LDS Position on Homosexuality & "Eternal Gender"

[Guest Believer_1829]

I don't have a solid opinion on that. I believe these marriages are generally exploitive of women and children, but I don't know how that plays out constitutionally. These marriages do not fit into the same marriage contract as 2 party marriages. I don't know if a standardized contract could be crafted that would be acceptable to different colonies of polygamists. It has to be considered on it's own merit which I am willing to do when the time comes.

Are you not being a tad hypocritical and engaging in stereotyping of a group I would venture to guess you know nothing about? It's like saying male homosexuality is exploitive of 16 and 17 year-old boys (Mayor Sam Adams).

Do you know a single polygamist?

[cofchristcousin]

Are you not being a tad hypocritical and engaging in stereotyping of a group I would venture to guess you know nothing about? It's like saying male homosexuality is exploitive of 16 and 17 year-old boys (Mayor Sam Adams).

Do you know a single polygamist?

? How is my saying "I don't know.. I have concerns...I want to be fair... and I am open to learning more" hypocritical and stereotyping? I must be missing something.

[Justice]

I have no problem with people doing what they want - as long as they keep personal things personal and do not demand that I support something that does no good (benefit) to society.

This is one of my problems as well, and it seems to be largely overlooked in conversations like these.

[Gatorman]

The solution is actually simple, but, no one wants to give up their cookie. Remove the contractual/governmental benefits to 'marriage'. Grand father those who are married into the new civil contract. Then, allow anyone to enter the civil contract. John and Jane Smith. Bob and Bill Samesex. Mary and Pam single moms who need help. Ethel and Georgia, the retired, widowed women living barely in Floirda.

Now, you have removed the necessity of teaching that 'gay marriage' is acceptable in school. You have also removed the necessity of teaching that 'straight' marriage is okay. It is no longer a government institution. INstead, you allow people to enter into contracts of caring with each other. I am SURE the insurance industry will whine about it, but, frankly, who cares. Remove the tax breaks associated with the marriage contracts of today and you will level the tax code playing field.

Government is not in the marriage business. They simply hijacked the term. Marriage is a religious/personal institution. Civil Union is more appropriate for what the government has created and can be equally applied without religious issues.

[desirexnoel]

Are you in favor of legalizing plural marriages?

Do women get many husbands as well or are we going back to the sexist way of things?

[Guest Believer_1829]

? How is my saying "I don't know.. I have concerns...I want to be fair... and I am open to learning more" hypocritical and stereotyping? I must be missing something.

But we are NOT expected to have concerns about your chosen lifestyle? You went on a some short length about families and children needing access to the same rights and finished with something akin to "at least do it for the children." What about the none "legal" children of a man's additional wives? We should legalize polygamy for their children. Right?

I know you are somewhat blinded by your personal ties to the homosexual cause and thus do not see how hypocritical you sound, so I will give you a pass.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Do women get many husbands as well or are we going back to the sexist way of things?

I am actually in agreement with Gatorman. Government should have never began meddling in the marriage business...

So do what you want... some of Joseph Smith's wives had two living husbands.

[desirexnoel]

I am actually in agreement with Gatorman. Government should have never began meddling in the marriage business...

So do what you want... some of Joseph Smith's wives had two living husbands.

Good. Glad we are in agreement then that government has already taken marriage out of religion and now everyone should be allowed to have it with at least one partner. More then one is something we will cross when we come to it.

[desirexnoel]

I have no problem with people doing what they want - as long as they keep personal things personal and do not demand that I support something that does no good (benefit) to society.

You don't have to support it at all. Just don't stand in the way of it either... You don't support abortion (assuming because I am pretty sure in LDS faith you don't) but you aren't trying to make it illegal.

[HEthePrimate]

I am actually in agreement with Gatorman. Government should have never began meddling in the marriage business...

Though if marriage is regarded as a legal contract, pertaining to such things as child custody, property rights, etc., one can see why the government is involved. However, I can picture (and might like) a situation in which marriage as a religious concept is divorced (pun intended) from the legal aspect, such that the legal contract governed by the state is referred to as a "domestic partnership", or something like that, but the state does not use the word "marriage", which would only be used by churches for the rituals/covenants they perform. That way, anybody, whether gay or straight, could enter into a domestic partnership and everybody would be equal in the eyes of the state, but what kinds of marriages are allowed would be left up to the churches.

HEP

[desirexnoel]

Though if marriage is regarded as a legal contract, pertaining to such things as child custody, property rights, etc., one can see why the government is involved. However, I can picture (and might like) a situation in which marriage as a religious concept is divorced (pun intended) from the legal aspect, such that the legal contract governed by the state is referred to as a "domestic partnership", or something like that, but the state does not use the word "marriage", which would only be used by churches for the rituals/covenants they perform. That way, anybody, whether gay or straight, could enter into a domestic partnership and everybody would be equal in the eyes of the state, but what kinds of marriages are allowed would be left up to the churches.

