Adam and Steve can now get married in NY...

[Jacob]

Some of the arguments that were offered up during the election included the following re gay marriage:

1. It would lead to indoctrination of our children in school
2. It would lead to a mandate requiring gay marriages to be performed in our temple
3. It would require us to recognize gay marriages at Church
4. It would require us to make our facilities available for gay marriages
5. It would lead to a destruction of democracy (there was one pamphlet that we were asked to distribute that was entertaining in how over the top it was...this particular "risk" was humorous at best)
6. It might lead to the ability of our neighbors to marry our pets and our plants.

There were loads of these sorts of arguments offered up. I would say that these things would affect my daily life....how my Church is forced to operate, what happens inside the temple, and what my children are taught at school.

Apparently you do not think those things affect your daily life. Perhaps you are being literal. To that extent, you are probably correct, unless you teach in a public school or go to the temple every single day.

Firstly, of course I am being literal. Are you being figurative? And most of those don't have a "great affect on my life." Even if I did believe they were spectacular arguments, which I don't.

Secondly, I don't believe any of those are the primary reasons for most peoples' opposition to gay marriage. Those are political arguments. They are bullet points to bolster the primary reasons.

Some of the primary motivators for opposition might include 1) satisfaction with the current laws, 2) repulsion by gay sex, 3) desire to encourage traditional family structures, 4) moral objection to gay marriage, 5) dislike of gays, 6) a belief that maintaining the current marriage definition will best encourage the people to marry and raise their kids together, 7) belief that abandoning traditional marriage would have negative affects on our social structure.

None of these would require a person to believe that his life would be greatly affected by gays marrying. After all, gays can marry already, but the state doesn't sanction it. Giving them a state certificate has no affect on my life.

[Jacob]

So interracial marriage was a good enough reason to change marriage, but gay marriage is not. You might be on to something. Interracial couples should have been happy with a civil union. Imagine what society would be like today if this were the case! I am sure we all would be in a better place. Well at least some people would know their place!

What a terrible argument. Who is making it? Besides you, I mean?

[Flystripper]

What a terrible argument. Who is making it? Besides you, I mean?

you said there isn't a reason to change marriage. Marriage has been changed in the past. You probably are OK with that change, but you are not OK with this change. So you really don't mind changing marriage, you just don't want to change it in this way.

[Green Monstah]

I didn't reach the conclusion you are jumping to in #2.

I think marriage is a useful institution.
Before the government changes that institution, I think there ought to be a compelling reason. I haven't heard that compelling reason. That's my first objection. We can call this the conservative opposition.
Alternatively stated: There's no good reason to change marriage.
I think you'll agree that this reason for opposition has nothing to do with whether it will affect my life, or yours.

You're right on your first point. I re-read your posts and misunderstood your point. My apologies.

Interesting. I don't believe that its really the reason you oppose it, but if true, I suppose you're technically right, but it's also the equivalent of saying, "I don't believe gay people deserve marriage", which isn't horribly convincing.

[Jacob]

you said there isn't a reason to change marriage. Marriage has been changed in the past. You probably are OK with that change, but you are not OK with this change. So you really don't mind changing marriage, you just don't want to change it in this way.

Right. That's exactly what I said. I haven't heard a compelling reason for this change. There are several changes I would make to current marriage laws if I were emperor. I didn't say the current law was perfect or unchangeable. That was all you.

[Green Monstah]

None of these would require a person to believe that his life would be greatly affected by gays marrying. After all, gays can marry already, but the state doesn't sanction it. Giving them a state certificate has no affect on my life.

If true, then I still don't understand why there's a need to oppose it.

FTR, I think it should be left up to the states. If Utah, etc. never wants to have gay marriage, I think that's fine. I think I'd prefer that government get out of the business of defining marriage altogether, but since that won't happen, I'll leave it to the states to decided for themselves.

[Jacob]

You're right on your first point. I re-read your posts and misunderstood your point. My apologies.

Interesting. I don't believe that its really the reason you oppose it, but if true, I suppose you're technically right, but it's also the equivalent of saying, "I don't believe gay people deserve marriage", which isn't horribly convincing.

See, you just tired to move the burden of proof right after I just tried to shift it back to where I think it ought to be. I've said that the burden should be on the proponent of change and they have failed to meet that burden, in my eyes. You said something about gays not deserving marriage--I'm not clear what that means--not being convincing. But that's not an argument I was making. The government doesn't make laws because this or that group of people "deserve" it.

[Jacob]

FTR, I think it should be left up to the states. If Utah, etc. never wants to have gay marriage, I think that's fine. I think I'd prefer that government get out of the business of defining marriage altogether, but since that won't happen, I'll leave it to the states to decided for themselves.

