LDS Church leaders restate opposition to Gay Marriage

[prisonchaplain]

I've stated this in discussions with members of the board who favor same-sex marriage. My view is that we should grant equal or almost-equal legal rights to such couples. We might even consider civil unions. However, marriage is an institution that is traditionally faith-based, and one which also represents society's best standard of family. In mostly secular communities, then, perhaps gay marriage makes sense. However, in the U.S., which is 85% Christians, and in which over 90% say they believe in God, I just don't see granting marriage as a solemn human right. It's called "holy matrimony." Most Americans see gay unions as less than holy--even if we sympathize those with such attractions.

[MisterT]

I don't approve of 'gay marriage,' I simply believe that government has absolutely no authority to interfiere with approving or prohibiting the lawful entry into private contract by anyone in their majority, of sound mind, and of informed consent.

To "approve" of "almost equal rights" is discrimination, no matter how you look at it, and is an abomination.

What authority do you, or anyone for that matter, have to "grant" marriage? Are you entering into that contract? Are you somehow an involved party?

Why are 'priests' allowed to officiate over a marriage? Is it because of somekind of power or authority granted by the state (or God for that matter)???

No, its because of needing WITNESSES who are unimpeachable in case the contract between the two is contested. That's also why there are other "Witnesses" required in most states; to stand as proof that the contract was entered into WILILNGLY, TRUTHFULLY, WITHOUT RESERVATION or FALSE REPRESENTATION, and WITHOUT DURESS.

What authority do you or anyone have to 'deny' the ability of two adults, of informed consent, in their majority and right minds, to lawfully enter into a contract of performance OF ANY VARIETY???

Equality is a solemn human right. Being able to enter into private contract is a solemn human right. Being free from having other people force their views upon you is a solemn human right; as declared and preserved in the Bill of Rights and by the virtue of Agency as granted by God.

Frankly, I'm offended by your presumption that you have some kind of authority or position of moral superiority in this, or any matter, simply because you put on a Rat Catcher and thump a Bible.

Discrimination of any variety is an abomination; as is suposing to force others to conform to your personal opinion of what is right or wrong.

BTW, marriage is not "primarily faith based," nor has it ever been historically. Marriage has been practiced in many forms and names for millenia, even in countries where they'd never heard of Jesus Christ, God, or Santa Claus. Its been around for much longer than Christianity, Judiasm, or any other recorded religion. Its what people naturally do; it requires no permission or justification of any organization, government, or stuffed shirt in a white collar and a fancy little dress who rings bells to get heaven's attention, who burns incense to help prayers rise to heaven on the smoke, or who beseeches the attention of saints by prayer to a graven image (such as Saint Medals) to pay special attention to, or pretect them from anything, ever.

I dont mean to be offensive, but I want you to understand just how off base I think you are, and how completely I believe you've misinterpreted the 'authority' of clergy. Any clergy. And yes, I would say the exact same thing to Thoman Monson if he made the same argument to me, because I believe it to be abhorrent and an abomination.

[pam]

Honestly I see nothing wrong with PC's post. What he said made a lot of sense.

To accuse him of acting all superior and out of line even for a clergy is out of line in itself in my opinion.

PC is one of the most humble people I have ever personally met. And yes I have met him in person.

[pam]

BTW, marriage is not "primarily faith based," nor has it ever been historically. Marriage has been practiced in many forms and names for millenia, even in countries where they'd never heard of Jesus Christ, God, or Santa Claus. Its been around for much longer than Christianity, Judiasm, or any other recorded religion. Its what people naturally do; it requires no permission or justification of any organization, government

Interesting you should say this.

Henry B. Eyring

Our Heavenly Father wants our hearts to be knit together. That union in love is not simply an ideal. It is a necessity.

The requirement that we be one is not for this life alone. It is to be without end. The first marriage was performed by God in the garden when Adam and Eve were immortal. He placed in men and women from the beginning a desire to be joined together as man and wife forever to dwell in families in a perfect, righteous union. He placed in His children a desire to live at peace with all those around them.

Whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu or any other religion. Marriage has been around since Adam and Eve. The first marriage being performed by God himself.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by MisterT

I don't approve of 'gay marriage,' I simply believe that government has absolutely no authority to interfiere with approving or prohibiting the lawful entry into private contract by anyone in their majority, of sound mind, and of informed consent.

