LDS Freedom Forum

Please vocalize why you would vote against gay marriage and why you do not believe in it. What gospel, political, and legal arguments can you provide to back up your claim?

I'm not asking as a challenge but rather I'm asking so that I have resources and claims to draw from if I discuss this issue with someone. I just need help vocalizing and concretizing my argument.

Please don't argue in the comments about gay marriage either, this post is directed at those who are already against this gay marriage movement that is sweeping the US, not a competition field for those who are "pro-gay" or whatever.

Thanks.

I'd be interested in seeing a solid legal argument.

I've studied and argued logically for traditional marriage and opposed to same-sex "marriage" (SSM).
There are so many logical reasons, but those who push for the opposite tend to argue with emotional reasoning so it can be frustrating, but there are many who are able to see through the name calling and other logical fallacies.

1) Since when are sexual substitutes (homosexual preferences) part of "civil rights"? Even marriage between a man and a woman is not a right guaranteed to all. Homosexual couples have already had common-law marriage and co-habitation agreements, and can designate certain contractual agreements, so this push to "equal" same sex couples with man/woman couples is more about getting society to be legally forces to accept their distorted sexual preferences. They are not equal - not all man/woman couples have children, but ALL children come from unions of a mother and father. It is as if they want to fish and are demanding a driver's license to fish.

2) Children have the right to be treated fairly and NOT be legally denied a mother or father. Last month several adult children of homosexual parents pleaded in a federal court AGAINST SSM because they had dysfunctional childhoods and missed the opposite sex parent. Mothers are important, as are fathers - they are so important, we all owe our existence to the union of them. The government has no right to deny future society (children) a mother or father.

3) Laws are supposed to ensure the well-being of society, to promote the common good. According to the US CDC, homosexual practices have overwhelmingly higher statistics of STDs, HIV/AIDs and mental illness. Even in "comitted partners", statistics show they continue to have multiple partners. Doctors warn of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection as consequences of anal sex. (btw- Ethical doctors warn that complete sex changes are really impossible because gender is inherent in DNA, etc, and argue that too often surgeons willing to perform such surgeries care more about money than the physical and mental health of the patient.) Why would government legally encourage behavior known to be so harmful?

4) Teaching homosexuality in public schools (as is part of some "anti-discrimination" or anti-bullying laws) is teaching harmful behavior and many parents don't want that for their children, especially when it violates their freedom of religion.

Besides those main reasons, there are more in other threads about this topic.

For Moral and political -First Presidency letter says it well:

As we face this and other issues of our time, we encourage all to bear in mind our Heavenly Father’s purposes in creating the earth and providing for our mortal birth and experience here as His children. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:27–28). “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God and is central to His plan for His children and for the well-being of society. Strong families, guided by a loving mother and father, serve as the fundamental institution for nurturing children, instilling faith, and transmitting to future generations the moral strengths and values that are important to civilization and crucial to eternal salvation.

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review and teach Church members the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it. The Church insists on its leaders’ and members’ constitutionally protected right to express and advocate religious convictions on marriage, family, and morality free from retaliation or retribution. The Church is also entitled to maintain its standards of moral conduct and good standing for members.

Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same-sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/c ... x-marriage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Legal is in the eye of the politcal winds of the time. With a country of people living now amoral lives, this will be the trend unless we turn back to God.

.

brrgilbert wrote:The camel is in the tent. Moral agency should ALWAYS be respected and those who exercise it should be allowed to experience the consequences; thereof. The problem arises with the qualification of a same gender union as a marriage. It would be more fitting to define a completely "new" or ascribe an already existing "relationship" status to this type of union. It ought to be termed "union," or "partnership" or what have you, but NOT marriage. The definition of marriage should be "grandfathered" in by virtue of its "unique" existence throughout known time. The new "relationship" ought to extend to these "couples" the same privileges under the law, in terms of "associative" rights, but in NO circumstance should that include those reserved for "procreative" marriages. By circumventing "procreative" rights through artificial insemination, surrogate pregnancies, adoption, etc., these "relationships" have attained the ability to avoid the NATURAL consequences of sterility. Procreative rights should not be extended to these individuals by virtue of their choice. "Custodial" relationships involving children should be limited to heterosexual marriages involving man and wife.

whats a procreative right?