HEP

That was already talked about. They wanted to just call it a contract...

"I love you so let's sign a contract" XD

Well, whatever. Marriage isn't just a religious institution anymore. Any heterosexual without a religion can enter into it, and homosexuals should be allowed to enter into it too.

[Guest Believer_1829]

You don't have to support it at all. Just don't stand in the way of it either... You don't support abortion (assuming because I am pretty sure in LDS faith you don't) but you aren't trying to make it illegal.

Actually, I am, by the people I choose to vote for. That is how a representative democracy works.

[Dravin]

If you were talking about the abortion tangent your posts are now here http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/24959-abortion.html.

[MorningStar]

Unwanted pregnancies should not happen.

Pregnant women doing drugs or drinking should not happen.

Fathers raping daughters should not happen.

Irresponsible people having sex should not happen.

Snuffing out innocent babies' lives should not happen and let's be real - most of the time it happens because of convenience, not because a woman was raped. As a mother of four children, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "women died having illegal abortions" sob story. They didn't have to have sex. They didn't have to have the abortion. Yes, it would be scary and humiliating, but better than being dead and a baby murderer.

If I have anything nice to say about my alcoholic grandmother who abandoned her children, it's that she went to a home for unwed mothers to have babies that she gave up for adoption instead of having them killed. We just found out this year that she had two children before she married my grandfather.

[desirexnoel]

Unwanted pregnancies should not happen.

Pregnant women doing drugs or drinking should not happen.

Fathers raping daughters should not happen.

Irresponsible people having sex should not happen.

Snuffing out innocent babies' lives should not happen and let's be real - most of the time it happens because of convenience, not because a woman was raped. As a mother of four children, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "women died having illegal abortions" sob story. They didn't have to have sex. They didn't have to have the abortion. Yes, it would be scary and humiliating, but better than being dead and a baby murderer.

If I have anything nice to say about my alcoholic grandmother who abandoned her children, it's that she went to a home for unwed mothers to have babies that she gave up for adoption instead of having them killed. We just found out this year that she had two children before she married my grandfather.

Other thread.

[bytebear]

That was already talked about. They wanted to just call it a contract...

"I love you so let's sign a contract" XD

Well, whatever. Marriage isn't just a religious institution anymore. Any heterosexual without a religion can enter into it, and homosexuals should be allowed to enter into it too.

But by defining the contract as a marriage, it steps on the toes of religion. Have the two be separate. Have contracts for partnerships, but don't call them marriage. That was essentially the argument of prop 8, since domestic partnerships already existed in California and afforded "all the rights of marraige", so from a legal standpoint, no rights were gained or lost at all with prop 8. Only the terms were different.

But, it does go deeper than that. The reason marriage existed was to encourage fidelity, not legally, but socially. By having a public sign of union, the tribe knew who was with who, and you reduced issues with people fighting over a mate. Today the wedding ring is often the outward token of such unions, and it lets you know who you should and should not pursue.

After a while, legal issues were raised, and so the government kept records of who was married to who. It helped settle issues with an authority other than the tribe. It also helped determine who got property after the death of a spouse. But, you could override the legal contract with any other contract (i.e. a will) that redefined the laws of inheritance.

And, now we have government and business perks like retirement and social security, and those are also automatically afforded to spouses, but they are restricted because they are future property, and as such, you cannot forward them to anyone other than your spouse or legal children.

Ah, children. This is the biggest issue with gay marriage. By encouraging hetero marriage, we are really encouraging people to define a stable family before children are produced. We have a definite problem with illegitimacy and single parent homes, and as such, we need to do more encouraging people to become a stable couple before they decide to have kids. That is what marriage does.

Gays don't have that same concern. If they decide to have children, they must in some way or another include a tangential third person, whether it be a sperm donor, an adoption agency, a surrogate, or whatever. That third person makes the issue of marriage less critical, because they have to make very complex decisions in order to produce children. Straight people just have to have a single night of passion. That is why I think gay marriage should be seen more than just a civil rights issue, and decide what marriage really means to our society, and what benefits it really gives, other than inheritance rights, which are legal in all states, regardless of relationship (with the exception of Social Security, which is another argument, or business pensions, which is up to the individual company).

[desirexnoel]

But by defining the contract as a marriage, it steps on the toes of religion. Have the two be separate. Have contracts for partnerships, but don't call them marriage. That was essentially the argument of prop 8, since domestic partnerships already existed in California and afforded "all the rights of marraige", so from a legal standpoint, no rights were gained or lost at all with prop 8. Only the terms were different.

I guess it must be different here. We have marriage licenses here. You just need one of those really.

