quote:I would probably argue in favor of returning to the previous rule in both of those cases; I'm very bothered by public vulgarity (on a par with my distress over littering). I also thing a compulsory break, one day a week, from buying and selling (whether its Sunday or not) would result in an improved perspective within our society.
Legally restricting what transactions consenting individuals are permitted to take part in strikes me as being rather counter to the principle of agency which the LDS church seems to hold in high regard. I understand that you wish people would take a day off - I do too. I also wish people ate more healthy food but I'm not ready to outlaw Cheetos.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: To Sachiko: I would suspicious that over time it could be leveraged to create actual legal inequalities, and even short of that, lead to the potential of covert discrimination where certain rights/privileges ought to be applied equitably to both "married" folks and "civilly unioned" folks, but aren't because we can't really know why a mortgage lending agent turns down a same-sex couple for a house that they approve for a heterosexual couple.
Of course, the latter can still happen, even if marriage is used as the blanket term, but there's a heck of a lot of common law involved with legal marriage that would probably give the same-sex couple a leg up if they chose to challenge the decision of the agent.
-Bok
I don't see how it would. We have anti-discrimination laws in place already, that have been in place for years, and yet I am sure some unethical real estate agents still discriminate based on color or religion.
And since legal parity is offered to same-sex couples under the Domestic Partners Act, the same legal rights as heterosexual couples have, then I don't see how a ss couple that is called "married" versus a "united" one (or married/Married) will be subject to any more or less discrimination.
*edited to add-Well, I guess using the term "married" for ALL couples on all documentation means that someone doing paperwork wouldn't, say, read "united" couple and say, "Aha, they're a same sex couple! I'll deny them the loan."
But unless same sex couples are planning to never go house-hunting in person, where agents and loan officers will see that, hey, it's two guys or two girls and not one of each...then what they are called doesn't matter, since unethical agents/officers will have the opportunity to unfairly discriminate anyway.
If what we're afraid of is what people will do when they read something telltale like "united" instead of "married", then should we also tell ethnic people to change their names to something Anglo, so people can't discriminate based on clearly ethnic names?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am fine with a church not recognizing, or performing, a marriage between (or more) people, for any religious reason whatsoever. I told my local rep here in MA as much when I sent her an email IN SUPPORT OF extending legal marriage rights/responsibilities to same-sex couples.
The first amendment (and subsequent interpretation) is there for a good reason, IMO.
Personal anecdote: I married a Jew. I am a Gentile. It was very hard to find a rabbi that would co-officiate our wedding, and I respected that, and certainly wasn't about to sue anyone about it. I'd have no case for it. I was also glad our rabbi was okay with it.
Sachiko, it seems you attribute pretty awful motivations to same-sex legal/civil marriage supporters, if you think we're all just doing it to extend the idea into the churches/synagogues/mosques/alien spaceships. Sure there are some who might, and I'll be right there with you saying those people are idiots. Much like I'd presume that you'd be with me if one of the tiny minority of folks that want only Christian marriages to be recognized tried to change the law to reflect their ideology in condemning their attempts.
quote:Sealing status does come up, TomDavidson. And there is a difference between "husband" and "eternal husband" or, more commonly, "eternal companion". It does come up, more often than you'd think (sometimes more often than I'd like) that I do not actually have an "eternal companion", though I do have a husband.
In what context?
I'm a non-LDS man married to an LDS woman. I've *never* had a conversation with anyone in our ward, or elsewhere, where the fact that I was not sealed to her has come up. I have friend and family who are married but not sealed and they have not related any such stories of awkward mentions about them not being sealed. Not having a temple recommend comes up often enough, but not being sealed to their spouse - that's new for me.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband and I were married in a civil court, in a completely non-religious ceremony. But the civil servant who processed the papers still called us married, 'cause that's what the government calls it when two people form that sort of completely-secular legal contract. If you're going to offer the same sort of legal contract to homosexuals, I don't see why you'd call it anything different. I'm very thankful that we were married in California, a state that recognizes that all people should have the right to form the same sort of legal contracts.