I think that's fine, as long as DOMA remains in effect. I don't think it would be a good bargain if the states like Utah were forced to recognize out of state gay marriages. That would kinda negate the idea of the states being able to determine on their own. And that is why it is a consistent position to say that you support a state's right to make their own determination and also support a Constitutional amendment regarding the same. Because, IMO, absent an amendment, be will end up with the problem I've just described. And since Obama refuses to defend the DOMA law in court, it is not likely to last long.

[Flystripper]

Right. That's exactly what I said. I haven't heard a compelling reason for this change. There are several changes I would make to current marriage laws if I were emperor. I didn't say the current law was perfect or unchangeable. That was all you.

OK. interracial couples wanted to get married because:

1.They desired the rights granted to marriages by the state and federal governments

2.They wanted to be married to the person that they loved, and have their marriage recognized by society as such.

3.They wanted to erode racism and bigotry in society.

Gay people have these same desires. Civil unions take care of number 1, but gay people want 2 and 3 (well not racism but certainly bigotry) as much as interracial couples in the past. I guess for you, number 2 and 3 are not good enough reasons to support gay marriage. However, I assume that if civil unions were available to interracial couples you would have been in favor of granting interracial marriages. So your hang up over gay marriage is more about gays being accepted than not wanting to change marriage.

[taekwondave]

How and why did the government get involved in marriage in the first place?

[Levin]

I used to take it seriously. When I was younger, I thought what everyone else at Church thought about gays...in fact, what we were taught about homosexuality.....gays were sinful, they were perverts, they could be cured through prayer or singing hymns, they were more likely to molest children, that S&G was destroyed because of gays, etc.

Eventually, I did some thinking on my own and stopped holding those previously held beliefs. Apparently you have done some thinking on your own and still hold those beliefs. That is your prerogative. But just because you say the sky will eventually fall doesn't mean that it will. I've looked up at the sky....it looks pretty stable to me.

Intentionally, I haven't expressed my opinion on gay marriage. So you don't know what I believe. Nor could you deduce my belief about your laundry list of "ignorances" even if I had. You can disagree about gay marriage without thinking all the rest in your list.

If I did disagree with gay marriage, I'd find attitudes like yours much scarier than actual same-sex marriages. The mockery, simplistic thinking, and arrogance is much more of a menace than gay marriage, in my opinion.

All my posts have done is draw that out from you and others.

[taekwondave]

See, you just tired to move the burden of proof right after I just tried to shift it back to where I think it ought to be. I've said that the burden should be on the proponent of change and they have failed to meet that burden, in my eyes. You said something about gays not deserving marriage--I'm not clear what that means--not being convincing. But that's not an argument I was making. The government doesn't make laws because this or that group of people "deserve" it.

You're playing a tricky game here. I think it is you that possesses the burden of proof.

It is like two children (gay people and straight people) going to their mom and dad (the government) and one says, "Mom and dad? You let Johnny have ice cream after dinner but not me. I don't think that's fair. I want ice cream too."

To which the other responds, "Mom and dad? I simply could not enjoy my ice cream as much if Timmy got some too. It would "cheapen" the experience for me. I realize that is not a very good reason, but the burden of proof doesn't lie with me, it lies with the person who is proposing the change. And besides, me and the other kids have the power to vote you out of your position if you don't do what we want, so you should take that into consideration as well."

Unfortunately, due to the threat, the parents would probably side with Johnny. But deep down, everyone involved would know it was wrong.

[Surfah]

How and why did the government get involved in marriage in the first place?

I'd guess taxes.

[scottie]

This is a pretty good read...

I was wrong about same-sex marriage By David Frum, CNN Contributor

Washington (CNN) -- I was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. Fourteen years ago, Andrew Sullivan and I forcefully debated the issue at length online (at a time when online debate was a brand new thing).

Yet I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead ...

[TripletDaddy]

Firstly, of course I am being literal. Are you being figurative? And most of those don't have a "great affect on my life." Even if I did believe they were spectacular arguments, which I don't.

Secondly, I don't believe any of those are the primary reasons for most peoples' opposition to gay marriage. Those are political arguments. They are bullet points to bolster the primary reasons.

Some of the primary motivators for opposition might include 1) satisfaction with the current laws, 2) repulsion by gay sex, 3) desire to encourage traditional family structures, 4) moral objection to gay marriage, 5) dislike of gays, 6) a belief that maintaining the current marriage definition will best encourage the people to marry and raise their kids together, 7) belief that abandoning traditional marriage would have negative affects on our social structure.

None of these would require a person to believe that his life would be greatly affected by gays marrying. After all, gays can marry already, but the state doesn't sanction it. Giving them a state certificate has no affect on my life.

Then the rest of your post was unnecessary, as you can easily read in my original post.