How can I do damage to the Mormon Church?

[bob x]

"Marriage" is the word in the legal codes. Setting up a separate institution called "civil union" is inherently unequal (it could never be identical for purposes of international recognition, for example, since every other country in the world likewise uses the word "marriage" in their legal codes). Changing the name of the existing legal institution to "civil union" would require 1049 amendments to the US Code, a much larger number of amendments to the legal codes of every state in the Union, and convincing 149 other countries to amend their legal codes similarly.

 

[seattlegal]

"Marriage" is the word in the legal codes. Setting up a separate institution called "civil union" is inherently unequal (it could never be identical for purposes of international recognition, for example, since every other country in the world likewise uses the word "marriage" in their legal codes). Changing the name of the existing legal institution to "civil union" would require 1049 amendments to the US Code, a much larger number of amendments to the legal codes of every state in the Union, and convincing 149 other countries to amend their legal codes similarly.

All the more reason to institute a new form of union, where you can improve any flaws in the "marriage code," without having to change them.

Some countries have no provision for civil ceremonies within their country, but will recognize civil ceremonies from other countries.

 

[wil]

"Marriage" is the word in the legal codes. Setting up a separate institution called "civil union" is inherently unequal (it could never be identical for purposes of international recognition, for example, since every other country in the world likewise uses the word "marriage" in their legal codes). Changing the name of the existing legal institution to "civil union" would require 1049 amendments to the US Code, a much larger number of amendments to the legal codes of every state in the Union, and convincing 149 other countries to amend their legal codes similarly.

It seems it is possible that on this point you are incorrect. Most countries have been much more likely to establish some sort of civil union or partnership rather than re identify the term marriage which has had male/female implications for centuries...

Irregardless, when the US does decide to allow the states to sanctify some sort of union and that will be soon, they'll far from be the last ones to adopt such language.

But as states decide what their fate is I am contemplating why you are so pissed at LDS and their affect on California...it seems if I remember where your backyard is it shows your state has banned any kind of union constitutionally... Maybe I have your location wrong...

 

[seattlegal]

California...it seems if I remember where your backyard is it shows your state has banned any kind of union constitutionally... Maybe I have your location wrong...

That's the question I was asking earlier. If California has Constitutionally banned any future legislation regarding the institution of civil unions, that is what should be challenged on a Federal level, under the Fourteenth Amendment, imo.

Fourteenth Amendment, section 1
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
​

Forbidding homosexual citizens the right to bring forward legislation to recognize their unions is a selective abridgment of the privileges of a certain segment of citizens, and invalidates the equal protection under the law clause, imo.

 

[bob x]

Most countries have been much more likely to establish some sort of civil union or partnership rather than re identify the term marriage

Those countries are, explicitly, deciding that we are not entitled to be treated equally. A link on why civil unions and marriages are not the same.

But as states decide what their fate is I am contemplating why you are so pissed at LDS and their affect on California...it seems if I remember where your backyard is it shows your state has banned any kind of union constitutionally... Maybe I have your location wrong...

It is because of the law in Michigan that I have been wanting for years to get out of that goddamned state and move to California, which I hope to be able to do in January. Now I am back to regretting I didn't just get out of the United States, where I doubt I will live long enough to be treated like a citizen, a long time ago.

 

[seattlegal]

My reasoning behind the need to institute civil union legislation:

A male-female union (which I will designate as "^v") has different consequences than a male-male union (which I will designate as "^^") or a female-female union (which I will designate as "vv".)

• One consequence of a ^v union is the possibility of unplanned pregnancies. Therefore, there is regulation in place dictating that a ^v union cannot consist of relatives who are too closely related. This is unique to the ^v union.
• One consequence of a vv union is a higher incidence of breast cancer. This situation is unique to a vv union, and special provisions can be made regarding this for this type of union. Also unique to this union is the ability of BOTH members to become pregnant with outside help. Legislation might be needed to regulate this, ensuring that one member of this type of union does not seek outside help to get pregnant without the consent of the other member.
• A ^^ union also has it own unique health problems specific to this type of union, and special provisions can be installed to address these. Also, with this type of union, neither member can become pregnant, even with outside help. Special provisions can be made regarding the proceedure for such a couple to procure children if they so desire, ensuring mutual consent among both members of the union.

 

[bob x]

One consequence of a vv union is a higher incidence of breast cancer.

1. I have never heard of any such thing.
2. I cannot imagine any mechanism that would make this true.
3. I see no relevance whatsoever to any of the issues of child custody, property sharing and inheritance, etc. which marriage laws actually deal with. What change to the marriage codes do you think would be required as a result of this stunningly irrelevant "fact" (assuming for the sake of argument that it is true)?

Legislation might be needed to regulate this, ensuring that one member of this type of union does not seek outside help to get pregnant without the consent of the other member.

