quote:...the deterioration we speak of here is a deterioration of people’s fidelity to the order of marriage; it is not a deterioration of the order of marriage itself. That order is an ideal that cannot be corrupted by the failure of human beings to live up to it. It can be abandoned, replaced, and forgotten, but it cannot be corrupted.
I don't expect anyone that isn't LDS to care much about Terry Warner's points. I am posting it for those who may have been looking for a resource on this and for informational purposes. This will likely be my only post and I hope this is meaningful and helpful to someone here, as I have often benefitted from your postings of resources.
posted
You're welcome. As you can see, it isn't that this is my only post ever (I've had over 100), just that I'm not going to spend much time on discussion (many of us pretend to work at work); though feel free to discuss the ideas.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're welcome Olivet. FYI, just type in the PDF link into Google and they will give you an html alternative every time.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The legal institution of man-woman marriage is such that the social institution, or way of life, comes with it, inseparably...
The thing is, this is what the author really needs to prove. He can't just say it as support for his argument when in fact it is his argument.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The legal institution of man-woman marriage is such that the social institution, or way of life, comes with it, inseparably...
The thing is, this is what the author really needs to prove. He can't just say it as support for his argument when in fact it is his argument.
He can if he is talking to Mormons. We all take the statement for granted. Unless your an ex-Mormon who is now gay. (I know a few)
I usually never post on these threads because there is no point. We just don't see eye to eye. Again, I have friends who are gay, so it isn't like I'm gay bashing. But we don't agree about marriage. Doesn't mean we can't be friends, unless they attack me because we don't agree.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomD, that was my issue too. But it also appeared that he was preaching to the choir, as it were, and can understand it from that point, especially since he is trying to "bolster the defenses" not "attack the enemies".
Though his attempt at relating female infanticide in China, the fallout from the Communist Collapse in Russia, and single-parenthood in the US with the cheapening of marriage left me scratching my head.
posted
It's one of those AR arguments that only makes sense within the context of the AR. Outside the AR, you don't even share common vocabulary.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, Mormons view marriage as a contract between 3 people, God being the 3rd person.
Mormons don't even reconginse common law marriage. On my mission, I knew a couple that wanted to get baptized and join the church. Problem was, they weren't married. Well, they were legally because of common law marriage. But she wanted to have a huge wedding and they didn't have the money so they never got married, and still wouldn't. So they didn't join the church.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. I meant it as "Alternate Reality" but not in an offensive way.
That is, I think our basic beliefs color and adapt reality, at least in the way we experience it. Many cultural and religious groups have their own basic ideas as the foundation of the world they live in.
Oh, who am I kidding? We all do it. We all make assumptions about what things mean, and how things work. Religious and cultural institutions (and to some extent, individual families) have more stable realities, because of the number of people who share it.
Like, when I was in the Charismatic movement, if anyone ever said something like, "Sister So-and-so, I feel led by the Spirit to tell you the Truth, in Love" we would all cringe and run for cover, because we all knew the speaker was about to let Sister so-and-so have it.
To people outside that AR, it sounds maybe a little quaint, but entirely unthreatening. The AR is all about a shared understanding - so if you don't share the AR, you just don't 'get' it.
That's what I meant.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it a bad thing that I don't feel like reading all of that? So far I disagree with it, especially about the duality of sexes. Not that argument again... I really don't agree with that for some reason. Though, I do like the part about people adapting and changing to blend to each other, but gay couples can do the same, and doing that stupid Men are from Mars all men like football thing just makes me groan. Damn I hate cliches... I despise them...
Wow. For some reason the family as a temple depresses me... Perhaps because I do not share that conservative sort of outlook. Also that last part depresses me too... If by some fluke I get married, I'm not sure if my family would be traditional by his standards. I simply cannot force myself to fit one sort of role... one sort of concept. Why can't same-sex couples be thrusted into the covenantal order of responsibilities and rights of traditional marriage? Gyas have all sorts of issues that they go through in their relationships that many straight people wouldn't understand because they don't always have that added conflict of society completely being against your relationship.
Also, some marriages are ALREADY casual and imperminant, and this isn't because of gays and lesbians either...
Enough already.. It's not that simple. Marriage really isn't as threatened as these folks believe. if anything threatens marriage (IE prevents rebelous people such as myself from even wanting to get married, but that be because I am afraid of weddings, they scare me, but the idea of marriage both appeals to me and repels me) it is these extreme conservative structured values.. the idea that this is what marriage is, this is what the man's role is and what the woman's role. Not every person fits neatly into that concept... But, probably even the most wild and promiscuious person would eventually want to settle down...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a very good sumnation of the argument from the Mormon perspective.