Okay...but this does fly in the face of 6000 of human experience. Governments have indeed been the authority that recognized marriage.

To "approve" of "almost equal rights" is discrimination, no matter how you look at it, and is an abomination.

Well, no. Marriage is not a right. Adopting kids is not a right. Having one's alternative family pattern (Sally has two mommies) taught to public school children is not a right. It's not an abomination for societies to tolerate private behavior, while not granting it the full approval of traditional marriage.

What authority do you, or anyone for that matter, have to "grant" marriage? Are you entering into that contract? Are you somehow an involved party?

Precedence. Marriage has, for 6000 years, largely been considered a matter of community recognition.

Why are 'priests' allowed to officiate over a marriage? Is it because of somekind of power or authority granted by the state (or God for that matter)???

Actually, yes. "By the authority granted me by the state of Washington..."

No, its because of needing WITNESSES who are unimpeachable in case the contract between the two is contested. That's also why there are other "Witnesses" required in most states; to stand as proof that the contract was entered into WILILNGLY, TRUTHFULLY, WITHOUT RESERVATION or FALSE REPRESENTATION, and WITHOUT DURESS.

Actually, your "other witnesses," are the witnesses. The priest is the officiant.

What authority do you or anyone have to 'deny' the ability of two adults, of informed consent, in their majority and right minds, to lawfully enter into a contract of performance OF ANY VARIETY???

Quite a bit actually. Again, the precedence of human history is that marriage is a matter ordained by faith communities, but recognized by civil ones.

Frankly, I'm offended by your presumption that you have some kind of authority or position of moral superiority in this, or any matter, simply because you put on a Rat Catcher and thump a Bible.

Actually I was commenting like everyone else here...just based on being a part of the forum.

Discrimination of any variety is an abomination; as is suposing to force others to conform to your personal opinion of what is right or wrong.

We discriminate every time we make choices. My personal opinion means nothing...unless an overwhelming majority agrees.

BTW, marriage is not "primarily faith based," nor has it ever been historically. Marriage has been practiced in many forms and names for millenia, even in countries where they'd never heard of Jesus Christ, God, or Santa Claus. Its been around for much longer than Christianity, Judiasm, or any other recorded religion. Its what people naturally do; it requires no permission or justification of any organization, government, or stuffed shirt in a white collar and a fancy little dress who rings bells to get heaven's attention, who burns incense to help prayers rise to heaven on the smoke, or who beseeches the attention of saints by prayer to a graven image (such as Saint Medals) to pay special attention to, or pretect them from anything, ever.

Impassioned words, but in most necks of the woods the majority of marriages are religious, and the state must indeed recognize it for the union to have legal standing.

I dont mean to be offensive, but I want you to understand just how off base I think you are, and how completely I believe you've misinterpreted the 'authority' of clergy. Any clergy. And yes, I would say the exact same thing to Thoman Monson if he made the same argument to me, because I believe it to be abhorrent and an abomination.

You seem to find my being a clergyperson offensive. I made no mention of it in my posts, and I'm not sure why you repeatedly mention it. Is it really germaine to this conversation?

[Gwen]

Originally Posted by MisterT

Frankly, I'm offended by your presumption that you have some kind of authority or position of moral superiority in this, or any matter, simply because you put on a Rat Catcher and thump a Bible.

Discrimination of any variety is an abomination; as is suposing to force others to conform to your personal opinion of what is right or wrong.

sitting here i can't think if a single occurrence of discrimination that didn't start and end with derogatory names (aka name calling) against the discriminated party..... hummmmm is there an insert foot smile?

[hordak]

Originally Posted by MisterT

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults

Government has no moral or constitutional authority, by virtue of statute, section, or inference, to allow or prevent the willing private contract of performance.

I have no problem with two consenting adults

Just out of curiosity...

Why do most who say government has no right to "interfere" with marriage define marriage as 2 consenting adults , which is the Government's Definition?

How/Why is keeping John and Steve from getting hitched with marriage defined as 2 consenting adults of opposite gender discriminatory while keeping John, Jane and Sue from getting hitched with marriage defined as 2 consenting adults of opposite gender is considered A-OK?