Ah, children. This is the biggest issue with gay marriage. By encouraging hetero marriage, we are really encouraging people to define a stable family before children are produced. We have a definite problem with illegitimacy and single parent homes, and as such, we need to do more encouraging people to become a stable couple before they decide to have kids. That is what marriage does.

*nods*

Gays don't have that same concern. If they decide to have children, they must in some way or another include a tangential third person, whether it be a sperm donor, an adoption agency, a surrogate, or whatever. That third person makes the issue of marriage less critical, because they have to make very complex decisions in order to produce children. Straight people just have to have a single night of passion. That is why I think gay marriage should be seen more than just a civil rights issue, and decide what marriage really means to our society, and what benefits it really gives, other than inheritance rights, which are legal in all states, regardless of relationship (with the exception of Social Security, which is another argument, or business pensions, which is up to the individual company).

Yes, but it doesn't mean that gay couples who have decided to have children don't experience problems as well. Once they split up a child who may have grown up with two parents now only has one. If one parent automatically gets sole custody then the child ultimately loses. Edited August 22, 2009 by desirexnoel
A quote was broken. I fixed it. n_n

[bytebear]

I guess it must be different here. We have marriage licenses here. You just need one of those really.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that gay couples who have decided to have children don't experience problems as well. Once they split up a child who may have grown up with two parents now only has one. If one parent automatically gets sole custody then the child ultimately loses.

Where is "here?"

All marriage does is automatically establish contractual inheritance law. Without a marriage license, you can still create contracts that define inheritance and custody. That is what "godparents" are. It is a legal contract that defines who takes care of children in the event of the death of the parents. But it isn't a marriage, and there is no legal ceremony for godparents, but the legal capabilities do exist.

[desirexnoel]

Where is "here?"

All marriage does is automatically establish contractual inheritance law. Without a marriage license, you can still create contracts that define inheritance and custody. That is what "godparents" are. It is a legal contract that defines who takes care of children in the event of the death of the parents. But it isn't a marriage, and there is no legal ceremony for godparents, but the legal capabilities do exist.

Whoops. I though it and didn't type is XD

Canada

And I am not sure how legally binding the God Parent thing is. My God parents only met eachother once. If anything had happened to my parents I think CAS would have had to take me.

[bytebear]

Whoops. I though it and didn't type is XD

Canada

And I am not sure how legally binding the God Parent thing is. My God parents only met eachother once. If anything had happened to my parents I think CAS would have had to take me.

Well, godparents is a concept, just as marriage is a concept. It's just that marriage is controlled by the government, whereas godparents are not. But they are still essentially the same, rules and titles given to people with certain responsibilities.

[desirexnoel]

Well, godparents is a concept, just as marriage is a concept. It's just that marriage is controlled by the government, whereas godparents are not. But they are still essentially the same, rules and titles given to people with certain responsibilities.

Only one is binding and the other changes nothing...

[bytebear]

Only one is binding and the other changes nothing...

No, both are binding, but only one has a religious ceremony (whether it is considered as such or not) tied to the legal form. The other, both the act and form are separate, and therefor, you can be a godparent without any legal binding, and you can be a legal guardian without being a godparent, but you cannot be married without being legally bonded as well. That's the difference.

[desirexnoel]

No, both are binding, but only one has a religious ceremony (whether it is considered as such or not) tied to the legal form. The other, both the act and form are separate, and therefor, you can be a godparent without any legal binding, and you can be a legal guardian without being a godparent, but you cannot be married without being legally bonded as well. That's the difference.

I am sorry but I can't figure out the point to this.

I agree. I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry...

I decided that just stating that point again is the best way for me to keep focus as to what this thread is about...

[bytebear]

I am sorry but I can't figure out the point to this.

I agree. I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry...

I decided that just stating that point again is the best way for me to keep focus as to what this thread is about...

I think the legal contract that defines coupling should be severed from the ritual of marriage, just as they are with godparenting. If you want to have a marriage ceremony in your basement with 12 other spouses, more power to you, and right now, that is what any gay couple can do. They can have a ritual, and present to the community their commitment, but I think the legal aspects should be separate. I think it should be the same for straight couples too. If they want legal ramifications, then define them, outside the marriage.

Anyway, I am off to lunch. Have a great day everyone.

[desirexnoel]

I think the legal contract that defines coupling should be severed from the ritual of marriage, just as they are with godparenting. If you want to have a marriage ceremony in your basement with 12 other spouses, more power to you, and right now, that is what any gay couple can do. They can have a ritual, and present to the community their commitment, but I think the legal aspects should be separate. I think it should be the same for straight couples too. If they want legal ramifications, then define them, outside the marriage.

Anyway, I am off to lunch. Have a great day everyone.

I would feel the same if that meant for EVERYONE.

Just to be fair.