Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

[gsa]

There is a topic in the LDS DIR but I think it is a debate worthy topic, so I am adding it here.

Note the irony:

The LDS Church filed an amicus brief alongside faiths such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Free Methodist Church – USA, and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church in urging the court to uphold a traditional definition of marriage.

Nothing quite like teaming up with people who think you are going to burn in hell in order to gang up on the gays, huh?

The Advocate also has an interesting response to this from a gay Mormon:

Recently, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declared that my family is counterfeit. Or in other words, my family is without value because it lacks the “traditional” family standard of a father and a mother.

I’m not sorry to say that I whole heartily disagree. The words used by the speaker, Elder L. Tom Perry, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, are as harmful and damaging as his position that gay Mormons are welcome in the church as long as they remain celibate. Forcing someone to reject who they are can only bring pain and heartache. I know this first hand.

Calling an entire group of people and their families counterfeit is not only dangerous and destructive to the LGBT community but just as hurtful to the active and stalwart members of the church. These amazing members love their LGBT children, family members, and friends.

 

[gsa]

A few months ago, Mormons were trumpeting their support of anti-discrimination and "religious freedom" bills in the Mormon-dominated and LDS-compliant State of Utah. I guess that was to minimize the damage for when they took a position on this one?

Interestingly, they did not file an amicus brief in the case that challenged Utah's polygamy ban. Go figure.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I wonder which traditional definition of marriage the Mormons are defending. Is it the one where divorce is not allowed? Is it the one where a woman's legal status is completely subsumed by that of her husband? Is it the type of marriage their own Church plucked out of thin air and said was sacred; then promptly abandoned it in the face of Utah being occupied by non-believers? Is it the one where men and women have disparate rights in times of divorce? Or could it be one the type of marriage which is not traditional; but has actually changed over the decades? So many great choices.

Further, what makes them think they (and other monotheists) have the right to monopolise the definition of a concept none of them invented? I thought arrogance was a sin against God.

 

[Revoltingest]

I support the right of Mormons to not marry people of the same sex.

 

[suncowiam]

I have nothing against polygamy either actually as long as polyandry is supported and there is a fair system for both men and women.

If people want to lock themselves up with each other then they have right to do so which ever way they want.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

A few months ago, Mormons were trumpeting their support of anti-discrimination and "religious freedom" bills in the Mormon-dominated and LDS-compliant State of Utah. I guess that was to minimize the damage for when they took a position on this one?

Interestingly, they did not file an amicus brief in the case that challenged Utah's polygamy ban. Go figure.

Are you suggesting that Mormons are denying the sanctification of matrimony to homosexuals out of spite?

...

Citations from a proposed New Revised Polygamist's Bible*:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother(s), and shall cleave unto his wives: and they shall all be (more or less) one flesh." ~ Genesis 2:24

"But from the beginning of creation God made them male and females." ~ Mark 10:6

"Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: 'Should a man be allowed to divorce one of his wives for just any reason?'" ~ Matthew 19:3

"And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with thine laundry list of wives: it is an abomination." ~ Leviticus 18:22


* currently seeking a publisher.

 

[gsa]

I have nothing against polygamy either actually as long as polyandry is supported and there is a fair system for both men and women.

If people want to lock themselves up with each other then they have right to do so which ever way they want.

Honestly, the system probably cannot be designed fairly. There are a few reasons for this.

First and foremost, marriage is only legally meaningful upon certain key events, primarily dissolution (or divorce) and death. If you have two parties to the dispute, the applicable rules are relatively simple. Property can be divided along strictly 50/50 lines with two parties, but if you add parties it becomes exponentially more difficult. First, you have to address who is married to who? Whose debts might be properly attributed to the other party, or parties? Who is responsible for rearing the children? Is it solely a matter of biological or adoptive status? Do we change the adoption laws to allow for three, four or five parent families?

