LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Starfish]

A lot. This is one of the worst fallacies to use. It's a way of getting out of actually thinking about things. It doesn't matter how others have done it. What matters is whether it stands up to logic and reason. It's the same reason parents tell their children "If all of your friends jumped off a bridge...".

If throughout all of history the vast majority of humanity went down one road successfully and purposely, then a small minority in the past few years decided a different road was better---the least one would have to say is that there is some risk involved in that new road. Because it's definately new and untrodden.

We may be more technologically advanced, but I wouldn't say the same about our wisdom.

 

[Starfish]

Do you deny that polygamy was more prevalent?

I probably am more schooled in polygamy than you are for obvious reasons.

Whether or not it was a good thing, it was still between male and female.

 

[Autodidact]

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

Yeah, that's their job. That's what we have them for. This argument reveals either total ignorance of our system of government or opposition at such a fundamental level as to be anti-American.

The pretext is that state constitutions require it

What this writer calls "pretext" we call "judicial reasoning"--

but it is absurd to claim that these constitutions require marriage to be defined in ways that were unthinkable through all of human history until the past 15 years.

It's absurd to claim that anyone's redefining anything. As a Mormon, you should know that marriage has had many forms throughout history, and none of them are redefinitions, they're all just variations on who gets to participate in the existing definition.

And it is offensive to expect us to believe this obvious fiction.

I agree. Stop lying and we'll stop being offended.

It is such an obvious overreach by judges, far beyond any rational definition of their authority, that even those who support the outcome of the decisions should be horrified by the means.

On the contrary, it is quite within the mainstream of American jurisprudence for Justices to strike down a discriminatory law as violative of equal protection. This decision is really quite traditional, finding a fundamental right as already held twice by the U.S. Supreme Court, therefor applying strict scrutiny, and failing to find any overriding state interest in the discrimination.

<snip irrelevant bit>

<snip second irrelevant bit>

Do not suppose for a moment that the "gay marriage" diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.

It cracks me up when someone tries to justify a completely intolerant position by calling the other side intolerant, because they do not wish to tolerate your intolerance! Yeah, hatter, I'm highly intolerant of intolerance. Call me a an anti-bigot bigot.

 

[Autodidact]

I probably am more schooled in polygamy than you are for obvious reasons.

Whether or not it was a good thing, it was still between male and female.

that may be, but nevertheless according to madhatter it represented a "redefintion" of marriage.

 

[Storm]

I probably am more schooled in polygamy than you are for obvious reasons.

Whether or not it was a good thing, it was still between male and female.

But not "a man and a woman." The point is, you're trying to say that that shouldn't change. I say, it changed before, why not again?

 

[fantome profane]

What do we, of the past 15 years, know better than all of history?

In some cases yes. We absolutely must be willing to consider the possibility that we know better then all of history. Otherwise there can be no progress

 

[Starfish]

But not "a man and a woman." The point is, you're trying to say that that shouldn't change. I say, it changed before, why not again?

I'm confused. It is between a man and a woman. No men are marrying men, etc. Legal marrying ages have also changed, as has the practice of inter-family marrying. But same-sex marriage is new. Untried.

 

[Storm]

I'm confused. It is between a man and a woman. No men are marrying men, etc. Legal marrying ages have also changed, as has the practice of inter-family marrying. But same-sex marriage is new. Untried.

The same could be said of marrying for love.

So what? Equal treatment uder the law is fairly well established.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm confused. It is between a man and a woman. No men are marrying men, etc. Legal marrying ages have also changed, as has the practice of inter-family marrying. But same-sex marriage is new. Untried.

Not really.

Although state-recognized same-sex marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in Western society, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

[wiki]

There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. [11] Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton. The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period.

[wiki]

Recently, Holland has had it since 2001 with no apparent problems. Canada more recently than that and again, no problems.

Just what horrible thing do you think will happen from letting two people who love each other and want to make a life-long commitment do so?

 

[McBell]

Just what horrible thing do you think will happen from letting two people who love each other and want to make a life-long commitment do so?