We also had a Hindu marriage ceremony a year later. And you know what? The Hindu faith allows for the marriage of homosexuals (indeed, a couple of their male gods were married & procreated). I don't see why the Christian understanding of the word "marriage" gets to trump the Hindu understanding of the word, especially in our secular society made up of people from many different cultural backgrounds.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What it is not, is a "right" to marriage. The right to marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Nobody has a "right" to marriage.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. If "marriage" is defined as a union of two people that's been solemnized by some or other group, you're right. But in the United States of America in 2008, marriage is defined as a status that provides legal and financial benefits. And the Constitution does indeed guarantee all Americans equal rights under the law.
Take marriage away from the government, and you'd have a point. Are you willing to lose the right to file your taxes jointly? Will you enjoy deciding each year whether your children should be counted as yours or as your husband's on your 1040?
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: We don't fight to be called "sealed", because we are not sealed. We aren't.
You have it backwards. You have all the federal and state perks of being married, without any of the religious obligations. It's those perks you want to deny me. As a penalty for being gay.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: In a way, doesn't demanding the government recognize gay partnerships as "marriage" show a sort of...inferiority complex?
"In a way, doesn't demanding the government recognize interracial partnerships as 'marriage' show a sort of...inferiority complex?"
Disgusting.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: The G/L/B people I've talked to before have been adamant that the homosexual lifestyle is a perfectly valid choice.
I'm quite sure that most of them have denied that it's a choice at all. Or a "lifestyle". It may be a cliche, but I don't have a lifestyle, I have a life.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: If so, and if civil unions carry the same legal bennies as civil marriage, then why with the need to adopt a historically heterosexual construct like "marriage"?
They don't carry the same legal bennies as civil marriage. That's the answer to your question. Will you acknowledge it, or will you continue to pretend that you haven't heard it answered by several people here already?
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Really. I'm not asking to be rude; just asking in order to be informed.
You aren't being truthful. You're polemecizing; not just asking in order to be informed. Because you've been informed. You've ignored the information.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: I do think that marriage is made to support procreation; I do think procreation is essential.
I'm sure my daughter would agree with that.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Out of curiousity, how would you react to the government and/or churches creating a new term reserved only for heterosexual marriages?
Who cares about churches?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh heh heh The onl reason in my mind why gay marriage should even be discussed is because of the church, and i'm athiest. Do all of you have that big a problem with I mean really, how would say, Lisa being married affect your lives negatively in any way. Take a breather haters. Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai--If I went to India, I wouldn't expect Hindus to abide by my definition of marriage.
The majority of Americans are Christians (for good or ill ) so, unsurprisingly, the usual definition of marriage is a Judeo-Christian one.
Bokonon--I don't attribute "awful" motives to proponents of SS marriage. I don't think anyone is doing it just to accomplish X,Y, and Z. Honestly, I'm just asking why and how, right now.
And I think it's a fair question, since my definition of marriage is fairly religious, and not limited to government-approved contractual obligation. I am wondering, how will a redefinition of marriage apply to me in my daily life?
I'm not attributing motives to anyone. If anything, I am asking questions and inviting others to explain their motives to me.
C'mon, doesn't everyone itch to enlighten an ignorant bigot like me?
MattP--if it's never come up for you, then you are definately talking to different people than I am.
You may find this presumptuous, in fact you likely will, but I am thinking people don't bring it up with you because
a. you're a guy, and guys tend to not discuss that kind of thing with other guys unless they have to, and
b. you're a nonmember, and Mormons usually go out of their way to not alienate nonmembers. (usually, and with varying degrees of success)
Members like me get the full treatment, though. And what kind of marriage one is in is a common topic of conversation among women, at least among the Mormon women I have known.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't get a pass on that, Sachiko. There is a significant presence of Hindus in this country, and there's no reason why numbers alone mean that the Christian majority gets to trample on their religion.
Oh, and India actually has a separate set of marriage laws for each religion represented in the country. Not that I think this is a good thing - but they certainly would respect your definition of marriage.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:MattP--if it's never come up for you, then you are definately talking to different people than I am.