What reason do you have for not requiring the same thing in a male-female union?

A ^^ union also has it own unique health problems specific to this type of union, and special provisions can be installed to address these.

1. No. There are health problems related to promiscuity, not to monogamy. The problem of infidelity by one partner bringing a disease into the couple is no different than in the case of a male-female couple.
2. Again, what conceivable changes to the marriage code are you thinking of?

Special provisions can be made regarding the proceedure for such a couple to procure children if they so desire, ensuring mutual consent among both members of the union.

In what way should adoption be different than in the case of any other couple? And why?
This all looks like a bizarre exercise in grasping at straws.

 

[path_of_one]

I gotta say I agree with bobx. One set of laws to deal with extramarital affairs is sufficient to deal with pregnancy out of wedlock issues. One set of health care issues that deal with STDs from promiscuity. Adoption laws can cover all couples who are infertile for whatever reason. I see no reason why infertility (or choice, for that matter!) in heterosexual couples adopting is any different from homosexual couples.

No idea where the breast cancer comes in. All I know of remotely tied to this is that breast cancer risk increases among women who do not have children. But some lesbians do have kids. Any who are not infertile anyway could certainly have children if they choose. Sperm is easy to come by. So I fail to see how it's an issue unique to lesbians. There are probably just as many (if not more) heterosexual women who just decide not to get pregnant or who are unable to do so.

 

[wil]

I still say 53/47 is a win when they spent 30 mm adjust the vote.

It is just a matter of time...the only thing that could reduce the wave of support by the masses is the gay crowd doing something stupid and turning the tide the other way...

Keep the fight alive by nonviolent measures which don't create enemies and you'll have more support.

 

[seattlegal]

I'm really neither here nor there on whether homosexual couples have their unions recognized via marriage or via civil union legislation. I do believe that they have a right to have their unions recognized, with the same legal rights as heterosexual marriages. However, going for the marriage legislation is probably going to be more difficult and will have more opposition to it than going for civil union legislation. There are those who want the terms for their union to be specific to their type of union. (These folks will also often argue that homosexual sex by one of the marriage partners does not constitute adultery. Having marriage refer to both homosexual unions and to heterosexual unions would certainly close that loophole. )

One other concern regarding homosexual marriage is the possibility of it causing rifts within the different religious sects--there will be those who would want to make new rituals for blessing homosexual marriages, and there will be those who don't. Then, there is the fear of lawsuits brought against religious ministers who will not perform homosexual marriage ceremonies. (I've heard stories about this sort of thing coming out of Australia, but I don't know how credible they are.)

Like I said earlier, I'm all for the legal recognition of homosexual unions. I'm also for considering all of the options for how to go about achieving it.

 

[Nick_A]

We've lost respect for ideals. Often they are considered politically incorrect. However marriage between a man and woman is an expression of an societal ideal.

Marriage represents the union of the balance of the energies of yin and yang, When balanced and under the desired influences from above, their union produces a certain something that benefits them both in their spiritual conscious evolution. Also if there union is under God, and their sexuality reflects this awareness, it produces a more favorable spiritually aware conception.

Marriage is then an ideal only few can live up to but it is still an ideal. There is nothing wrong with homosexual unions but they don't represent the balance of forces of the marriage ideal that profits from contact with the above.

So if America is considered one nation under God, then I support marriage between man and woman. If however America is no longer under anything but just an expression of the Great Beast, then marriage is any form of union featuring consenting adults celebrating a ritual of secularism.

 

[seattlegal]

We've lost respect for ideals. Often they are considered politically incorrect. However marriage between a man and woman is an expression of an societal ideal.

Marriage represents the union of the balance of the energies of yin and yang, When balanced and under the desired influences from above, their union produces a certain something that benefits them both in their spiritual conscious evolution. Also if there union is under God, and their sexuality reflects this awareness, it produces a more favorable spiritually aware conception.

Marriage is then an ideal only few can live up to but it is still an ideal. There is nothing wrong with homosexual unions but they don't represent the balance of forces of the marriage ideal that profits from contact with the above.

So if America is considered one nation under God, then I support marriage between man and woman. If however America is no longer under anything but just an expression of the Great Beast, then marriage is any form of union featuring consenting adults celebrating a ritual of secularism.

'Marriage' has been often been treated rather profanely throughout history.

 

[wil]

So if America is considered one nation under God, then I support marriage between man and woman. If however America is no longer under anything but just an expression of the Great Beast, then marriage is any form of union featuring consenting adults celebrating a ritual of secularism.

Nick, the previous generation used the exact same words and thought against civil rights, and mixed marriages, and the generations before against reforming slavery.

All thru time, and in the animal kingdom homosexuality has existed. No individual wakes up and decides I think I want my parents to hate me, my friends to scorn me, society to berate me, and every religiouis zealot to throw epithats at me...yes today I'm going to be homosexual. It isn't any different than blue eyes, red hair, or various skin colors...all things someone has had prejudices about in the past.

