propose we keep the term in place, as the only objection to its use boils down to "A god I can't show exists has an opinion I can't show he has".

We, "the people", get to decide, and I say we decide once and for all that the unions of homosexuals are just as valid as any other, that they, and they alone should decide what they wish to call their unions - and the government, if it is recognizing other unions, should be bound to use the terms of those involved.

(edit for clarity)

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>
Not even remotely. Your proposal, if followed through upon, would deprive them of their ability to conduct a legal marriage, and all because Joseph Smith preferred polygamy to faggotry (not that it stopped him as a youth, mind). What you're doing is screaming like a red-faced child, "if I can't have it, no one will!". Which is typical Mormon behavior, given how you all reacted to the federalization of Utah's gold mines. Still.

Yes, it would. It would also deprive LDS religious leaders of the ability to conduct legal civil unions. What it would NOT do is deprive any body of conducting valid marriages according to their beliefs.

It separates church and state.

As for the rest of your post, is it entirely legal for this forum?

[Kuan]

<snip to here>
Not even remotely. Your proposal, if followed through upon, would deprive them of their ability to conduct a legal marriage, and all because Joseph Smith preferred polygamy to faggotry (not that it stopped him as a youth, mind). What you're doing is screaming like a red-faced child, "if I can't have it, no one will!". Which is typical Mormon behavior, given how you all reacted to the federalization of Utah's gold mines. Still.

Yes, it would. It would also deprive LDS religious leaders of the ability to conduct legal civil unions. What it would NOT do is deprive any body of conducting valid marriages according to their beliefs.

It separates church and state.

As for the rest of your post, is it entirely legal for this forum?

No, I dont think its legal. But ill let the mods decide.

[dianaiad]

Thats not even close. We are not saying give the gays civil unions and we will keep marriage, we are saying give everyone civil unions. It doesnt matter all it is, is a word.

No; you are trying to monopolize marriage, but you're too cowardly - in the guise of political correctness - to say what you actually mean. But I am not. If our law had any basis in reason, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would have have been outlawed decades ago, and Utah invaded by the United States military and subsequently razed to the ground.

they, uh, tried that once already, invasion and all. Didn't work all that well.

Barring such a divine state of affairs, you will have yourselves to learn to live in a world of varying opinions, not all of which are derived from the ramblings of a failed Yankee soothsayer. Among those opinions are those of religious institutions far more venerable than your cult - I speak, for instance, of Christian denominations not founded upon the basis of Mammon worship, such as the Quakers - who actually believe in human liberty and who wish strongly to conduct marriage. You have no right - none at all - to deprive your betters of their deeply-held sacred institutions to feel better about the gradual failure of your own.

Dang, man; are you sure that this sort of thing is acceptable in this forum? I was rather hoping for a higher standard of courteous discourse, myself.

[JoeyKnothead]

I object to, and apologize for the post mormon boy51 is addressing here.

What does monopolizing marriage even do and why would anyone want to do that?
Fine, everyone gets married in "marriage" then religious groups can do civil unions. I dont really care what it is called. Isn't the freedom of religion guaranteed under the constitution? We are living in a world of varying opinions and we hold our own beliefs. We arent forcing them on you, but we are not going to change how we belief because someone wants to murder us and deprive us of our rights. We are not depriving anyone either, I dont care if all the gays got married, good for them. They are happy. What I dont want is someone like you barging through my door and forcing us to contract gay marriages.
...

I kept as much context as I could, and seek clarification for the emboldened section.

Do you object to the government's use of the term "marriage" for homosexual unions?

I do agree that a church should not be bound to perform ceremonies for which they hold objections. This doesn't mean I may not hold them morally accountable on some level.