You may find this presumptuous, in fact you likely will, but I am thinking people don't bring it up with you because
a. you're a guy, and guys tend to not discuss that kind of thing with other guys unless they have to, and
b. you're a nonmember, and Mormons usually go out of their way to not alienate nonmembers. (usually, and with varying degrees of success)
I've already covered this - family and friends who are members are also not getting bugged about this. And my wife certainly isn't a guy and no one is pestering her either. This is why I asked about what context the topic comes up in. It sounds like you've just got a particularly gossipy bunch of busybodies in your ward, but my own experience tells me that your experience is not representative.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is an interesting idea, Jhai. I wonder how we could make that kind of system work--where each religion could define marriage.
And I don't think the Christian majority would trample on Hindo religion--but I do think a majority would vote to define marriage differently, in this country. That is the nature of our legislative system.
But I don't think most Christians would vote to define marriage in a non-Hindu way, simply in order to trample on Hindus. I don't think Hindus would even be on the radar for most people--and I don't know if that makes you feel better or worse, though.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I think it's a fair question, since my definition of marriage is fairly religious, and not limited to government-approved contractual obligation. I am wondering, how will a redefinition of marriage apply to me in my daily life?
Oh, that's an easy one - there will be no substantive affect on your daily life, unless you are a judge that performs civil marriage ceremonies, or perhaps if you work somehow with benefits administration.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:MattP--if it's never come up for you, then you are definately talking to different people than I am.
You may find this presumptuous, in fact you likely will, but I am thinking people don't bring it up with you because
a. you're a guy, and guys tend to not discuss that kind of thing with other guys unless they have to, and
b. you're a nonmember, and Mormons usually go out of their way to not alienate nonmembers. (usually, and with varying degrees of success)
I've already covered this - family and friends who are members are also not getting bugged about this. And my wife certainly isn't a guy and no one is pestering her either. This is why I asked about what context the topic comes up in. It sounds like you've just got a particularly gossipy bunch of busybodies in your ward, but my own experience tells me that your experience is not representative.
And my own experience tells me your experience is not representative. Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And my own experience tells me your experience is not representative.
Except I wasn't implying that mine was. I noted a difference and asked for additional context and you have not been very forthcoming about providing it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main point of my post that you seem to be missing, Sachiko, is that you don't get to define a secular marriage however you want. You can't define it in accordance with your religion because the United States is a secular country. Christianity just doesn't have a unique claim to the word marriage, no matter what you'd like to believe. If the United States government calls a certain contract between two people "marriage" then it shouldn't matter what faith, race, gender or anything else they are - it should be called a marriage for all, or a marriage for none.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And I don't think the Christian majority would trample on Hindo religion--but I do think a majority would vote to define marriage differently, in this country. That is the nature of our legislative system.
But out government is also in place to protect the minority form the tyranny of the majority. It isn't all majority rules.
When they ruled that interracial marriage was legal, around 90%, IIRC, were against interracial marriage. Was that the wrong decision for the courts to make? No, because the majority should not be allowed to deny the freedom of the minority.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, MattP, I first brought up the word "trample" a couple of posts up. Hindus define the word "marriage" differently than Christians do (i.e. homosexual marriage is religiously okay), and, as I stated above, I don't think that Christians have free reign to put their definition into the law books of our secular nation just because they're the majority.
Edit: T:man, frankly, if there's two consenting "beings" (i.e. intelligent raman), I'm really okay with it.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I think it's a fair question, since my definition of marriage is fairly religious, and not limited to government-approved contractual obligation. I am wondering, how will a redefinition of marriage apply to me in my daily life?
Oh, that's an easy one - there will be no substantive affect on your daily life, unless you are a judge that performs civil marriage ceremonies, or perhaps if you work somehow with benefits administration.
Okay, so this is something that same-sex couples feel affects their daily life in a significant manner--not getting to use terms like "husband", "wife" and "marriage" is emotionally deletorious--but I won't notice it?
*musing on that* But if it's such a big deal, surely it will affect even me, somehow...
For instance--let me bounce this off of you--if my children and I are at the library, and a gay couple precedes us in line, and they introduce themselves to my kids (my kids are like golden labs, they think all strangers are their best friends ) with, "Hi, I'm George, and this is my husband, Tim."
