LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Sunstone]

Full circle. No one is denied the right to marry. We are all equally allowed to marry, within limits.

But aren't you equivocating there?

 

[Polaris]

The right to marry for one thing

State-sanctioned marriage (and the legal benefits that accomany it) is not a right. Marriage is a state-recognized union whose members qualify for certain benefits that encourage and facilitate the rearing of families. Those benefits are just that -- benefits, not rights.

 

[Tau]

State-sanctioned marriage (and the legal benefits that accomany it) is not a right. Marriage is a state-recognized union whose members qualify for certain benefits that encourage and facilitate the rearing of families. Those benefits are just that -- benefits, not rights.

Semantics...heterosexuals are entilted to those benefits....homosexuals are not.

 

[Father Heathen]

OH! How passionate of Father Heathen holding the progression of society back? And to what exactly is your society progressing to?

A society of free thought, exchange of ideas, respect for science and personal freedom. Such societies tend to be the most advanced. I wonder why that is.

Have you thought of the dangers to our children that this vices poses?

What dangers? Could you provide some credible and substantiated evidence to support your claims? Have you thought about the dangers to our children that your religious brainwashing poses?

Why would we want our children exposed to the “if it feel good do it regardless of consequences”?

No, of course we're supposed to regard the consequences of our actions. It's called personal responsibility. It isn't the governments job to babysit and protect us form ourselves, only from each other. And I'm talking about actual, real world consequences, not your hokey nonsense of magical, make believe consequences.

, to have you and your lot putting filth into them.

What is "my lot"? Teaching children to be tolerant and understanding of their fellow man is "filth"? No, indoctrinating children with bigotry, willful ignorance and worthless religious rubbish is filth. The private lives of other people DOES NOT impact your children.

If they are the majority that what the constitution must say? Majority rules doe it not?

That's not how it works. There are safeguards to protect the minority and their rights from the tyranny of mob rule.

 

[Starfish]

But aren't you equivocating there?

Absolutely not. As far as marriage rights/benefits, all are equal. Any man, regardless of orientation, can marry within limits, any woman, regardless of orientation.

 

[Sunstone]

State-sanctioned marriage (and the legal benefits that accomany it) is not a right. Marriage is a state-recognized union whose members qualify for certain benefits that encourage and facilitate the rearing of families. Those benefits are just that -- benefits, not rights.

The State can give whatever tax benefits it wants to married people. But it has no right to limit marriage to one class of humans. That's because the State did not invent marriage. Marriage is a behavior humans evolved long before there were any States around to interfere with it. It is a natural right of all humans.

 

[Polaris]

Semantics...heterosexuals are entilted to those benefits....homosexuals are not.

Correction. No one is inherently entitled to those benefits, those desiring them must qualify. Regardless, they are benefits, not rights.

 

[Sunstone]

Correction. No one is inherently entitled to those benefits, those desiring them must qualify. Regardless, they are benefits, not rights.

Marriage itself is not a benefit but a right. If it were a mere benefit created by the State, then it would not have existed before there were any States. But it did, so it's not merely a benefit created by the State.

 

[McBell]

Correction. No one is inherently entitled to those benefits, those desiring them must qualify. Regardless, they are benefits, not rights.

really?
And how, exactly, did heterosexuals "qualify?"

 

[Father Heathen]

Absolutely not. As far as marriage rights/benefits, all are equal. Any man, regardless of orientation, can marry within limits, any woman, regardless of orientation.

Isn't that clever.

 

[Kungfuzed]

The church leadership wrote, "The Church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children." The letter continues with, "We ask that you do all you can to support the constitutional amendment...to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

I was under the impression that marriage is a legal contract while temple sealing is "ordained of God". My wife and I got married by a justice of the peace and I hardly think God had anything to do with it. I certainly don't see how gay marriage is going to thwart the "Creator's plan for His children". Just because gays can get married doesn't mean that hetersexuals can't.

 

[SoyLeche]

Marriage itself is not a benefit but a right. If it were a mere benefit created by the State, then it would not have existed before there were any States. But it did, so it's not merely a benefit created by the State.

Yes, but marriage as it was before the State added benefits is already available to homosexuals. It is the benefits that the State provides that this is all about.

 

[Polaris]

The State can give whatever tax benefits it wants to married people. But it has no right to limit marriage to one class of humans.

Sure it does. Through democratic processes the state has the right to set the qualifying terms for certain benefits.

That's because the State did not invent marriage. Marriage is a behavior humans evolved long before there were any States around to interfere with it. It is a natural right of all humans.

We're talking about legal marriage, not simply the companionship of two individuals.

 

[McBell]

*Grabs Rubber Raft*

 

[SoyLeche]

Sure it does. Through democratic processes the state has the right to set the qualifying terms for certain benefits.

It's somewhat simliar to the home mortgage deduction. That tax deduction isn't there because the State wants to discriminate against renters - it is there as an incentive to get people to buy a home.

Marriage benefits for heterosexual partners are not there to discriminate against homosexuals, but as an incentive to get heterosexual people to marry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

State-sanctioned marriage (and the legal benefits that accomany it) is not a right. Marriage is a state-recognized union whose members qualify for certain benefits that encourage and facilitate the rearing of families. Those benefits are just that -- benefits, not rights.

Equal treatment under the law is a right. While marriage might not be a right per se, the State prohibited from doling out rights unequally just on the basis of gender.

If a man can marry a woman (assuming the woman agrees, of course ) and a woman cannot, then the right (if marriage is a right) or privilege (if it is not) to marry a woman is not provided to both genders equally, and therefore violates the principle of equal treatment under the law.

Even if marriage is a privilege and not a fundamental right, the government is prohibited from extending this privilege unequally.

Absolutely not. As far as marriage rights/benefits, all are equal. Any man, regardless of orientation, can marry within limits, any woman, regardless of orientation.

I think it's disingenuous to portray that as equality. Would you consider it to be "equality" of religion for the government to abolish your religion, but allow everyone (you included! Don't you feel lucky?) to worship at a mosque every Saturday?

 

[Sunstone]

Sure it does. Through democratic processes the state has the right to set the qualifying terms for certain benefits.

Even the democratic process has no moral grounds on which to exclude a category of people from the natural rights afforded to others. Would a democracy be morally justified to deprive Mormons of their right to worship while extending that very right to all others?

We're talking about legal marriage, not simply the companionship of two individuals.

Are you seriously suggesting that natural marriage is no more than the companionship of two individuals? Along the same lines, do you have any idea at all of the relevant science behind the assertion there is such a thing as natural marriage?

 

[Sunstone]

Marriage benefits for heterosexual partners are not there to discriminate against homosexuals, but as an incentive to get heterosexual people to marry.

People would marry even if the state provided no incentives to do so. People do not need many incentives to do what comes instinctively to them.

 

[SoyLeche]

People would marry even if the state provided no incentives to do so.

And such a marriage is currently available to homosexuals.

That's really beside the point though. Incentives aren't there because nobody would do whatever it is you are trying to incentivize them to do without them - they are there to promote the behavior.

 

[Tau]

Are you seriously suggesting that natural marriage is no more than the companionship of two individuals? Along the same lines, do you have any idea at all of the relevant science behind the assertion there is such a thing as natural marriage?

Indeed.
There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that marriage is somehow natural,it is a relatively recent phenomenon in human society.
In fact humans are not naturally inclined to monogamous relationships, polygamy is the natural state for humans.