Redefining Marriage

[Autodidact]

Where are they today?

Holland, Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Massachusetts and California.

How are they doing?

Fine.

How long have they lasted?

The marriages or the countries?

No major society throughout all of history has accepted anything other than man-woman marriage. Only isolated pockets practiced homosexual marriage.

Well, other than that little tiny Roman Empire, and China, that is.

 

[Autodidact]

No, but it is counter evolutionary. a society within itself that adopts homosexuality as a normal thing and encourages the behavior, will eventially dwindle and perish because there will be no new posterity unless you inbreed.
.

It's true. Homosexuality is so delightful in every way, so vastly superior to heterosexuality, that if we let people do it, within a few short years, EVERYONE WILL TURN GAY! The only way to prevent this is to make it very difficult and painful to be gay, preferably through incarceration.

 

[Autodidact]

where are those cultures now?

The same place as all the ones that didn't recognize it.

 

[Autodidact]

If it were that way from the beginning the human race would not exist because THE ONLY WAY for humans to reproduce is heterosexually.

And it's really important to encourage as many people as possible to reproduce, so the human race doesn't die out. The best way to do this is to make sure that no one turns gay.

 

[Autodidact]

She can speak openly of her views i don't care, But if you REALLY want to marry someone of the same sex, go somewhere it's allowed.

Yeah, like California.[/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

If we think about how our species consists of only two sexes--male and female--then one must wonder how and where homosexuality would fit in. It's a subculture, and like someone had mentioned earlier, there have always been more heterosexuals than homosexuals. Given these facts, it's understandable as to why our (the human race's) statutes, our social structures, etc. initially revolved around a heterosexual society. Marriage is just one thing that began for the purpose of uniting a man and a woman only, before all other sub-points (race, religion, class, etc.) were tacked onto its definition. I think what Card was trying to say in his editorial was that marriage was created between, and for, a man and a woman across races, religions, or anything else, and not for the manipulation of a government; that marriage between the only two sexes within our species shouldn't be accepted as an option to choose from.

Why not? How does it pick your pocket or break your leg?

 

[Alceste]

Bzzzt. Wrong.

from here.

Great article, Auto.

I have just come up with a theory that the sexually repressed people of Abrahamic religions need to believe that repression is the natural state of humankind. Otherwise, they would be forced to admit that their own suppression of desire is what is "unnatural", and must be displeasing to whatever creator there might be. What kind of God would program unfettered sexual experimentation into the whole of his creation, only to denounce nature for embracing its design? For this reason, the documented evidence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom and the whole of human history just sails right past them unacknowledged and they incessantly repeat the same tired fallacies over and over again, even in the face of overwhelming evidence their position is irrational and untenable. Or they attribute everything that doesn't fit with their fantasy that sexual repression is natural to some abstract metaphysical notion that somehow even dolphins, octopi, bonobos and dogs were corrupted by "the Fall".

Nevertheless, in a secular society, metaphysical notions of the fall of man are not permitted to interfere with the equal application of the law. This is the fundamental truth that has been illustrated in the courts of nation after secular nation as we refine our conception of where the line between religious law and secular law must necessarily fall.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I think all of the arguments against gay marriage are very weak. As a Mormon, I can understand fully the argument from morality that would desire that the institution of marriage be reserved for the religious and those who abide by religious principles.

However, we do not live in a society where our politics and legal system are defined by religious principle (though arguably they were heavily influenced by Christian culture in terms of the UK and USA). Therefore the idea that what has essentially become a legal contract should maintain religious exclusivity is laughable because they are not reserved for those who follow religion. Two atheists can get married, and there is no real religious connotation to that marriage. To therefore claim that marriage is in the hands of the religious to define is disagreeable. They seem to have been pretty lax with it's handling long enough.

I do agree with the view that religious institutions should be able to choose whether or not they wish to condone or accept as religiously valid same-sex marriages. They should have the right to have control over their own beliefs and practices after all.

But that is as far as the religious realm of control should extend: to the practices of it's own members.

 

[Willamena]

Marriage is just one thing that began for the purpose of uniting a man and a woman only, before all other sub-points (race, religion, class, etc.) were tacked onto its definition.

It has been suggested (by Jules Cashford, for one) that it began as marriage between a God and Goddess, and that the human customs and ceremonies mimic, concretize and literalize the divine rite.

Edit: Well, she suggests the first bit, I suggest the latter.

 

[Autodidact]

I do agree with the view that religious institutions should be able to choose whether or not they wish to condone or accept as religiously valid same-sex marriages. They should have the right to have control over their own beliefs and practices after all.