Second, in practice polygamy is overwhelmingly religious and patriarchal. The rules developed in most jurisdictions are unfair to women and children, and the proposals for adopting polygamy using business models (i.e., incorporation models that involve multiple individuals forming a single entity) that assume relative parity among parties. In reality, however, polygamous arrangements are almost always dyadic; each pair within the polygamous arrangement is a unique status. The wives are not really married to one another, and usually remain responsible for their own separate affairs and children. With the consent of their husband, of course.

I am opposed to criminalizing polygamy, but I would never recognize polygamy or polyandry because no such system can really be fair to the parties involved. We can discuss polyamory I suppose, but you still have to deal with the status of children. And even then what you have isn't really marriage, which in our jurisdiction (and the vast majority of Western ones) is firmly based on a two person model.

This is the irony: The Mormon Church has practiced the only "non-traditional" marriage model that actually requires a fundamental change in how we view marriage. And yet they are opposed to an extension of the two person model that requires no substantive changes.

 

[suncowiam]

Honestly, the system probably cannot be designed fairly. There are a few reasons for this.

First and foremost, marriage is only legally meaningful upon certain key events, primarily dissolution (or divorce) and death. If you have two parties to the dispute, the applicable rules are relatively simple. Property can be divided along strictly 50/50 lines with two parties, but if you add parties it becomes exponentially more difficult. First, you have to address who is married to who? Whose debts might be properly attributed to the other party, or parties? Who is responsible for rearing the children? Is it solely a matter of biological or adoptive status? Do we change the adoption laws to allow for three, four or five parent families?

Second, in practice polygamy is overwhelmingly religious and patriarchal. The rules developed in most jurisdictions are unfair to women and children, and the proposals for adopting polygamy using business models (i.e., incorporation models that involve multiple individuals forming a single entity) that assume relative parity among parties. In reality, however, polygamous arrangements are almost always dyadic; each pair within the polygamous arrangement is a unique status. The wives are not really married to one another, and usually remain responsible for their own separate affairs and children. With the consent of their husband, of course.

I am opposed to criminalizing polygamy, but I would never recognize polygamy or polyandry because no such system can really be fair to the parties involved. We can discuss polyamory I suppose, but you still have to deal with the status of children. And even then what you have isn't really marriage, which in our jurisdiction (and the vast majority of Western ones) is firmly based on a two person model.

This is the irony: The Mormon Church has practiced the only "non-traditional" marriage model that actually requires a fundamental change in how we view marriage. And yet they are opposed to an extension of the two person model that requires no substantive changes.

I never really thought about marriage beyond two people and the consequences until now. A lot of what you say sounds reasonable. I first thought of taxes and money related issues but I can see this being very challenging for the government to legalize for the reasons you pointed out also.

I see your point with the religious and patriarchal barriers, but I don't see why it couldn't work if the walls are broken down and their are no notions of religion or sex.

If people can prioritize the raising of their young and ensure that the newer generation will succeed then I can't argue with the structure behind it, being gay marriage or marriage beyond two.

I respect and understand what you presented, however...

There will be rhetoric which can make a lot of sense but still remain hypothetical. I still like to see statistics and actual repeatable occurences to ensure a correlation to the real world.

 

[columbus]

I see your point with the religious and patriarchal barriers, but I don't see why it couldn't work if the walls are broken down and their are no notions of religion or sex.

The only legitimate reason the state has for legal unions comes down to one thing. If two competent adults have chosen one another as "next of kin" assumptions can be made concerning parentage, power of attorney, inheritance and such. If people can marry more than one other person there ceases to be much point in the government getting involved.
That's why modern marriage is better than traditional marriage.
Tom

 

[JayJayDee]

The Bible sets the standard for marriage. Anyone who wants to mess with that, has to have authority from the author of marriage....God himself. Those who want to practice sexual behaviors that are condemned in God's word, are free to do so, but they cannot claim to be worshippers of a God who designed males and females to reproduce according to their "kind". Same sex marriage cannot fulfill the Biblical definition of marriage. It requires the services of a third party to have children. Whereas Jewish history was rife with polygamy, Jesus returned the standard of marriage to one mate....man and wife.