So, those of you who are homosexual, would you be offended if I either tell my kids, "Save your questions, we'll discuss this later", or, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: The main point of my post that you seem to be missing, Sachiko, is that you don't get to define a secular marriage however you want. You can't define it in accordance with your religion because the United States is a secular country. Christianity just doesn't have a unique claim to the word marriage, no matter what you'd like to believe. If the United States government calls a certain contract between two people "marriage" then it shouldn't matter what faith, race, gender or anything else they are - it should be called a marriage for all, or a marriage for none.
But I'm not defining marriage however I want. Nobody is defining marriage however they want, except maybe some judges.
If anything, it should be left up to the people to decide, through secular means, i.e., the legislature.
Now, some people who vote on what their preferred definition of marriage is, will be religiously motivated. A Christian may vote to define marriage one way; and Hindu may vote to define it another way.
I don't discount religious motivation for political action.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be morally wrong of you (and impolite to boot!), but I think that all people who follow one of the big three monotheistic religions are acting immorally.
However, I also think you have a perfect right to say so if you wish.
Edit: You're choosing to make your religious definition of marriage the secular law. That's wrong.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, those of you who are homosexual, would you be offended if I either tell my kids, "Save your questions, we'll discuss this later", or, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Plenty of gays and lesbians already refer to their partners as "husband" or "wife," regardless of whether they live in a jurisdiction where they can be legally married or not. I fail to see how it would be any more difficult for you to tell your children, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't" than to tell them, "Wiccans recognize handfasting between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And my own experience tells me your experience is not representative.
Except I wasn't implying that mine was. I noted a difference and asked for additional context and you have not been very forthcoming about providing it.
Which additional context did you request?
Believe me, I'm all too eager to talk about myself. Just ask and I'll tell you. Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, those of you who are homosexual, would you be offended if I either tell my kids, "Save your questions, we'll discuss this later", or, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Plenty of gays and lesbians already refer to their partners as "husband" or "wife," regardless of whether they live in a jurisdiction where they can be legally married or not. I fail to see how it would be any more difficult for you to tell your children, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't" than to tell them, "Wiccans recognize handfasting between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Mkay.
*edited to add--Jhai, see, I wonder how many people feel as you do.
Is there any possible way for me to reinforce my teachings to my children, without seeming impossibly rude?
I fear there is not, no matter how much goodwill I bear to SS couples.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Believe me, I'm all too eager to talk about myself. Just ask and I'll tell you.
I just wondered in what context the topic of your "not real" marriage comes up. It it just chatting with other women in the ward, during home teacher visits, during tithing settlement? I've been steeped in LDS culture for about 15 years now, and I can't think of any reasonable place for that topic to come up beyond, perhaps, discussions with the bishopric. I guess I could see the "What temple were you sealed in?" question leading to an admission of "none", but I'm a little astonished that this response would be met with even subtle scorn.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there any possible way for me to reinforce my teachings to my children, without seeming impossibly rude?
You don't have to do it right in front of them. I see no problem with waiting a few minutes until you are alone with your children in the car to educate them about what your religion has to say on the matter.
I would liken this to my children encountering a severely crippled or grossly deformed individual. There are obvious and potentially embarassing questions that children are likely to have which are best answered later on where you are not going to be discussing another individual in 3rd person while they are still present, which is intrinsicly rude.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko, I mean no offense, but I take your whole position on this situation as horribly rude to homosexuals. That doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to voice your opinions, or to (generally) teach your children as you want.
From my perspective, telling your children that your religion does not respect homosexual marriage is no more ruder than not respecting homosexual marriage to begin with, so, once you've taken that position, I don't think you're behaving any worse by acting out the library scenario.
Edit: And, yeah, as MattP says, not doing it right in front of them would make it less impolite. Also, tone and exact word choice would have a large affect here, as with all criticism.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sachiko, I'm uncertain how to take your "Mkay" response. The situation I described does occur (I have multiple friends who refer to their religiously-but-not-legally-wedded partners as "husband" and/or "wife"), and I'm genuinely curious as to why you would be less uncomfortable dealing with your children in that situation than you would if you were to meet a couple who were legally wedded, but could not have married in your religious tradition. (If your point is simply that you'd be equally uncomfortable in both situations, but that you feel one is unavoidable and the other avoidable, that's a reasonable answer.)
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Jhai, the only possible way to not be considered "rude" is to accept homosexual marriage--not just accepting it legally, but also accepting it morally?