.

I always enjoy some good sarcasm, but seriously what is a procreative right?

Reread Bregilbert's last 4 sentences.

Only man/woman have been endowed with natural (God given) procreative rights.
Yet modern technology and some laws are pushing to find ways to artificially give those rights to same-sex couples, thereby denying children the right to the mother/father role that conceived them and that they need to be raised best.

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court
http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/laure ... eral-court" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I should have said what do YOU mean by procreative rights and also what do you mean when you say not being extended?

The legal argument is this: marriage is a contract with conditions, and one condition has always been that the consenting parties be of opposite gender. Anybody who has the audacity to deny this is a liar, perhaps even to themselves, but still a liar. If parties who will not or cannot meet the conditions attempt to marry, it is of course proper to deny them.

It is obviously true that gender is a condition of marriage, by the fact that marriage and family laws have had to be overhauled/rewritten, in order to support the new SSM paradigms.

It is wrong for a judge to say, this longstanding condition is unconstitutional- when in fact history is piled in opposition to this ruling. If people WISH to change the conditions, it should be in the hands of the legislature, not some tyrants on a bench with a hammer. But this is clearly not the case. Every attempt for the legislature to reaffirm the longstanding condition is met with tyranny from the bench.

I don't know how to look it up, but the one legal argument that has worked in one state, is that words in legal documents have meanings and it must be possible to define those words, and that the "definition" of marriage, is between a man and a woman. This was going to go to a higher court but I don't know what happened since. Every attempt to say, "same sex couples cannot marry" has been returned with an order from the courts to begin SSMs. But the attempt to say "marriage is defined in our documents as between a man and a woman" got met with, 'OK, for now'.

braingrunt wrote:The legal argument is this: marriage is a contract with conditions, and one condition has always been that the consenting parties be of opposite gender. Not always. Polygamy and polyandry necessarily included more than one person of the same gender. Anybody who has the audacity to deny this is a liar, perhaps even to themselves, but still a liar. Not a liar. Just familiar with the topic. If parties who will not or cannot meet the conditions attempt to marry, it is of course proper to deny them. The parties to a contract set the conditions. They can generally set any conditions they want, as long as they are legal. And since legality is the question, this argument is tautological. Generally speaking, an argument based in contract law will work in favor of gay marriage, not against it.

It is obviously true that gender is a condition of marriage, by the fact that marriage and family laws have had to be overhauled/rewritten, in order to support the new SSM paradigms.

It is wrong for a judge to say, this longstanding condition is unconstitutional- when in fact history is piled in opposition to this ruling. If people WISH to change the conditions, it should be in the hands of the legislature, not some tyrants on a bench with a hammer. But this is clearly not the case. Every attempt for the legislature to reaffirm the longstanding condition is met with tyranny from the bench. I'm not a fan of judicial activism, but you can't deny that courts have played a vital role in correcting legislative wrongs. The topics of slavery and civil rights come to mind. Some amount of judicial activism seems vital. The concept that everyone should submit to the unchecked will of the majority seems like something members of a religious minority (Mormons) would wholeheartedly reject.

I don't know how to look it up, but the one legal argument that has worked in one state, is that words in legal documents have meanings and it must be possible to define those words, and that the "definition" of marriage, is between a man and a woman. Definitions change all the time. (Just ask FAIR.) Especially those found in legislation. Have you ever read any statutes? Many of them begin with a list of definitions, often unique to the statute. Also, Black's Legal Dictionary derives its definitions, at least in part, from court decisions. So they are going to evolve too. This was going to go to a higher court but I don't know what happened since. Every attempt to say, "same sex couples cannot marry" has been returned with an order from the courts to begin SSMs. But the attempt to say "marriage is defined in our documents as between a man and a woman" got met with, 'OK, for now'.

Disclaimer: I am not pro-gay marriage.