The standard for marriage in a Christian's life has nothing to do with the laws of the land......marriage is God's arrangement....period. If we have a "marriage" that is not recognized by God...then we have no marriage at all, regardless of what any human law says.

We might want our cake and eat it too......but at the end of the day, we don't get to dictate to God what his standards are.

Sometimes it requires great sacrifice to be acceptable to God. Sacrifice cost us something. Is God worth it?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The Bible sets the standard for marriage. Anyone who wants to mess with that, has to have authority from the author of marriage....God himself.

You realize there are non-Judaic marriages yes? Native American's had marriages prior to settler invastion. Europe has had marriages prior to christian or Judaic influence. Africa the same. Asia the same. Australia the same. Marriage has been a concept that far predates Judaism and VASTLY predates Christianity. The vast majority of marriages in the world are non-Judaic. The government version of "marriage" has little to do with the religious version of marriage. You can have one without the other and as Catholics know this is fairly common.

 

[fantome profane]

The Bible sets the standard for marriage. Anyone who wants to mess with that, has to have authority from the author of marriage....God himself. Those who want to practice sexual behaviors that are condemned in God's word, are free to do so, but they cannot claim to be worshippers of a God .....

So you have no issue with same sex marriage for atheists then. Is that correct?

 

[columbus]

The LDS Church filed an amicus brief alongside faiths such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Free Methodist Church – USA, and the International Pentecostal Holiness Church in urging the court to uphold a traditional definition of marriage.

I would be less outraged by the LDS et al doing this sort of thing if they registered as Political Action Committees and followed the rules. But they want it both ways. They want tax deductible donations and exemption from property taxes and stuff like that while advocating laws based on their religious opinions that discriminate against other law abiding citizens.

They want gay atheists in Salt Lake City to pay for police security for the temple while they send representatives to Washington DC to argue against the civil rights of gays!
Tom

 

[gsa]

Sometimes it requires great sacrifice to be acceptable to God. Sacrifice cost us something. Is God worth it?

No, Yahweh and other imaginary gods are definitely not worth sacrificing happiness in this world.

 

[suncowiam]

The only legitimate reason the state has for legal unions comes down to one thing. If two competent adults have chosen one another as "next of kin" assumptions can be made concerning parentage, power of attorney, inheritance and such. If people can marry more than one other person there ceases to be much point in the government getting involved.
That's why modern marriage is better than traditional marriage.
Tom

I understand what you're saying, I get that, just like gsa. But to me now, then the government is a barrier to such forms of marriage because it won't be able to create a fair system to integrate this marriage form with current marriages. If I could disregard government, which I'm not suggesting that I should, then I could say the hypothetical situation where there are self-respecting people that value each enough to make such a system work. They would ensure all parties are treated equally, ensure their young to thrive and ensure that each will be compensated equally in all situations. Yes, it would be very very complicated.

I understand your points but I'll just hold an open position for now and could be swayed either with more data presented in the future. =) I'm just going to say I don't know right now...

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The Bible sets the standard for marriage.

Marriage as a concept (both religious and legal) was created by civilisations millennia before Christianity & Judaism came on the scene. For you to insist all non-Christians must be bound by your definition of marriage alone is arrogance of the highest order. Marriage is not yours alone to define. Indeed; Christianity changed the religious definition of marriage when it monopolised the concept from the old Pagan religions; changing it from being married in the sight of the gods to just God. You have no right to complain.

We might want our cake and eat it too......but at the end of the day, we don't get to dictate to God what his standards are.

A typical strawman trotted out by the anti-equality movement. This isn't about redefining marriage as it is described in your or any holy book; it's about changing what the Government will recognise as legal so that other citizens who pay their taxes and are subject to the same strictures as you can enjoy the same rights as you. If you think that's arguing for special rights then you should start paying taxes for all LGBTs in society and see how you like it.

Sometimes it requires great sacrifice to be acceptable to God. Sacrifice cost us something. Is God worth it?

I thought your god was omni-benevolent and loved unconditionally? How can someone who demands we change ourselves from the way he created us love us unconditionally or be the supreme source of morality in existence? No god who does such a thing is truly as advertised, nor is he deserving of any worship.