50 years from now we'll be apalled at how backward the previous generation was...just as we are disgusted today about slavery or the concept of a white's only water fountain.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick, the previous generation used the exact same words and thought against civil rights, and mixed marriages, and the generations before against reforming slavery.

All thru time, and in the animal kingdom homosexuality has existed. No individual wakes up and decides I think I want my parents to hate me, my friends to scorn me, society to berate me, and every religiouis zealot to throw epithats at me...yes today I'm going to be homosexual. It isn't any different than blue eyes, red hair, or various skin colors...all things someone has had prejudices about in the past.

50 years from now we'll be apalled at how backward the previous generation was...just as we are disgusted today about slavery or the concept of a white's only water fountain.

You allude to an important point that is rarely discussed. Secular beliefs including secular religions have given the impression that we must hate that which isn't the ideal. To get around this secularism suggests that everything is equal. I'm saying that we must respect the value of the ideal and in doing so it opens us to further appreciating the God/Man relationship. HONORING THE IDEAL DOES NOT MEAN HATING THAT WHICH IS NOT THE IDEAL. In reality a Christian marriage representatifve of the ideal is something only a very few are capable of and has nothing to do with Christendom. Creating this hate is the essence of selective morality that creates scapegoats and has succeeded in creating a greater separation between God and Man that strengthens the psychological dominance of the "Great Beast."

It isn't the ideal that has caused the harm you refer to but rather not understanding its importance for the God/Man relationship and consequently abusing it for egoistic purpose.

 

[17th Angel]

50 years from now we'll be apalled at how backward the previous generation was...just as we are disgusted today about slavery or the concept of a white's only water fountain.

There will have to be some mighty big change then... Cause the current up and coming generations give me alot of concern.

 

[wil]

There will have to be some mighty big change then... Cause the current up and coming generations give me alot of concern.

55 years ago segregation was alive and well and normal in the US. 30 years ago folks were appalled when they saw a interacial couple and called their offspring halfbreeds and mulato and predjudice was of the extreme.

This year we elected a President who is just such an offspring. That is a mighty big change.

We have openly gay members in the house and senate, in business and gov't, the tide is turning. Perhaps the most telling is the REPUBLICAN congressman and senator that spoke out vehemently against gay rights yet were repectively caught propisitioning interns and soliciting sex in a lavatory

 

[bananabrain]

HONORING THE IDEAL DOES NOT MEAN HATING THAT WHICH IS NOT THE IDEAL....Creating this hate is the essence of selective morality that creates scapegoats and has succeeded in creating a greater separation between God and Man that strengthens the psychological dominance of the "Great Beast."

but your idol simone weil identifies this "great beast" with judaism, doesn't she? i'm having slight difficulty in understanding how this isn't "hating that which is not the ideal"...a little illogical, ain't it?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

but your idol simone weil identifies this "great beast" with judaism, doesn't she? i'm having slight difficulty in understanding how this isn't "hating that which is not the ideal"...a little illogical, ain't it?

b'shalom

bananabrain

Be careful here. You won't find anything PC or cutsey pooh with Simone. This is such an emotionally charged idea that effects the egos of many. She wrote:

Rome is the Great Beast of atheism and materialism, adoriing nothing but itself. Israel is the Great Beast of religion. Neither one nor the other is likable. The Great Beast is always repulsive.
- Simone Weil, Prelude to Politics, completed shortly before her death in 1943
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 393

The concept in Christianity is "hate the sin but not the sinner." All through the OT Israel was sinking into secularism. Moses came down from the mountain and there was the golden idol. The power and influence of the Beast strenghthens as the intent of religion becomes accepted as secular. The Great Beast is the result of sin and is not so attractive when we remove our rose colored glasses. Without remembering the distinction between sin and sinner, nothing but harm can result.

Luke 14

25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

We must hate the power of the "great beast" that captivates. It helps us to realize the value of carrying our own cross.

 

[bananabrain]

i think it's *you* that needs to be careful - this isn't "cutesy pooh" or "PC". it is ignorant, bigoted nonsense, as i've said here:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/why-dont-christians-worship-as-2335-8.html

i see no evidence that simone weil had any kind of insight into judaism whatsoever and your parrotting of her remarks as if they were some kind of revelation simply makes you sound like a missionary.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Nick_A]

i think it's *you* that needs to be careful - this isn't "cutesy pooh" or "PC". it is ignorant, bigoted nonsense, as i've said here:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/why-dont-christians-worship-as-2335-8.html

i see no evidence that simone weil had any kind of insight into judaism whatsoever and your parrotting of her remarks as if they were some kind of revelation simply makes you sound like a missionary.

b'shalom

bananabrain

So that is what all this righteous indignation is about. I'll respond but you won't like it.