Just looking for a good legal argument on this topic.

jbalm wrote: ....
The parties to a contract set the conditions. They can generally set any conditions they want, as long as they are legal. And since legality is the question, this argument is tautological. Generally speaking, an argument based in contract law will work in favor of gay marriage, not against it.
....

People can enter into arbitrary contracts with whatever conditions they choose, just as you have stated. However, state regulated and defined contracts cannot be arbitrary. Marriage is an existing type of contract, defined in law, with existing conditions. It is not merely between the man and the woman, but the state itself as well. In marriage you have certain obligations to the state, and the state to you as well.

I would argue, that to change the conditions without representative-based legislation is a violation of the contract with every married couple up to that point.

Some government officials pick apart words while ignoring ethics.

"Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." -Matt 23:24

Those with influence in government, ought to be more concerned about future society (children) than appeasing a select few who insist on society legally being forced to respect their particular sexual distortions.

Marriage is primarily an interest of the state because it ideally is the foundation of future society (children). All children come from man/woman unions. How does same-sex "marriage" contribute to society? If anything, it contributes distortions and encourages homosexual practices which statistically produce extensive physical and mental sickness (according to US CDC health reports).

braingrunt wrote:The legal argument is this: marriage is a contract with conditions, and one condition has always been that the consenting parties be of opposite gender...the "definition" of marriage, is between a man and a woman.

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

This is the point of my argument against gay "marriage". The original definition of marriage throughout history has always been between a man and a woman. God created Adam and Even, not Adam and Steve. Once we change the definition of marriage, then marriage has lost all of its meaning. Once we change the definition to include male and male or female and female, who's to say a male cannot marry a dog? how about a female and a horse? who are you to say they are not in "love"? Once you change the definition of marriage, all meaning to that word has been lost. Once you change the definition, it will then include dogs, horses, multiple partners/animals, etc. The floodgates will be open to anyone and anything. That is why I am against gay "marriage". I stand on God's side on this one.

Another thing, gays are actually gaining an EXTRA right. No is denying them any rights. Gays are still free to marry anyone of the opposite sex just like anybody else. They are not denied that right. But once they say they want an extra "right" to marry the same sex, that is an extra right that is not even close to being a "marriage". If they want that extra right, then what about Jimbob's extra right to marry his dog?

braingrunt wrote:

jbalm wrote: ....
The parties to a contract set the conditions. They can generally set any conditions they want, as long as they are legal. And since legality is the question, this argument is tautological. Generally speaking, an argument based in contract law will work in favor of gay marriage, not against it.
....

People can enter into arbitrary contracts with whatever conditions they choose, just as you have stated. However, state regulated and defined contracts cannot be arbitrary. Marriage is an existing type of contract, defined in law, with existing conditions. It is not merely between the man and the woman, but the state itself as well. In marriage you have certain obligations to the state, and the state to you as well.

I would argue, that to change the conditions without representative-based legislation is a violation of the contract with every married couple up to that point.

I agree with that (maybe not the last sentence). And the current battle is to re-define the state-mandated conditions to that contract. Which is why I think this is a tautological argument.

I have difficulty seeing how gay marriage affects regular marriage in any meaningful way. The reproduction (or lack thereof) argument has some pitfalls - like geriatric marriages and sterility - but people can argue about this one all day...I've seen studies that support both sides of the argument. In any event, since gay couples have been allowed to adopt kids for a long time now, the marriage thing just seems inconsequential.

All the anti gay marriage arguments I've seen have religion and/or tradition at their core. Basing laws on those things offends my libertarian sensibilities.

When it's all said and done, I really don't have a dog in this fight. If there was a Constitutional imperative for prohibiting gay marriage, I'd definitely be on the "ban it" bandwagon...but I just can't see one that holds any water.

That said, I definitely think that sexual orientation should not make one part of a protected class, but that's likely a done deal too. It didn't help that the church threw everyone but themselves under the bus on that one.

Jbalm,
If you think all arguments against SSM are religious, you haven't been reading or thinking.
Even just in this thread are multiple nonreligious reasons to oppose Ssm.