I thought I was here asking questions and getting informed. If I disagree on small points, it's in order to ask better, more meaningful questions.
Is that really offensive? Is it more or less offensive than me deciding I know what I know, and ain't nobody telling me any different? Because I thought discussing it was preferable.
MattP--True, and I would treat it like any other embarassing question my children would ask all-too-loudly in a public place.
I wonder, though, if a failure to support the philosophy of same-sex marriage is wrong.
After all, if my son's asking loudly (and if it's embarassing, my kids will say it!) "But, Mom, you told us that we believe marriage is between a man and a woman! They're doing something wrong" and I keep smiling and repeating, "Son, we'll discuss this later"...well, that would be the best I can do, to not be offensive, while still maintaining what I believe. I'm wondering if that would be considered "good enough". I'm guessing not?
MattP, it's in conversation with other ladies; conversations with other men, usually bishopric members; conversation with family members; conversation with LDS people I know online.
Now, my husband and I are both seventh-generation, lifelong members. We have a passing familiarity with the church. And, he's been married to me as long as I've been married to him.
And HE has reported experiencing less of an emphasis on marriage/sealing.
I don't know if it's because women talk more about temple sealing vs. civil marriage.
I don't know if it's because I'm seen as the "active" member in my marriage, and so I am the one approached by zealous church members to push my husband into greater church activity--along with reminders of needing to get sealed in the temple.
Perhaps I have a different inlaw situation than you do.
Perhaps it's because I have several small children, and I homeschool, and therefore am assumed to have a different spiritual background than I actually do.
For whatever reason, that's my experience. I'm happy for you that you have a different experience. However, your experience does not negate mine.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: Sachiko, I'm uncertain how to take your "Mkay" response. The situation I described does occur (I have multiple friends who refer to their religiously-but-not-legally-wedded partners as "husband" and/or "wife"), and I'm genuinely curious as to why you would be less uncomfortable dealing with your children in that situation than you would if you were to meet a couple who were legally wedded, but could not have married in your religious tradition. (If your point is simply that you'd be equally uncomfortable in both situations, but that you feel one is unavoidable and the other avoidable, that's a reasonable answer.)
Precisely.
Also--we do believe that people should be married, but that we love them and don't confront them when they are not.
My husband's sister isn't officially married to her common-law husband of 5 years; they have three children.
When SIL is around our children, she supports what we teach them, i.e., we should try to be married before we have children.
My SIL doesn't require that I teach her non-marriage is precisely correct; we don't require her to conform to our personal standards when we welcome her to our home.
Please forgive my slowness, and thank you for your patience--I do my best thinking by talking to people, and this is good practice for me to consider how to both teach my children what I believe, and still be a good citizen that shows love to all people. Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anything you've said here is offensive, nor have I said that. I don't think asking questions in a polite manner (which is what you've done), is ever offensive. (Unless you're politely asking when someone stopped beating his wife, or other obviously charged questions.)
I do think that you're wrong/rude/somewhat-bad-but-not-evil if you believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, but, as I said before, I have a much bigger problem with your entire religion. So somehow I doubt we'll often see eye-to-ey on whether a belief or position is moral or immoral.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is there any possible way for me to reinforce my teachings to my children, without seeming impossibly rude?
And here we see the core of your real objection: that you DO believe that permitting same-sex marriage will encourage social acceptance of homosexuality, thereby forcing you to explain to your children why your religion requires you to disapprove of something that so many other people consider acceptable. It's a reversal of the current situation -- where a gay couple needs to feel awkward about introducing themselves to children -- and you would prefer the status quo: that they continue to feel awkward about your dislike.
And yet, as pointed out, you already have to explain this to your children. In fact, according to the doctrines of your religion, you have to explain to your own kids why you and your husband aren't technically as married as you could be. Presumably you've learned this skill; you'll use it every time your kids run into somebody deformed or overweight or drunk in public. If you haven't learned this skill, you really should; far, far more important than teaching your kids how important it is not to marry someone of their own gender is teaching them how to live in a world in which lots of people make choices they wouldn't make, every single moment of every day.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I think it's a fair question, since my definition of marriage is fairly religious, and not limited to government-approved contractual obligation. I am wondering, how will a redefinition of marriage apply to me in my daily life?
