The Church's Changing Position on the Legalization Same-Sex Marriage

[SCcoug]

So sorry you feel that way.

The church feels that way too.

[creekster]

For the life of me I can't figure out what you mean here. That little government certificate is the marriage.

This is a valid distinction Jacob is making (I haven't read the last spate of posts so I hope this is on point). A marriage can be legal or ecclesiastical or both. Same gender marriage might not be legal, but it can be ecclesiastical. OTOH, without the legal approval, you will not have many of the social benefits of a legal marriage (taxes, etc.) but you can still be married.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is a valid distinction Jacob is making (I haven't read the last spate of posts so I hope this is on point). A marriage can be legal or ecclesiastical or both. Same gender marriage might not be legal, but it can be ecclesiastical. OTOH, without the legal approval, you will not have many of the social benefits of a legal marriage (taxes, etc.) but you can still be married.

Fascinating. This is the first time I have seen this line of reasoning. Can someone please point me to all the churches that are performing non-binding ecclesiastical marriages in states where gay marriage is not legal? I had no idea that churches are blazing the way on this thing.

[Viking]

Burn! (in the parlance of my youth).

The level of ridiculousness from Tex and Jacob in this thread almost knows no bounds.

Gays can't get married? Of course they can! "Steve, meet Jane. What's that you say about this Gary fellow?"

By Jacob's measure, I was married to my cousin at the age of 5 at grandma's house by my cousin/wife's 6-year old twin sister. How progressive of me.

[Tex]

Yes. As long as they do not marry the person they are most inclined to choose as their partner and soulmate for life.

Can't reverse the pull of gravity either, but there's no sense whining about it.

That's nonsense.

I'd be happy to put the full history of American discrimination of gays up against the first several decades of church history. Any time.

[Tex]

Fascinating. This is the first time I have seen this line of reasoning. Can someone please point me to all the churches that are performing non-binding ecclesiastical marriages in states where gay marriage is not legal? I had no idea that churches are blazing the way on this thing.

What's fascinating is the marvelous attitude of entitlement you bring to this issue.

The level of ridiculousness from Tex and Jacob in this thread almost knows no bounds.

And to think, it used to be called "traditional values" and "common sense."

[CardiacCoug]

And to think, it used to be called "traditional values" and "common sense."

This is an awesome argument. Slavery was part of traditional values and common sense in the South, too.

Treating people who are different from us better than we used to treat them is called progress.

Seems like in your mind the fact that Mormons were treated badly in the 1800s means it's OK to deny rights to gays today. Why else would you want to make that comparison? Who cares? -- plenty of people were treated terribly and much worse than Mormons in the 1800s -- so what?

[Viking]

What's fascinating is the marvelous attitude of entitlement you bring to this issue.



And to think, it used to be called "traditional values" and "common sense."

You might be common, but you have no sense.

[CardiacCoug]

The other thing that bothers me about the Tex (and I guess Jacob's) argument here:

It strikes me as ironic to the point of absurdity when a married LDS family man who loves his wife and kids says something like, "What's the big deal? It's like not we're preventing people from cohabitating or having a relationship with anybody they choose. They can do whatever they want with the exception of getting married to and having (adopting?) kids with that person."

Hey smart guy, aren't your spouse and kids basically the core of your existence and the key to your happiness? Or are you saying being married to your spouse and having kids is no big deal to you?

The lack of insight and compassion in this attitude of, "What's the big deal it's just a piece of paper?" and "Hell no, why on earth would we let you adopt kids?" just seems extreme to me.

[Viking]

The other thing that bothers me about the Tex (and I guess Jacob's) argument here:

It strikes me as ironic to the point of absurdity when a married LDS family man who loves his wife and kids says something like, "What's the big deal? It's like not we're preventing people from cohabitating or having a relationship with anybody they choose. They can do whatever they want with the exception of getting married to and having (adopting?) kids with that person."

Hey smart guy, aren't your spouse and kids basically the core of your existence and the key to your happiness? Or are you saying being married to your spouse and having kids is no big deal to you?

The lack of insight and compassion in this attitude of, "What's the big deal it's just a piece of paper?" and "Hell no, why on earth would we let you adopt kids?" just seems extreme to me.

Tex was not given the opportunity to marry the man of his dreams. Why should anyone else?

[Jacob]

The other thing that bothers me about the Tex (and I guess Jacob's) argument here:

It strikes me as ironic to the point of absurdity when a married LDS family man who loves his wife and kids says something like, "What's the big deal? It's like not we're preventing people from cohabitating or having a relationship with anybody they choose. They can do whatever they want with the exception of getting married to and having (adopting?) kids with that person."

Hey smart guy, aren't your spouse and kids basically the core of your existence and the key to your happiness? Or are you saying being married to your spouse and having kids is no big deal to you?

The lack of insight and compassion in this attitude of, "What's the big deal it's just a piece of paper?" and "Hell no, why on earth would we let you adopt kids?" just seems extreme to me.

You are not this dumb, I'm sure. You seem to be arguing that a state-sanctioned marriage certificate would somehow change the ability of gay couples to have kids, or to love them. Strange indeed.

[EuropeanFootballMale]

You are not this dumb, I'm sure. You seem to be arguing that a state-sanctioned marriage certificate would somehow change the ability of gay couples to have kids, or to love them. Strange indeed.

I see. A legal marriage doesn't matter. It's just a stupid piece of paper. It doesn't really mean anything. In that case anyone who would spend even a minute worrying about the fact that the world is moving toward the legalization of gay marriage is sort of an idiot. You can't have it both ways.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'd be happy to put the full history of American discrimination of gays up against the first several decades of church history. Any time.

That might be the most glaring example of LDS persecution complex I have ever seen.

During the first several decades of church history, which do you think was most likely to get you lynched: joining the LDS church or admitting to being gay? In the entire history of the US, which group do you suppose has the largest number who have either been murdered, driven to suicide, or severely beaten?

[old_gregg]

You are not this dumb, I'm sure.

nice

You seem to be arguing that a state-sanctioned marriage certificate would somehow change the ability of gay couples to have kids, or to love adopt them. Strange indeed.

fify. if you don't think it makes a difference in adoption proceedings, your head is in the sand.

[UtahDan]

And to think, it used to be called "traditional values" and "common sense."

So were the ideas that women were property of their husbands, that blacks shouldn't marry whites, that blacks were inferior and destined to be slaves, should I go on?