It like me saying i have the right to practice Mormonism under" freedom of religion" just like the Catholics and Baptist, But it was meant for Christians only so the Wiccans don't have that right

[MisterT]

First off, you're intentionally intellectually dishonest if you believe that there's ony 6,000 years of human history to draw precident from. There is archeological proof that is indesputable that shows homosapien has been the apex lifeform on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years. Indesputable proof; to the point where not even the most devout member of any reliegion who has even half a brain rejects the cannon of the earth only being 6,000 years old, and I can't think of a single modern reliegion who continues to espouse that view.

On the topic of "power granted you by the State of Washington," it is not the power to marry two people (they can only marry each other - you can only officiate as an OFFICIAL granted the authrority to declare the contract entered into legally. No matter what you postulate to the people entering into the contract, or if they even refuse to utter a word to you or themselves, the only legally binding act is in signing the marriage contract at the time of officiation. I know this to be true as I've been authorized several times by law and custom to officiate over marriage and other 'solemn' acts). I recommend you expend some effort in study of contractual law and the authority of the State.

Entering into private contract is a human right ordained by The Almighty and is free from whatever petty restrictions you'd like to put on it. The adoption of children isn't a right.. I don't even know how to respond to that statement. What right or authority does the state have, legally or consituttionally, to allow or prevent it.

Your use of the phrase 'authority by precident' is the same one used for millenia to rationalize serious abuses such as genocide, murder, opression, slavery, stigimitization, and separation; hardly something I'd be proud of. Does precident make it right that an entire Caste of people in India are considered worthless and tainted? The "Untouchables" are exempt from protections under law; one wishing to abuse or deprive them up to including of their lives, is free from prosecution, and may in fact be abeited by law.

That's not company I'd wish to be standing in when I try to justify my position to The Almighty.

Put it any way you want it; there is no intellectually honest way to defend descrimination in any form. We are warned "not to judge," but that does not mean "accept anything that goes, from anyone" (accepting discrimination is just as bad as making uninformed judgements), it simply means "judge not lightly," which means not before having honestly and intellectually examining a topic.

I really couldn't care less that you're a paid clergyman (even though Nephi had a few choice words about your profession... Something on the lines of calling it an abomination; ya know, "eat thy bread from the sweat of thy own brow all the days of thy life" and all that), I simply take exception that you use that avocation, whether or not you state what it is, as a basis to make claims that are utterly indefensible. You have no moral authority because you strap on a rat cather. You have none because you hold a Doctorate of Divinity or Theology. You have no authority because you lead a congregation. In fact, I'd say that you'll be held to a higher standard than the rest of us because of your assumption of authority or knowledge.

I'm done with this topic because I'm about to say a few things that would be considered.. unkind. Suffice it to say that you hold no prominance with me because of employment. I've never been impressed by station or celebrity, and account amongst my actual friends Generals, Senators, minor royalty, Medal of Honor recipients, men of industry.. farmers, soldiers, waiters, plumbers, and one or two convicted criminals. I place absolutely no stock in position or education; other than where they're used for the benefit of those who cannot help themselves. I do not need, nor do I seek, you approval or agreement on anything. I only require honest debate free of opinions on morality based upon prejudice or emotional argument.

[Justinator1]

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

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.

Emphasis mine.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see the state trying to force religions and people to recognize "non-traditional" unions as marriages is one step toward the disintegration of the family. I, for one, don't want any part of the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

For those who may disagree, who may think that homosexual marriage does not lead to the disintegration of the family, I urge you to go back and study your Old Testament.

[MisterT]

Originally Posted by hordak

Just out of curiosity...

Why do most who say government has no right to "interfere" with marriage define marriage as 2 consenting adults , which is the Government's Definition?

How/Why is keeping John and Steve from getting hitched with marriage defined as 2 consenting adults of opposite gender discriminatory while keeping John, Jane and Sue from getting hitched with marriage defined as 2 consenting adults of opposite gender is considered A-OK?

It like me saying i have the right to practice Mormonism under" freedom of religion" just like the Catholics and Baptist, But it was meant for Christians only so the Wiccans don't have that right

It is not ok, under any circumstance, for government to interfier with consenting adults entering into contract. I have nothing against plural marriage; I have no interest in entering into a contract of Bigamy (one wife at a time was sometimes more than enough - hence why I'm single now), but I wouldn't stop those who wised to from doing to.

I did not mis-speak when I defined it as 'two consenting adults,' I simply did not use the phrase "between all legally interested parties" as I should have. My phraseology was unintentionally constraned due to paying greater attention to the words and phrases being bandied about than the correct terms in the common vernacular.