- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I definitely see it all becoming an industry in the way rhat straight marriage has. In the debate, it’s never mentioned that some parties stand to make a lot of money (will Greenwich village become a gay Las Vegas)? And that’s their motivation. I also think heterosexual marriage has become such a mess in the west, we need Seriously need to re-evaluate it.
Quote:In the debate, it’s never mentioned that some parties stand to make a lot of money (will Greenwich village become a gay Las Vegas)? And that’s their motivation.
People will never tire of making moral issues of things that they only interested in financially.
When I lived in Colorado there was a ballot initiative about allowing slot machines at dog tracks. The air time was filled with commercials about the evils of gambling, how it brings bad influences into the neighborhood, is addictive, basically everything up to it starts with G and that rhymes with T and that’s trouble.
I wondered what church or civic group had enough money to pay for such a lot of advertising. Turns out they didn’t, those ads were all paid for by the casinos, who didn’t want competition.
I think a lot of people are pushing for gay marriage for financial reasons. Straight marriage is dying off. Not so much in the USA, but in most other parts of the west. Quote:I wondered what church or civic group had enough money to pay for such a lot of advertising. Turns out they didn’t, those ads were all paid for by the casinos, who didn’t want competition.
Exactly! And who pushes a lot of Green Agendas? Not sincere people who care for the environment, but slick politicians who want to raise extra “carbon taxes”, major airlines, who want to push out budget airlines, and various other groups.
I’m just saying that gays should be careful what they wish for. Marriage is a complete mess in the west. That’s partly because weddings cost vast amounts of money, and marriages don’t last. Amongst numerous other things.
Yes, some people might be motivated by financial greed, but let’s not let this get derailed into that type of discussion – especially since most advocates aren’t in it for financial reasons. Old-Timer wrote:Yes, some people might be motivated by financial greed, but let’s not let this get derailed into that type of discussion – especially since most advocates aren’t in it for financial reasons.
I was living in Iowa when the state Supreme Court justices unanimously found the prohibition against gay marriage to be unconstitutional in 2009. 3 of the seven were not retained the following year, 1 withstood effort to have him ousted in 2012, and the remaining 3 won’t face a retention vote until 2016. DW tells me that she heard that the judges had ruled the way that they did because they wanted to bring in the economic boon of all the money spent on gay marriages. This seems to be a tactic used to discredit individuals who work for gay marriage. Supreme Court judges are not supposed to consider how their state might benefit financially from their rulings. Neither are they to consider the relative popularity of their decisions as would politicians. They are there to interpret the law to the best of their ability.
I believe that they did their job. I do not have to agree with them. I assume that some of them might have been personally against gay marriage but felt the precedent of the law said otherwise. I think it is sad that some would seek to discredit them by claiming they had economic motives. I also think it is sad that 3 were removed from office because of an unpopular ruling. I think the other 4 are insulated somewhat by time – it is difficult to fan the firestorm backlash for 7 years. I would wish for judges to be impartial as much as possible and not have to worry about lobbyists to keep them on the bench or get them fired.
I’m not gay, but I have a gay uncle and cousin. My uncle was a successful ballet dancer and my cousin a computer expert. I’ve been quite willing to let sleeping dogs lie. Here are two things i think about, though; one, my uncle is now 81 years old. He lives in New York City, in an apartment near Central Park. He calls me every Christmas. Last year, I asked him if any of his “friends” were still coming around. His response killed me. He said “I’ve just become an old man who feeds the pigeons everyday in the park”. He has NO ONE! He is a lonely old man. Perhaps if he’d found a life partner and could have “married” or had a civil union, he’d have someone there now. Second, my cousin who is well traveled having worked on the West Coast and in India, continues to live the gay lifestyle. He seems resigned to growing old and lonely. like my uncle. He does live now near his sister and her family so that helps some. I think homosexuality is an affliction, just like other burdens we all seem to have throughout life. True, it is a painful one emotionally, if abstained from it. Should gays marry? It has been a question of semantics. The Bible is very clear, that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. But I think that means he is aware of the struggle, and his mercy is available to all who seek him. Marriage as an institution is held dear to heterosexual couples, and they don’t want it to mean anything else. Gay couples want the term to apply to them as well, but something has to be given up to have that happen.
It is human to want companionship. I could never live alone. Whatever the solution may be, gay men and women need a way to legitimize their union. The church says gays should abstain from their feelings. I have found that afflictions and burdens have a way of building strength.
I think the idea that people need to ask permission (get a licence) from the government to marry each other needs to become obsolete. With so much darkness and ugliness in the world, if two (or more for that matter) adults love each other and want to make a commitment…they should be supported in that.
That’s the problem, government and lawyers have hedged marriage about with so many rules. Is there anything in a government approved marriage that can’t be done outside it?
A gay friend of mine – who doesn’t know about my church membership btw – argued gay marriage might open the door to legal polygamy.
Quote:The church says gays should abstain from their feelings.
As much as I like the movement of the Church over the last few years, that belief is the worst part of our current “policy”.
I suppose three of the exceptions where government involvement is justified are incest, forced marriage and marriage of children (the ages of 16, 18 & 21 are arbitary. Whie our church disallows dating before 16, in many parts of the world, they’re gettng married. How these ages were reached, I don’t know.) This lies firmly in the realm of rumor, so what I’m looking for is somebody else who has heard this, or knows of a source. I heard that one of the major reasons that the church opposes gay marriage is that it will create major legal problems for the church if we refuse to perform marriages for same sex couples in the temple.
Anyone else know anything about this?
Theorethically, it is a possibility (and we have this history of polygamy and the government’s reaction to it to fuel concern among members and leaders, so I understand that reaction) – but it hasn’t happened anywhere and, technically, would be against current law. It’s a strawman at this point – although, again, laws change, so I understand the concern, intellectually.
alltruth wrote:I heard that one of the major reasons that the church opposes gay marriage is that it will create major legal problems for the church if we refuse to perform marriages for same sex couples in the temple.
Depends. In some places it just means official recognition of gay marriage, but no compunction on religious bodies to do it.
Ray, what do you mean by civil union? I thought gay marriage and civil union were the same thing. In Europe, the norm is for the government to provide civil rights (inheritance rights, tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.) based on legally recognized “unions” (partnership agreements sanctioned by the law). “Marriage” is a term that traditionally was used as the basis for those rights (the partnership union of record, so to speak), but those rights can be granted to any “partnership” deemed acceptable by a government. “Civil unions”, by definition, have no religious connotations; they simply are legal arrangements that include civil benefits. With those in place, “marriage” could be a separate term used by non-governmental institutions (like churches) to specify partnership agreements that have “extra” meaning within those institutions outside simple civil benefits. In theory, the difference between civil union and marriage in religious communities would be almost identical to the Mormon distinction between civil marriage and temple sealing – one carrying “limited benefits” and the other including “extended benefits” that mean something special only to believers.
So, I would prefer that the government stay out of anything that tried to “sanctify” and stick with “protecting equal civil rights” – leaving religions the job of taking something secular and doing whatever they desire to make it “holy”. Let the Catholic Church require extended marriage counseling and forbid annulment of a marriage (but let Catholics who end a Catholic marriage but want to continue to live together keep their civil benefits); let the LDS Church annul an eternal sealing for things they see as serious sins (but let Mormons who no ask to have their sealing annulled keep their civil benefits); let some churches have unique requirements for marriage – or marry homosexual couples – or sanction polygamous arrangements – or do whatever else they choose to define marriage according to the dictates of their own worship conscience.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.