God will be pi**ed.
Heterosexual marriage will no longer be sacred.
Pedophilia will be legalized.
People will start marrying children and animals
Churches will no longer be permitted to refuse to marry for any reason.
The definition of marriage will be changed. Again
​

I am sure I forgot some.
Perhaps others will help complete the list

 

[fantome profane]

God will be pi**ed.
Heterosexual marriage will no longer be sacred.
Pedophilia will be legalized.
People will start marrying children and animals
Churches will no longer be permitted to refuse to marry for any reason.
The definition of marriage will be changed. Again
​

I am sure I forgot some.
Perhaps others will help complete the list

Yeah, you forgot one.

If people start seeing same-sex married couple behaving in the same ways as heterosexual married couples, some people might have to admit they were wrong. And for some people that is the most horrible thing they can imagine.

 

[Storm]

God will be pi**ed.
Heterosexual marriage will no longer be sacred.
Pedophilia will be legalized.
People will start marrying children and animals
Churches will no longer be permitted to refuse to marry for any reason.
The definition of marriage will be changed. Again
​

I am sure I forgot some.
Perhaps others will help complete the list

I don't know what's going on with the quote function, but you quoted Autodidact, not me.

Churches will no longer be permitted to refuse to marry for any reason.

Now, this is the one fear tht strikes me as understandable. However, it's unfounded. Churches already have the right to refuse to perform or recognize whatever marriages they wish. They just don't have the ability to strip those marriages of legality. AFAIK, nobody is advocating that this change.

However, it's worth pointing out that those churches who wish to marry and recognize same-sex unions are currently unable to do so.

This brings the principle of freedom of religion down on the pro-same-sex marriage, imo.

 

[McBell]

I don't know what's going on with the quote function, but you quoted Autodidact, not me.

Not sure how I did that....
But it is fixed.

Thanks for the heads up

Now, this is the one fear tht strikes me as understandable. However, it's unfounded. Churches already have the right to refuse to perform or recognize whatever marriages they wish. They just don't have the ability to strip those marriages of legality. AFAIK, nobody is advocating that this change.

I agree it is unfounded.
But then, so are most of the other things on the list....

However, it's worth pointing out that those churches who wish to marry and recognize same-sex unions are currently unable to do so.

They wouldn't be though, if it were legal.

This brings the principle of freedom of religion down on the pro-same-sex marriage, imo.

I agree.
But then, I bet that those against same sex marriage will either ignore it, brush it off as inconsequential, or dismiss it

 

[Storm]

Not sure how I did that....
But it is fixed.

Thanks for the heads up

You're welcome.

I agree it is unfounded.
But then, so are most of the other things on the list....

Absolutely. However, as I said, the one I chose to address strikes me as an understandable one, which deserves to be respectfully allayed, whereas the others are just hatemongering.

They wouldn't be though, if it were legal.

That was my point.

I agree.
But then, I bet that those against same sex marriage will either ignore it, brush it off as inconsequential, or dismiss it

Sad but true.

 

[Magic Man]

If throughout all of history the vast majority of humanity went down one road successfully and purposely, then a small minority in the past few years decided a different road was better---the least one would have to say is that there is some risk involved in that new road. Because it's definately new and untrodden.

We may be more technologically advanced, but I wouldn't say the same about our wisdom.

That would be true, unless you're talking about something that isn't going to make or break society no matter what. If it was something like a change from a monarchy to democracy, sure. When it's only a matter of letting people have equal rights, there's no risk of anything. What exactly do you see as the risk of allowing gay marriage?

 

[Storm]

If throughout all of history the vast majority of humanity went down one road successfully and purposely, then a small minority in the past few years decided a different road was better---the least one would have to say is that there is some risk involved in that new road. Because it's definately new and untrodden.

We may be more technologically advanced, but I wouldn't say the same about our wisdom.

I know you don't like this argument, Starfish, but the same could be said about ending slavery, or women's sufferage, or overthrowing the divine right of kings.

Just because something is radical doesn't mean it's bad.

 

[Magic Man]

However, it's worth pointing out that those churches who wish to marry and recognize same-sex unions are currently unable to do so.

This brings the principle of freedom of religion down on the pro-same-sex marriage, imo.

That's a very good point, and one that I hadn't thought of before. It's true that you have religious freedom, unless part of your religion is marrying same-sex couples. Interesting.

