- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am in a discussion with a TBM about marriage and the US Constitution/government/DOMA/etc/etc/etc. I am wondering what people on this board believe? I am one that disagrees with the whole gay marriage idea. Hear me out now before you retort on me and ban me from the board. Really, I am against the idea of gay marriage.
I am though, wholly supportive of the legal right to marry whomever you desire. That being 1…n partners, same or different sex.
Why do I take this stance? I believe that if mormons read D&C 134 and AofF 11, then they should be for the legality of marriage. That, of course, is my interpretation of those scriptures.
To one more level, I don’t think government should be in the business of marriage, but that is not for this board (just a side note).
The reason I take this stance is because of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, etc. We are told to not take these into our bodies, yet we do keep have the laws that these are legal and should stay legal. Why can’t the same idea be placed on marriage? To me, I see a double standard as it applies to marriage. I know there are other legal items that need to be straightened out, but I see it is better to fight for the root issue (government and marriage) than it is to fight to restrict another’s freedoms.
If you see something differently, please let me know. I’m curious as to why this TBM refuses to acknowledge the double standard. Could be me that is stubborn…. Where I know that this board will straighten me out pretty quickly. {Seriously, I love reading this board as your comments make me go hummmm!}
Quote:Hear me out now before you retort on me and ban me from the board . . . I know that this board will straighten me out pretty quickly.
[
Admin Note: We don’t ban people for having different views, as long as there is respect in how those views are presented and for differing views. We also aren’t in the business of straightening out people, except when demonstrably false claims are made or when our rule lines are crossed. Also, this has the potential to be an explosive discussion. I don’t think it will be, since we’ve discussed it civilly in the past, but let’s keep that in mind and be respectful.]
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Hear me out now before you retort on me and ban me from the board . . . I know that this board will straighten me out pretty quickly.
[
Admin Note: We don’t ban people for having different views, as long as there is respect in how those views are presented and for differing views. We also aren’t in the business of straightening out people, except when demonstrably false claims are made or when our rule lines are crossed. Also, this has the potential to be an explosive discussion. I don’t think it will be, since we’ve discussed it civilly in the past, but let’s keep that in mind and be respectful.]
Thanks. I promise to stay absolutely civil.
My own ideal would be governments issuing civil union certificates for purposes of protecting civil rights and providing civil benefits. I believe non-governmental agencies should be able to perform marriages according to whatever criteria that are important to them. For Mormons, temple sealings would be under LDS Church control but still require a civil union certificate; for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. this would allow different criteria that would be special and meaningful for each group. Under that arrangement, marriage truly would be “sacred” and “special” – not just a legal term without any deeper meaning for “non-believers”. I also believe in equality under the law, so whatever rules apply for heterosexuals ought to apply for homosexuals.
Without some kind of legal recognition of civil unions and equal treatment in that way, I favor marriage without restriction for consenting adults – except in cases where consent isn’t recognized, like incest and the existence of mental limitations.
The whole problem with the issue is that it is both a religious issue and a political/legal issue. My personal belief is that government should not be involved in marriage but because of our legal tradiiton changing that is highly unlikely. I also peronally believe that the whole issus is driven by money – health insurance, retirement, etc. Without legal marriage, or at least a civil union, same sex partners are usually not allowed these things. So, I also favor a civil union type ceritificate for everyone who is getting married to cover the legal end and let religions decide for themselves what sacred or other ceremonies or rites they consider as constituting marriage. I’m probably playing semantics here (what’s the difference in civil union and marriage certificates in this model) but I really see a need to separate the legal and religious end and I see marriage itself as religious and not involving government. I can’t answer your question about why someone else doesn’t see there may be a double standard. I understand your reasoning, but I don’t know why your firend may not agree with you.
Too late J. You’re banned for not thinking like cwald. That’s the new criteria for moderating….ok, I just read Ray’s admin note and you are reinstated, I’m the worst moderator ever. JK. 😆 your honest and open questions are welcome here:thumbup: You brought up a double standard idea because things like the Word of Wisdom aren’t law even if they are apart of our religion.
But what what are laws based on? Why is something a law and something else different is not law? Isn’t it based on public collective will that the issue must be big enough to make enough people agree to it?
Think of prohibition. For a while, enough people in the country wanted alcohol banned because of the effects on society. Was that a restriction on people’s rights for those who wanted to drink? What about banning smoking on airplanes, or now in almost all public places, isn’t that restricting the freedoms of some people?
It seems like laws will always restrict the behaviors of some people who disagree with the law. So what makes it ok for the country to do it? Enough support for the law. Just like when prohibition laws were changed.
With marriage, it is regulated by the government because rights, tax laws, health insurance and other benefits are given and protected under the law. Therefore, whether I agree with same sex marriage or not, I don’t like the government treating homosexual taxpayers differently than other groups under the law. I think the church can have the stance it takes based on leaders’ opinions for the church, I just don’t have to agree with it, and if I felt strong enough about it, I am glad to live in a country where I could fight for my rights if I felt there needed to be change.
It is changing in our country, because there is less fear of gay marriage, and the effects of it. I see the change on a legal level is better than no change.