Oh, that's an easy one - there will be no substantive affect on your daily life, unless you are a judge that performs civil marriage ceremonies, or perhaps if you work somehow with benefits administration.
Okay, so this is something that same-sex couples feel affects their daily life in a significant manner--not getting to use terms like "husband", "wife" and "marriage" is emotionally deletorious--but I won't notice it?
*musing on that* But if it's such a big deal, surely it will affect even me, somehow...
Now you're just being obnoxious. For the record, even if my partner and I manage to get married, we will probably not use the term "wife" for each other. It's not about that label. It's not only about cultural discrimination. It's about legal and financial discrimination.
And you're being dishonest as hell to pretend that you don't know that by now.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: So, those of you who are homosexual, would you be offended if I either tell my kids, "Save your questions, we'll discuss this later", or, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Who cares what you tell your kids?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Let me explain further my interest in this issue: My grandmother is Japanese, my grandfather is Swedish-American.
When they married, I am told my by family that there was a small bill passed in Utah legislature to make Japanese-American marriages legal, so that my grandparents' marriage would be recognized.
Also, my grandparents were the first Japanese-American couple sealed in the Salt Lake Temple.
So, you see, I haven't actually decided how I feel about gay marriage. I haven't decided if I oppose it or not.
If I did oppose it, and was firm in that opposition, I wouldn't have even bothered visiting this thread. I would probably have thought, "That's wrong and they know it" and would have gone on to different threads.
But I am undecided.
After all, right up until my grandparents got married, their marriage was considered illegal in the US (they got married in Japan, in a Russian orthodox ceremony).
So I consider, how would I feel, if my grandparents' marriage was ruled, still was ruled, as simply wrong? as Not Allowed?
There certainly were a some people who opposed it on racial grounds. Thankfully, they were few, and got fewer each decade.
So that's why I'm here, asking questions.
Not polemicizing--sorry to have bothered you, Lisa. And I do think the recent act passed in CA affords similar legal benefits to ss unions; if it doesn't, then I am open to legislation that does offer that.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So in fact, you want to use the power of the state dictate when I can, or cannot, buy milk, in order to satisfy some vague longing for a 'better perspective'? Is this seriously what you are arguing, or am I just totally misunderstanding you? Because if it is, then dude, you are just a walking argument for using the power of the state to suppress all religion.
I haven't used any religious arguments whatsoever; in fact, in neither case could me feelings on the subject be accurately expressed as "religious." I think it's interesting that you jumped to that (IMO, irrational) assumption.
What appears to me to lie at the heart of your argument is a presumption that you have a right to "buy milk" whenever you please, and that a grocer has the right to sell you milk whenever (s)he pleases. This is precisely the presumptive "as long as no harm is done" type argument I described in an earlier post. I don't begrudge you your viewpoint, but its not a presumptive morality that I share.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not making a religious argument, I'm just saying that <insert argument almost exclusively justified religiously>. I find it strange that you jump to the concludion that I'm making a religious argument."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Legally restricting what transactions consenting individuals are permitted to take part in strikes me as being rather counter to the principle of agency which the LDS church seems to hold in high regard.
I'm unsure why you feel the principle of agency is counter to legal restrictions on the actions of anyone, consenting adults or not. Agency is merely the principle that we can choose, and by choosing we can grow. In fact, agency presupposes that there are consequences attached to our choices (cf, 2 Nephi 2:27). The consequences mentioned in the scriptures are (primarily) spiritual consequences, but it certainly doesn't preclude the application of additional, temporal consequences.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: "I'm not making a religious argument, I'm just saying that <insert argument almost exclusively justified religiously>. I find it strange that you jump to the concludion that I'm making a religious argument."
Did I justify it religiously? Do you find it impossible to conceive there would be a non-religious argument for profanity fines or blue laws?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm unsure why you feel the principle of agency is counter to legal restrictions on the actions of anyone, consenting adults or not.
I didn't mean to imply that agency and legal restritions could not coexist, but when you micromanage to the point where you determine what days of the week people may be permitted to engage in commerce, there's not much meaning to agency any more. It doesn't mean much to keep the sabbath if it's illegal to not do so.