 

[Orontes]

[/size][/font]

Stop right there. You've tried this several times already, and I've struck it down every time. They are similarly situated.

Alas, they are not. The potential to produce and the inability to produce is a fundamental and existential difference.

You don't need to explain anything. I get it. You're making a useless and irrelevant distinction again.

The distinction is relevant insofar as precision in language is important.

OK, so I can just go set someone on fire whenever I want, then? Oh, that's right, I can't. Why? Because it's not allowed by the Constitution.

This is another issue of accuracy. If someone assaults another, the reason they may be arrested is because assault is illegal, per the Criminal Code. This means there is a law passed by the legislature on the books against such and what constitutes such. Minus such status in the Criminal Code, one could not be prosecuted for assault.

But I thought the whole point of marriage was to have children. That seems to be the best environment for kids, right? So, why stop that from happening?

The point of marriage could be a whole host of things, depending on the person. As it relates to the state, the production of children is an interest. Marriage is the vehicle for both the production and foster of new citizens.

For one, I don't need to. It's already being taken care of. For another, I shouldn't need to. The government should do its job correctly, as it is in California, and has already in Massachusetts.

This is the divide between those who believe in a democratic process and those who do not.

Well, I just assumed it was because you wanted so badly for your feelings against homosexuals to be justified, but whatever you say.

It's much easier to simply demonize those who disagree isn't it. There is also a certain satisfaction if giving in to one's passion and castigating the opposition it seems.

So, you admit it finally. The state values marriage as an institution regardless of children. That means that your "the state values marriage because of its potential to produce children" argument is shot down. That leaves no reason for it not to value all marriages, including same-sex ones. I like how you even state that it's been defined that way since 1977. What about the other 100+ years? Why wasn't it defined that way then? Why was it changed in 1977? Oh, that's right, to make people like you feel better about your discrimination.

I have always argued the state values marriage. This is demonstrated in the benefits. I have also explained the reason is because marriage is the base vehicle through which new citizens are brought about and fostered. This is why benefits are given for producing children and why the state acts as a guarantor of the contract. Though there are marriages that do not produce children the vast majority do and marriage creates a stable regime for children's development.

As to the definition of marriage from 1977: I think it was tied to the perceived shift in gay advocate rhetoric from simple tolerance to demands of endorsement. Prior to 77 marriage, by the word alone, indicated man and woman binding themselves together and this wasn't contested.

 

[Orontes]

Now, this is the one fear tht strikes me as understandable. However, it's unfounded. Churches already have the right to refuse to perform or recognize whatever marriages they wish. They just don't have the ability to strip those marriages of legality. AFAIK, nobody is advocating that this change.

This is not necessarily the case. If a right is declared then, the state is obligated to enforce that right. Organizations that discriminate contra that right may become targets of state action. This could include things like state penalties to more forceful action. I know several attorneys who are planning suits along these very lines.

However, it's worth pointing out that those churches who wish to marry and recognize same-sex unions are currently unable to do so.

This is not correct. Several churches have married gay couples for years. Proposition 22 spoke to state sanction, not private action.

I know you don't like this argument, Starfish, but the same could be said about ending slavery, or women's sufferage, or overthrowing the divine right of kings.

Just because something is radical doesn't mean it's bad.

The ending of slavery and women's suffrage all occurred through democratic means (the ratification process): not judicial fiat.

 

[Storm]

This is not necessarily the case. If a right is declared then, the state is obligated to enforce that right. Organizations that discriminate contra that right may become targets of state action. This could include things like state penalties to more forceful action. I know several attorneys who are planning suits along these very lines.

Well, I don't support that, I don't know anyone who does, and I strongly doubt such suits would be successful, as they violate the separation of church and state.

This is not correct. Several churches have married gay couples for years. Proposition 22 spoke to state sanction, not private action.

My information may be outdated, but I think that's false. We're not allowed to marry gays, so we perform "commitment ceremonies" instead.

The ending of slavery and women's suffrage all occurred through democratic means (the ratification process): not judicial fiat.

You call the Civil War "democratic"?

I note you left out the divine right of kings.

Radical reform is by and large not a pretty process, but it is necessary for progress.