Human reproduction and anatomy has nothing to do with religion or tradition - just axiomatic facts.

And for someone who claims to not be "pro-" SSm, you certainly repeatedly argue as if you are.


Another related consideration is the illogical harm of parents pretending their child is the opposite gender. Just 10 years ago, that was considered as child abuse.

Think about this "nonreligiously." ;)
Say your lawyer believed he was Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carabbean.
He dressed like him, talked like him etc.
You'd think he was crazy, right? Most would.

Why is it then, that when a man pretends he's a woman, some act as if it's fine and if you question them, you're a "bigot"??

I addressed that already.

jbalm wrote:I addressed that already.

No you didn't.
Try again.

You just gonna keep stalking me on these homo threads until I don't even bother anymore?

Jbalm,
We argued - you called me names - on one other thread.
Now I called you out on your lie that all arguments against ssm are religious.
That's "stalking"?
Some don't have any other response except victim mentality.

You wrote something incorrect - obviously and I corrected you, but instead of acknowledging error, you're attempting to shift blame.

Since you insist:

Thinker wrote:Jbalm,
If you think all arguments against SSM are religious, you haven't been reading or thinking.

First of all I didn't say that. I said they are rooted in tradition and/or religion. Just like the last thread, you are misrepresenting what I said.

I suppose I should have said all arguments that even have a chance of being taken seriously in court are rooted in tradition/religion. That's where my interest lies.

There. Happy?

Even just in this thread are multiple nonreligious reasons to oppose Ssm. Nothing compelling.

Human reproduction and anatomy has nothing to do with religion or tradition - just axiomatic facts. No kidding.

I already addressed this briefly. Using physiological factors to determine who can and cannot marry has pitfalls. Should old people be prohibited from marrying because they can't reproduce? What about some guy whose wang got chopped of by a cement mixer? What about sterile women? What about someone who was born with both male and female genitals?

Which all leads to: Just how involved do you think you should be in micromanaging everyone else's life?

And for someone who claims to not be "pro-" SSm, you certainly repeatedly argue as if you are.

Such is the drawback of your tunnel vision and poor reading comprehension.


Another related consideration is the illogical harm of parents pretending their child is the opposite gender. Just 10 years ago, that was considered as child abuse.

This has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. I am trying to limit my participation in this thread to legal arguments for or against gay marriage. I realize that, in your zeal to purge the world of those you don't agree with, you tend to conflate all issues sexual into a single one. Try to trick someone else into punching that tarbaby.

Think about this "nonreligiously." ;)
Say your lawyer believed he was Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carabbean.
He dressed like him, talked like him etc.
You'd think he was crazy, right? Most would.

Yeah. So? Mentally ill people get married all the time. Are you married? Do you want to make a law against mentally ill people getting married? Remember, despite your desire to change the subject, the thread, and my previous comments, had to do with legal arguments for or against gay marriage. Stay on topic. I'm going to.

Why is it then, that when a man pretends he's a woman, some act as if it's fine and if you question them, you're a "bigot"??

So you want to be able to say whatever you want, but you don't want people to be able to say whatever they want in return? Bummer. Life doesn't work that way.

Thanks for responding, jbalm.
Your responses speak for themselves.

Next time, how about trying to discuss without logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks?
It would be more productive.

I honor mothers and fathers - my own and the many who are raising children. I hope and pray that children will have the chance to be raised by both whenever possible.
And I hope and pray that people will continue to see that homosexual practices are not "gay rainbows" but often lead to sickness and even death.
The warnings are there if you can get passed media and even some legal biases.

You know, once gay marriage is made into law nationwide (remember just 15 years ago nobody believed it was possible, not even most gays?) then lesbian and homosexual male unions will be subject to the same family law courts as heterosexuals are today -- including those dealing with child custody.

I believe once this group starts getting hammered like straight males have been beaten up over the last couple of decades we will see divorce reform similar to the way marriage and divorce cases are handled in places like Scandinavia.

Hey, there is always a silver lining folks.