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

[TripletDaddy]

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

Tex, I caught this even if nobody else did. Nice job.

[Tex]

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.

Only if I thought it was okay to have treated Mormons badly in the 1800s.

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.

This might be someone’s argument here, but it ain’t mine.

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

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?

Please do. I’d like to see if you guys can get even more hyperbolic, or if that’s the best you can do.

[Tex]

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

There are several other terms for acting like a jackass toward those with a different opinion than you.

[UtahDan]

Please do. I’d like to see if you guys can get even more hyperbolic, or if that’s the best you can do.

An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

[Tex]

An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

Not relevant to the discussion, Dan. But I do like that of all the potential logical fallacies in this thread, you go and nit pick mine.

[Levin]

This thread is interesting to me because it highlights a growing trend in our society as well, which is to silence those who seek to uphold the traditional standard.

I recall several years ago on Cougarguard when these debates would happen and it seemed like the tenor was less "you're stupid, idiotic, and how could you possibly believe such a thing your backwardsass fool," like the debate here, and more a debate of positions and ideas.

Same in society: speaking against gay marriage will get you fired in some places, let alone shunned.

But also five or so years ago, those who voiced support for traditional marriage weren't considered so backwards or idiotic.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This thread is interesting to me because it highlights a growing trend in our society as well, which is to silence those who seek to uphold the traditional standard.

I recall several years ago on Cougarguard when these debates would happen and it seemed like the tenor was less "you're stupid, idiotic, and how could you possibly believe such a thing your backwardsass fool," like the debate here, and more a debate of positions and ideas.

Same in society: speaking against gay marriage will get you fired in some places, let alone shunned.

But also five or so years ago, those who voiced support for traditional marriage weren't considered so backwards or idiotic.

Whoa. Somebody was silenced? Who would that be?

[CardiacCoug]

You are not this dumb, I'm sure.

There are several other terms for acting like a jackass toward those with a different opinion than you.

I recall several years ago on Cougarguard when these debates would happen and it seemed like the tenor was less "you're stupid, idiotic, and how could you possibly believe such a thing your backwardsass fool," like the debate here, and more a debate of positions and ideas.

You guys are all really smart and instead of making a logical, coherent case for denying gays the right to marry, this is all you can come up with: name-calling and complaints about tone. Speaks volumes.

Levin, let's hear your "positions and ideas" for denying gays the right to marry. If I recall from CG it was that you believe that legalization of gay marriage confers a societal green light for bisexual male teens to fool around with other males and then become completely gay. Is that the way you would debate this issue still?

[CardiacCoug]

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.

Yes, I believe that being married is good for parents. And I think that having married parents is good for kids. Marriage is a good thing for strengthening bonds all around -- I'm surprised that LDS people who think marriage is so essential for straight couples suddenly think that marriage is bad and in fact immoral for gay couples. Explain that to me, please.

As I ponder these words of The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

In my mind not only allowing but encouraging gay people to get married and stay married would definitely be one of those measures that would strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

[creekster]

nice



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

Depends on where you are. Gay couples adopt them all the time here.

[old_gregg]

Depends on where you are. Gay couples adopt them all the time here.

yeah, the bay area ain't exactly a representative sample

[UtahDan]

You are not this dumb, I'm sure.

<br />
<br />

Originally Posted by Tex<br />
There are several other terms for acting like a jackass toward those with a different opinion than you.

<br />
<br />

Originally Posted by Levin<br />
<br />
I recall several years ago on Cougarguard when these debates would happen and it seemed like the tenor was less "you're stupid, idiotic, and how could you possibly believe such a thing your backwardsass fool," like the debate here, and more a debate of positions and ideas.

<br />
<br />
You guys are all really smart and instead of making a logical, coherent case for denying gays the right to marry, this is all you can come up with: name-calling and complaints about tone. Speaks volumes.<br />
<br />
Levin, let's hear your "positions and ideas" for denying gays the right to marry. If I recall from CG it was that you believe that legalization of gay marriage confers a societal green light for bisexual male teens to fool around with other males and then become completely gay. Is that the way you would debate this issue still?

[creekster]

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.

Start your own Church and marry people. You can do it. The state wont recognize it, at least not necessarily, but nothing prevents you from doing so. Moreover, there were certain pastors here in NorCal who defied the law following prop 22 and then again following prop 8.

Most of the practical objections raised by gay advocates involve benefits bestowed on couples through the state. The ecclesiastical benefits are, obviously, more ephemeral and vary from couple to couple, to the extent they exist at all. It has always been my personal feeling that the notion of religious marriage should be divorced from the notion of civil unions upon which the state bestows financial or legal benefits. States shouldn't marry and religions shouldn't create conditions for tax deductions.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Start your own Church and marry people. You can do it. The state wont recognize it, at least not necessarily, but nothing prevents you from doing so. Moreover, there were certain pastors here in NorCal who defied the law following prop 22 and then again following prop 8.

Most of the practical objections raised by gay advocates involve benefits bestowed on couples through the state. The ecclesiastical benefits are, obviously, more ephemeral and vary from couple to couple, to the extent they exist at all. It has always been my personal feeling that the notion of religious marriage should be divorced from the notion of civil unions upon which the state bestows financial or legal benefits. States shouldn't marry and religions shouldn't create conditions for tax deductions.

I would be fine with a situation like that. But that's not reality right now. And if we were to migrate in that direction, I dare bet that churches would put up the biggest fight.

[creekster]

I would be fine with a situation like that. But that's not reality right now. And if we were to migrate in that direction, I dare bet that churches would put up the biggest fight.

Maybe, maybe not. I think this is where it might have to go.