Y'all who aren't Mormon may or may not realize that we already accept that our entire religion is based upon something which isn't empirically and scientifically provable, that being the testimony of the Holy Ghost that God exists, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith is a Prophet, etc. Once you have those things as a foundation, it all fits together.
quote: IE prevents rebelous people such as myself from even wanting to get married
Hmmmm...IE prevents me from surfing the internet without crashing, as I'm too lazy to get Mozilla.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry. I meant it as "Alternate Reality" but not in an offensive way.
May I suggest that you use the term "world view" if you don't want it to sound offensive. The term "alternate reality" carries a connotation of falsehood, while world view has a neutral connotation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doesn't mean we can't be friends, unless they attack me because we don't agree.
It's worth noting that this is roughly analogous to saying, "I know a lot of black slaves. They think they should be free, but I disagree. Doesn't mean we can't be friends, unless they attack me because I'm working to keep them in slavery."
I know this is an exaggeration, but I'm pointing out that to the perspective of many gay people wishing to marry, you are already attacking them. They do not believe that they are "attacking" first, but rather working to claim something that they believe is being actively denied them.
Whether you agree or not, I think it's useful to keep that perspective in mind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Unrelated, but I didn't even notice i had over 5,000 posts!)
A few minutes ago I thought of traditional roles and my discomfort with them and how this fellow would definetly be against my idea of defining ones own concept of marriage...
quote: I know this is an exaggeration, but I'm pointing out that to the perspective of many gay people wishing to marry, you are already attacking them. They do not believe that they are "attacking" first, but rather working to claim something that they believe is being actively denied them.
Likewise, one could say that to the perspective of NAMBLA, we are attacking them and stopping them from claiming something that is being actively denied them as well.
Now that's an exaggeration as well, but it's closer than the slavery misanalogy.
On our side, we believe that same-sex marriage is an attack on the foundation of our society, and will lead to the tribulations prophesied of in the scriptures. As we really do believe that, all of these changes are very alarming.
So they feel like we are attacking them, we feel like they are attacking us. However, as there are still legal measures to resolve these confrontations, there is still no reason why people on opposite sides cannot be friends.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there are other things that are attacking the institution of marriage. Why can't more focus be put on them? Poverty has a worse impact on marriage than same-sex marriage would.... Our foundations are all ready full of holes that need to be addressed instead. The gay marriage issue destracts from them.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But there are other things that are attacking the institution of marriage. Why can't more focus be put on them? Poverty has a worse impact on marriage than same-sex marriage would.... Our foundations are all ready full of holes that need to be addressed instead. The gay marriage issue destracts from them.
That's a shell game. We are working on all of the other things that are attacking the institution of marriage. We don't have to limit ourselves to just the things that other people think destroy marriage.
And does poverty have a greater effect on marriage? I rather doubt that, especially as I'm way below the poverty line and our marriage is going fine. Plenty of poor people have wonderful marriages, and plenty of rich people have terrible marriages. Now, the societal effect of the government programs to "defeat" poverty do have a great effect on marriage, and we're working on that. War on Poverty. Hmmmmm...if we do as well in the "War on Terrorism" as we have done on the War on Poverty, then in fifty years it's going to look like Mad Max out there.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well. Let me argue in defense of gay marriage.
As Mormons, we already don't recongnise one legal form of marriage (common law). Why should we care if the law recognises another and we don't? I honestly don't know what we would lose if the government recognises it, except our respect for the government, which is a lot to lose, but it wont be the end of the world.
Now to argue against gay marriage.
Mormon's view marriage as a "saving" ordinance, like baptism. To get saved, you have to get married. And we believe God was the one who taught humans to get married, starting with Adam. Well, 2 people of the same sex getting "married" is about the biggest insult to the ordinance that I can think of.
But as I said, I have friends who are gay. They know what I think, but it hardly matters because as friends, we choose not to dwell on our differences, even if they insult each other. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't have a difference that wont piss someone else off. It is when people dwell on the differences (ala fight for some cause) that friendship is no longer possible.
All I'm trying to do is make my position clear. There are many other anti-gay positions, and I don't really agree with any of them.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, 2 people of the same sex getting "married" is about the biggest insult to the ordinance that I can think of. It no longer contains any of the original intent of the ordinance.
But my wife and I weren't married in a Mormon temple. Our marriage didn't have that "saving ordinance." And yet not a single Mormon on this site objected when I married her, even though my marriage had none of the intent of your temple ordinance.
Mormons already make the distinction between temple marriages and "normal" marriages; why would permitting homosexuals to enter into normal marriages affect the temple ordinances at all?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>why would permitting homosexuals to enter into normal marriages affect the temple ordinances at all?
Tom, the Mormon church recognizes the power of civil authority to marry men and women. It recognizes the SANCTITY of state-sanctioned marriages.
Yes, there is a distinction drawn between temple marriages and non-temple marriages-- but the distinction is irrelevant to every day mortal life. It is a distiction only-- not an invalidation.
quote: It recognizes the SANCTITY of state-sanctioned marriages.