 

[Ingledsva]

Are you suggesting that Mormons are denying the sanctification of matrimony to homosexuals out of spite?

...

Citations from a proposed New Revised Polygamist's Bible*:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother(s), and shall cleave unto his wives: and they shall all be (more or less) one flesh." ~ Genesis 2:24

"But from the beginning of creation God made them male and females." ~ Mark 10:6

"Some Pharisees came and tried to trap him with this question: 'Should a man be allowed to divorce one of his wives for just any reason?'" ~ Matthew 19:3

"And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with thine laundry list of wives: it is an abomination." ~ Leviticus 18:22


* currently seeking a publisher.

All of these verses concern heterosexual marriage, - and SAY NOTHING against homosexual marriage.

So why are you trying to use them???

Leviticus 18:22 is about Sacred Sex in worship of Molech, - not homosexuality. Hence it is IDOLATRY - worthy of death.


Lev 18:21 And your semen don't give in copulation to MOLECH, and don't desecrate/prostitute yourself; honor Elohiym, I am YHVH!

Lev 18:22 And FOR/before man; don't lie down for sex in the beds of woman, Idolatrous are these.

Lev 18:23 And also with any beasts don't lay carnally, thus defiling yourself. And thus also woman shall not be employed to serve beasts in copulation. Bestiality it is!

***

As you can see from both, 22 and 23 are a continuation of 21 which is about Sacred Sex to Molech!

22 Is about Sacred Sex Idolatry - not homosexuality!

22 and 23 explain what that SEX is (in 21,) that they are not to do in worship of MOLECH.

This prohibition was in place because the Hebrew were having sex with these Sacred Prostitutes.

For instance Eli’s sons with the Temple Prostitutes at Shiloh.

1 Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto Israel; and how they had sex with the women that waited at the entrance of the Tabernacle of the congregation.

Lev 18:30 confirms it is Temple Sex IDOLATRY - by adding -

(KJV) Lev 18:30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

That word translated "customs" is chuqqah - STATUTES/LAWS/RITES

Homosexuality is not a LAW-STATUTE-RITE, etc, that they PRACTICED BEFORE!!!!!

However, Sacred Sex with the Qedeshah and Qadesh WAS!!!

Once again - regardless of the translation of 22, we are talking about the Qadesh again! Not homosexuals!

*

 

[columbus]

Sometimes it requires great sacrifice to be acceptable to God. Sacrifice cost us something. Is God worth it?

Try getting USA religious people to sacrifice their tax advantages. God is not worth it to anybody I know.

Tom

 

[JayJayDee]

You realize there are non-Judaic marriages yes? Native American's had marriages prior to settler invastion. Europe has had marriages prior to christian or Judaic influence. Africa the same. Asia the same. Australia the same. Marriage has been a concept that far predates Judaism and VASTLY predates Christianity. The vast majority of marriages in the world are non-Judaic. The government version of "marriage" has little to do with the religious version of marriage. You can have one without the other and as Catholics know this is fairly common.

You do realize that God performed the first marriage in Eden when he brought the woman to the man. I don't think we can go back further than that. Marriage is God's arrangement, regardless of what man has or has not done with it culturally down through the ages.

In Israel all a man had to do to be married was to make arrangement with the bride's parents, and take his bride home. A betrothed couple were considered married but not until he took his bride to their new residence or to the home of his father was the marriage consummated. This is why Joseph was going to "divorce" Mary when he was not yet married to her.

When the groom was taking his beautifully adorned bride home, the route was lined with well-wishers and that was all there was to it. Some who had means would hold a marriage feast to mark the occasion. But Mary and Joseph were poor so their marriage was a quiet affair apparently.

 

[JayJayDee]

So you have no issue with same sex marriage for atheists then. Is that correct?

I don't think God really cares what unbelievers do...do you? He has no use for them so why should he care if they have no morals?

He told us to "let the dead bury their dead".......those not "alive" (spiritually dead) as far as God is concerned are not worthy of his attention. They have no use for God...so it works both ways. Seems fair to me.