If there is no compelling state interest in regulating a given activity, the state should not regulate that activity.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did I justify it religiously? Do you find it impossible to conceive there would be a non-religious argument for profanity fines or blue laws?
It's not impossible to conceive of, it's just unlikely that these arguments are purely non-religious in origin and motivation. It's becoming all too common for a religious preference to be repackaged into a supposedly secular argument to pretend that the motivations behind it are not religious. The whole ID movement is based on this conceit.
The most powerful organizations behind the passage of these laws are religious in nature, if not the religions themselves.
I'm actually a little confused by all the religious people who are trying to advance secular reasons for their opposition to SSM. Why not just state the plain truth that the Presidency or the Vatican (or whatever authority applies) have made it clear that they oppose SSM?
The secular arguments advanced in leiu of just stating the dotrinal position of the church are irreperably weak and amount mostly to "You can't *prove* this won't be a disaster, so we shouldn't do it." That's not any more persuasive than "Because God said so."
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: If there is no compelling state interest in regulating a given activity, the state should not regulate that activity.
This, again, presumes a definition of "compelling state interest" which I do not necessarily share, and which I think runs counter to that used for several hundred years. I understand that many people believe that the government should stay out of their business if there's no "harm" (again, I think the definition of this is a very tricky issue and rapidly leads down a rabbit hole). But I think that such a concept a new basis for law, and I feel very uncomfortable with shifts in the idealogical basis of our legal system.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the definition of this is a very tricky issue and rapidly leads down a rabbit hole
And "God says so" is less tricky? It seems like the gradual elimination of blue laws is an admission of how tricky it is to apply "<my particular version of> God says so" to a diverse population.
quote:But I think that such a concept a new basis for law, and I feel very uncomfortable with shifts in the idealogical basis of our legal system.
"Compelling state interest", as a component of strict scrutiny, has been part of the judicial system for decades in evaluating the constitutionality of a law.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Who cares about churches?
Um, members of the church.
I guess with everyone else duking it out over something that's really unimportant compared to the bigger threats to society and sanity, I might as well join in this debate. I will refrain from using religious arguments in this post, because I know half the guys in here wouldn't take them seriously. That's not really a big deal for me; my views on homosexual marriage are based on my perception of the purpose of marriage, which was formed, believe it or not, quite a while before I started taking God seriously.
In the church, marriage is a (often eternalized) covenant between a man and a woman. It's purpose is to create family.
In the state, marriage has legal connotations; the government provides benefits to married couples, all of these which were made in the interest of protecting "family values."
Nowhere does any of this talk about sexual desires. It is true that between straight couples, they usually first notice each other by suggestion of coming-of-age hormones, but if their "love" does not transcend biological urges, I pity such a couple. It might explain the current divorce rate.
Like life itself, marriage is more than just chemistry, if not in science then in philosophy. Marriage ought to be the strongest, most resilient, and flexible bond that can exist between two beings, and sexual desires are only a disposable hook that makes a starting latch, so that the rope can be tied (beware the extended metaphors!!!). This magnificent fiber is woven not only to bridge the couple, but to support the child that springs from it. It is through marriage that the sole practicality of sexuality is realized; the creation of a completely new being, made half from the genes of the man and half from the genes of the woman, with the intent of raising the child in a family to adulthood and beyond. I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin (not inherently a religious term).
That being said, I have no qualms about two close friends of the same gender adopting a child and raising him. A homosexual couple is capable of having partnership, "love," and even love. Their union, however, is not marriage because it does not "realize the sole practicality of sexuality," see previous paragraph. The government should be able to acknowledge the closeness and trust of best friends, regardless of the "disposable hook" that got them together.
I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator. Which is one of the pieces of rationale for allowing gay marriages; they have a right to be happy too! I think the politically-correct society is far too eager to find homosexuality where it is nonexistent. I mean, C-3PO and R2-D2 aren't gay! Frodo and Sam aren't gay! If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade the same way Dumbledore fell in love with Grindlewald. It's a mark of one's willingness to see everything sexually, or, to put it more bluntly, one's enslavement to his own hormones, to think think any of these resilient friendships are driven by an evolutionarily unsound version of lust juice.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) so, unsurprisingly, the usual definition of marriage is a Judeo-Christian one.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