Why? If two atheists are married in a ceremony in which God is not mentioned, what's sanctified about it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's important to me, Tom, is that you stop trying to color Mormon actions and doctrine from a distinctly non-Mormon viewpoint. You've said twice now that Mormons should not concern themselves with homosexual marriages because we don't honor civil marriages anyway. This is false.
>>If two atheists are married in a ceremony in which God is not mentioned, what's sanctified about it?<<
Victor Hugo has the Bishop of D____ in Les Miserables point out that the philosopher who rejects God by using logic and reason PROVES God by the use of those gifts.
A good act is holy no matter the belief of doer. Remember the parable of the sheep and goats-- those who gave aid didn't know who they were serving any more than those who didn't help the poor, sick, needy, etc.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why Mormons lose nothing if gay people 'marry' or if they 'civil union' or if they have a 'one night stand'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting to note that the LDS church's view of "common law" marriage has changed relatively recently. When I was a missionary in Brazil, due to their extremely strict laws concerning divorce, it was exceedingly common to find couples co-habitating sometimes for over 30 years, with multiple childred together, who were not legally married because they could not obtain a divorce from a previous marriage. Often they had not even seen the previous spouse in decades. The policy of the church during the first half of my mission is that such couples could be baptised and join the church if they would sign an "intent to marry" once it became a legal option. Sometime near the end of my mission that policy changed and baptism was denied unless the couple ended the co-habitation. I served from 06/86 to 07/88.
(Caveat: I have no way at this point to back this up or provide a link. I'm assuming it was church policy because it definitely was mission policy in the Brasil Campinas Mission and I can't imagine such a policy would be left up to a mission president without church sanction.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl -- I'm not so sure that was a church-wide shift. Maybe it cane from the mission president, maybe it came from the regional representatives (that's what we had back then, isn't it?), maybe it came from the regional presidency (did we have those back then?), but I know that in Italy in the early 70s (when my Pa served) it was more like it is today.
My father knew of one co-habiting couple that got permission from SLC to get baptized (after decades of activity in the church), but the general rule was against it.
---------
Tom -- you keep saying that these things shouldn't matter to us. It reminds me of the baptism for the dead thread we had a couple of years ago.
The gist was that some people were getting really offended that LDS were performing the ordinance of baptism for the dead on behalf of other people's dead ancestors. It was very easy for me to sit on this side of the fence and say "Why should it matter to you? You don't believe in what we're doing anyway, so what affect could it possibly have on you?"
I never got a response that I found satisfying. I suspect that the same will be for you. You don't think we should be bothered by it, and yet we are.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH - OK. I have to admit that my experience was specifically Brazilian. The whole concept was strange to me, at the time. Since there was no reason for such a policy in the US I had never considered such an option.
But even if the policy, as such, came from someone more locally involved, I can't imagine it would have been inacted without 1st Presidency authorization.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly can imagine, especially in Brazil. I heard many tales of goings on in the years before my mission in Brazilian missions that got shut down when general authorities visited the missions and got wind of it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Your marriage could become a temple marriage if you so chose (or one of your decendants, by proxy). A SSM could not (under current church doctrine).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter -- A difference is that no one who opposes LDS baptism for the dead even suggested passing laws against it. Whereas in the case of same sex marriage some of the proposed (recently passed?) laws not only deny recognition but ban anything resembling it – such as corporations providing benefits to same sex partners even if they choose to. There’s a difference, IMO, between being “bothered” by something but acknowledging the legal right for others to practice it and trying to ban something because it “bothers” you.
And believe me, the idea that a future LDS relative could decide that my baptism didn’t count and try to do it over bothers me every bit as much as the idea that the law could recognize marriages that don’t fit the LDS definition of marriage bothers you. In fact, it’s a pretty good analogy –re-baptism is outside my (and many Christians’) definition of the sacrament of baptism – a sacrament which can only be performed once. The fact that LDS (and Baptists, and some other denominations) re-baptize adults who were baptized as children weakens that definition. It would make me very happy if that weren’t the case – if all denominations recognized baptism as once and forever thing. But I’m not about to argue that there should be state-support for that position.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that. I am, as I've said, pleased with the example. It works well as an explanatory thing in both directions.
Edit: or to put it more bluntly, I am using it as an analogy for the whole situation. But in the opposite direction.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. I have to admit that the analogy does have legs, even though I don't like that it weakens, rather than supports, my position. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although speaking on SSM and temple marriages, it seems rather likely that the Church will end up being legally discriminated against when we refuse to allow a fusion of the two.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, let me point out that you didn't use the analogy in the opposite direction, since my example wasn't in any direction (about the subject of SSM) at all. I was just saying that "You shouldn't be bothered by X." won't get you anywhere.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