If this were the case, we would already have gay marriage in every state, since many churches and synagogues perform gay marriages.

But that is as far as the religious realm of control should extend: to the practices of it's own members.[/quote] misanthropic clown destroys Mormon stereotypes exemplified by some other posters who will remain nameless, but who have me on ignore anyway.

 

[madhatter85]

for all those who try to justify homosexuality as natural, I give you this scripture in which i use to justify my opinions.

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

misanthropic clown destroys Mormon stereotypes exemplified by some other posters who will remain nameless, but who have me on ignore anyway.

Well, methinks this was quite my point on the 'LDS letter..." thread - we are allowed that difference of opinion which is actually what I feel to be a vital aspect of our religion. Which is also why I don't understand the Church's rather heavy-handed official stance on the matter. The tolerance for difference (however narrow the spectrum is in the grand scheme of things) is one of the only things that stopped me leaving the church full stop in my doubting years.

Anyway- off topic methinks.

 

[madhatter85]

Well, methinks this was quite my point on the 'LDS letter..." thread - we are allowed that difference of opinion which is actually what I feel to be a vital aspect of our religion. Which is also why I don't understand the Church's rather heavy-handed official stance on the matter. The tolerance for difference (however narrow the spectrum is in the grand scheme of things) is one of the only things that stopped me leaving the church full stop in my doubting years.

Anyway- off topic methinks.

The church has alwasy been heavy handed when it came to Sin. even those in our church who comit serious transgression are subject to discipline.

the one time the church finally draws the line in the sand everyone freaks out? do you think God will let his church be walked all over in the dispensation of the fulness of times? i think not.

 

[Willamena]

for all those who try to justify homosexuality as natural, I give you this scripture in which i use to justify my opinions.

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.​

​

Did you grab the right quote? I think you mistakenly grabbed the one that supports a stance on pedophilia.

 

[Father Heathen]

The church has alwasy been heavy handed when it came to Sin. even those in our church who comit serious transgression are subject to discipline.

the one time the church finally draws the line in the sand everyone freaks out? do you think God will let his church be walked all over in the dispensation of the fulness of times? i think not.

Who is walking all over the church?

 

[Father Heathen]

[/indent]Did you grab the right quote? I think you mistakenly grabbed the one that supports a stance on pedophilia.

But it's a-ok if god sanctions it.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

The church has alwasy been heavy handed when it came to Sin. even those in our church who comit serious transgression are subject to discipline.

the one time the church finally draws the line in the sand everyone freaks out? do you think God will let his church be walked all over in the dispensation of the fulness of times? i think not.

The emphasis I have added pretty much makes the point. By being a member of the church we commit to being bound by moral principles and to abstain from certain practices we see as unholy whilst undertaking more of practices we deem to be righteous. INTERNAL discipline makes perfect sense and is entirely legitimate.

What I feel the church is doing now is EXTERNALISING, which I feel to be a much less legitimate territory.

For example, if I went out and had myself a gay marriage I would fully expect to be excommunicated as a member.

However, if I were not a member, my actions would be completely outside the 'jurisdiction', as it were, of the church and having myself a gay marriage would be, frankly, none of the church's business/

 

[Father Heathen]

for all those who try to justify homosexuality as natural, I give you this scripture in which i use to justify my opinions.

Mosiah 3:

Allow me to counter with this scripture:

I do not like them in a box.I do not like them with a fox.I do not like them in a house.I do not like them with a mouse.I do not like them here or there.I do not like them anywhere.I do not like green eggs and ham.I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

 

[Ringer]

For this reason, the documented evidence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom and the whole of human history just sails right past them unacknowledged and they incessantly repeat the same tired fallacies over and over again, even in the face of overwhelming evidence their position is irrational and untenable.

Does existence in nature imply normative in nature? We see birth-defects to diseases to cannibalism to incest in nature but I don't think we equate those to good things. This is why when a child is born physically or mentally handicapped that we have sympathy. We acknowledge that this isn't the natural order of things or the way something is supposed to happen. In the same way, homosexual relations don't jive with many people because it doesn't appear to be natural. As a few others stated, how can it be natural? Nature flourishes not from same sex relations or sameness but from complimentarity.

 

[Nessa]

for all those who try to justify homosexuality as natural, I give you this scripture in which i use to justify my opinions.

Mosiah 3:

Though the natural man is someone that gives in to his desires. It could be used to condemn sipping coffee. It's extremely vague.

Though I agree with misanthropic_clown, it's off-topic for this thread.