But I’m ok with the government being in the business of marriage, to protect the rights of individuals and promote tax benefits under conditions that are beneficial to society as a whole. Just like other laws that protect the greatest people and don’t restrict freedoms unnecessarily. But I am glad others’ freedoms to drive drunk are restricted, because those costs are too high.
That is how I engage people on this topic…I ask them to explain the costs of gay marriage to society and justify those costs are high enough to make them laws.
I don’t think it is really a double standard. Double standards are the same thing being applied differently to one person and not another. Like if we both drove 61mph and I get a ticket and you don’t. That’s a double standard. But saying the church teaches the WoW but it is not law, and teaches for heterosexual marriage and wants it to be law…those are different standards.
We could agree that selling alcohol is legal, but selling heroine is not. That’s not a double standard because alcohol and heroine are not equal.
Heber13 wrote:I don’t think it is really a double standard. Double standards are the same thing being applied differently to one person and not another. Like if we both drove 61mph and I get a ticket and you don’t. That’s a double standard.
But saying the church teaches the WoW but it is not law, and teaches for heterosexual marriage and wants it to be law…those are different standards.
We could agree that selling alcohol is legal, but selling heroine is not. That’s not a double standard because alcohol and heroine are not equal.
Ah – I think based on this description, I was not explaining myself very well to this other person.
For clarification, I do not believe government should be in the business of marriage. There are ways to offer the same tax benefits without having to regulate (license = regulation) marriage.
I also believe drugs shouldn’t be illegal. I am for a society that allows people to choose their own path. The path just can’t infringe on others rights, which, leads into the whole what infringes and what does not. I know, it is a mess on what is and is not an infringement.
For this thread, I just don’t see how gay marriage infringes on anothers rights, therefore in my brain, I don’t see why any church should push for laws that restrict it.
Oh – and thanks for letting me stay on the board…
So one question I have is, what about someone who is deeply religious, and who loves the gospel and the savior, and to whom a civil union or a non-religious marriage is not what they want, but they also happen to be homosexual? There are many many very religious people who are also gay. In our church do they have no alternative but to find another church? That is a big dilemma for me. The church’s stance on this is really tearing my family up, and I also read that they are getting involved again in Hawaii on the same subject, and advocating in church for people to get out and take a stand (similar to prop
. So in reality, it looks like they haven’t changed their minds about getting involved in the political aspects of gay marriage.Hamony, are you talking about gay members who want to be sealed in the temple? I’m not quite sure. If you simply mean to ask if gay members who want to have a religious marriage ceremony with another gay member need to have that ceremony performed outside the LDS Church, absolutely that is the case right now. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, that might change – but I doubt I will see it in my lifetime. I can see monogamous gay members being allowed to attend the temple, but I can’t see gay marriages performed by Bishops or gay temple sealings.
I hope I’m wrong about that, but I don’t see it happening anytime in the near future.
I don’t expect that there will be sealings in the temple for homosexual couples. I might private message you later if that is okay. I don’t think I was presenting my point very clearly. Thanks. Harmony wrote:The church’s stance on this is really tearing my family up, and I also read that they are getting involved again in Hawaii on the same subject, and advocating in church for people to get out and take a stand (similar to prop
. So in reality, it looks like they haven’t changed their minds about getting involved in the political aspects of gay marriage.I think it’s very unlikely that there will be involvement again politically. The church was burned so badly on prop 8 that my understanding is that they won’t go down that road again. We just had a ballot initiative in Washington on same sex marriage and the church announced going in that it wasn’t going to get involved in an active way.
Harmony and GB, Both of you are correct. In Hawaii it is on the ballot, a Stake President wrote the letter encouraging the members to work against the initiative and the church has not over ruled him.
Yes in 2012 it was on Washington State ballot and no commitment by the church was made, as well as a rumored statement that the church was no longer participating.
My gut instinct is that in 2012 – The church was careful not to harm Romney’s campaign. They had to choose and chose the act as if they don’t get involved in elections. But I believe they will not undo what an area or Stake leader does, especially if it supports the churches Prop. 8 position.
Harmony I am sorry for your families pain.
Yeah, I can see a local leader encouraging involvement, unfortunately, but I doubt the Church itself will take a vocal, active stance. We’ll see. Thanks guys and gals! What you have said reaffirmed what I personally believe, now I guess I just need to practice my delivery of my beliefs. Oh well.
I also posted a similar, more generalized until I got some information though, to my Facebook account to see what my other mormon friends would say. It seems I’m in good company there. Most agreed with me, though it was more general. I just put in the specifics about marriage and allowing any type of marriage. It will be interesting to see if anyone replies and what they say. I know my non-mormon and less active/disheartened mormons will reply to my facebook post.
Again, from the few posts here, I am happy with my resolve to continue to fight for what is right…. even though I completely disagree with the idea.
As for the church ideals, I feel that any private organization can choose to allow/disallow, include/exclude, marry, and charge/not-charge their membership as they please (just to name a few). This means if the church says no to gay marriages by bishops or in the temple, that is OK they have that right. Government on the other hand shouldn’t have that right. I also believe membership can petition the church to change its policies and if it doesn’t the member or church can terminate the relationship at will.
Anyway, thank you for your input!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.