If a man has the right to marry a man...

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So you are going to require homosexuals to demonstrate the success of a society built on their standard of marriage, which is impossible to do because they aren't permitted to be married in the first place? Bravo, Tex. And your comment about marriage as constituted being "very successful" was a throwaway comment by you without much to support it. When more than half end in divorce and even more than that are subjected to sexual infidelity by one of the members of the marriage and even more than that have a child outside of marriage, you are going to have to do some explaining to get to "very successful."

Nice finish of "I am rubber you are glue." Sadly, that is the best argument you have given yet. My low expectations have once again prevented disappointment.

I'll call your bull on this, Cali. Do you even know where the "half of all marriages end in divorce" comes from? Someone looked and saw that in a certain year in the early 80s, there were something like 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces in the United States. But that's like looking at 4.4 million births and 2.2 million deaths in a given year and concluding that half of all births will end in death. But it fit various individuals and organizations purposes, so it has become a commonly quoted yet false statistic.

It is actually difficult to identify the "true divorce rate", for a variety of reasons that I'll not go in to. (Just think of Elizabeth Taylor in a room with 8 happily once- and still-married women and tell me what the divorce rate is among the people in the room to see the problem.) But if you just need a number that has some sort of accurate meaning for what people are trying to say, it appears to be in the neighborhood of one third of all marriages end in divorce. Still way too high, but not what you are saying.

[minn_stat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why in the world should that be the basis of our government's actions? Our government is expressly secular.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That is fine. As a Mormon, you likely agree. But in a secular society, there should be a secular foundation for the government's actions. Do you disagree? Note: we are getting way off topic here.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No- I have said many times (time to repeat myself once again) in this thread that there are several instances where the government does have a legitimate interest in prohibiting forms of marriage. What I have asked for are the legitimate reasons the government has for prohibiting gay marriage (I think I have asked enough now- I will assume the people here just don't have an answer).

I'm calling bull on this as well. You seem to think if you say something often enough, it will be accepted as true. Our government is NOT expressly secular. First and foremost, according to our governing documents, the guiding principle on which this nation is founded is that we are a government of the people - the people are sovereign. NOT that we are a government based on secularism OR religion.

I am a people. My life and thus my political views are influenced by my religious beliefs, and it is the height of arrogance for you to say they cannot or should not do so.

Why was the Proclamation on the Family given in Sept 1995? Why not in 1950? I'll give you a hint, and it is in the first line of the document:

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

Further...

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Finally...

"...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

There is much more in the document, of course, but you don't need a PhD. to figure out what they are talking about.

I am a believing member of this church, and tend towards following the church leaders as inspired men, even when I, like most others on this board, don't believe that every word they say is straight from the mouth of God. If I believe this statement they made and the corresponding warning I just quoted, it would be downright irresponsible of me to do anything other than follow this counsel:

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

But having said that, I'll bite. I made the secular argument on this board some time ago - the first four posts of this thread:
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17211

[MikeWaters]

the problem is you have to explain why gay marriage makes tradtional marriage less strong.

marriage is a binding contract with responsibilities. you have to argue that society is beter off with gays not being to make these marriage contracts with their attendant responsibilities.

I've mentioned this before, the thing I don't understand about the church's take on all this, is why is it so important? What about abortion (millions and millions dead)? I don't understand why this isue is the one that gets the GAs worked up.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Why can't a man legally marry two women, or two men?

Can a woman marry two men if a man can marry two women?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Can a woman marry two men if a man can marry two women?

I know of a case where that has happened. So many of these plural marriages seem to have their roots in the LDS church.

The case I know of was one of those "icons" we seem to set up in wards and stakes. She was just so "great with the youth." Upon my return from my mission my folks had moved to Los Altos, Calif. They said I had to attend some of the youth meetings with this lady. I won't claim it was the spirit as a lot of good spiritual kids were attending these meetings, perhaps it is my cynical nature. Anyway I told my folks I wouldn't be attending her classes or little get togethers any more.

She eventually got so full of herself she divorced her husband, left the church and took some with her. She then married several of the young men.

Her main problem was she had gotten to the point she felt she was closer to God than the Priesthood brethern and was ticked they wouldn't give her the priesthood.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

I'll call your bull on this, Cali. Do you even know where the "half of all marriages end in divorce" comes from? Someone looked and saw that in a certain year in the early 80s, there were something like 2.4 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces in the United States. But that's like looking at 4.4 million births and 2.2 million deaths in a given year and concluding that half of all births will end in death. But it fit various individuals and organizations purposes, so it has become a commonly quoted yet false statistic.

It is actually difficult to identify the "true divorce rate", for a variety of reasons that I'll not go in to. (Just think of Elizabeth Taylor in a room with 8 happily once- and still-married women and tell me what the divorce rate is among the people in the room to see the problem.) But if you just need a number that has some sort of accurate meaning for what people are trying to say, it appears to be in the neighborhood of one third of all marriages end in divorce. Still way too high, but not what you are saying.

According to President Hinckley, it was almost half in 1990.

"Some of you within the sound of my voice could recount family sorrows in your own experience. But among the greatest of tragedies, and I think the most common, is divorce. It has become as a great scourge. The most recent issue of the World Almanac says that in the United States during the twelve months ending with March 1990, an estimated 2,423,000 couples married. During this same period, an estimated 1,177,000 couples divorced. (See The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1991, New York: World Almanac, 1990, p. 834.)

This means that in the United States almost one divorce occurred for every two marriages."

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vg...____&hideNav=1


It may be lower today, but the discussion here is about the "overwhelming success" of marriage in US society. Even at 1/3, can you really call it an overwhelming success? What percentage of marriages suffer infidelity? This is a bit of a different discussion than the focus of the thread, however.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by minn_stat

I'm calling bull on this as well. You seem to think if you say something often enough, it will be accepted as true. Our government is NOT expressly secular. First and foremost, according to our governing documents, the guiding principle on which this nation is founded is that we are a government of the people - the people are sovereign. NOT that we are a government based on secularism OR religion.

I am a people. My life and thus my political views are influenced by my religious beliefs, and it is the height of arrogance for you to say they cannot or should not do so.

Why was the Proclamation on the Family given in Sept 1995? Why not in 1950? I'll give you a hint, and it is in the first line of the document:

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

Further...

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Finally...

"...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

There is much more in the document, of course, but you don't need a PhD. to figure out what they are talking about.

I am a believing member of this church, and tend towards following the church leaders as inspired men, even when I, like most others on this board, don't believe that every word they say is straight from the mouth of God. If I believe this statement they made and the corresponding warning I just quoted, it would be downright irresponsible of me to do anything other than follow this counsel:

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

But having said that, I'll bite. I made the secular argument on this board some time ago - the first four posts of this thread:
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17211

True- we are a government of the people. But that is hardly mutually exclusive with being a secular government. The people have determined to make the government secular. It could be that one day they decide to amend the Constitution to make it a religious-based document, but they haven't and don't appear headed in that direction.

I have no problem with you following the counsel of the church in the Proclamation to the World. But I think your efforts would be best directed towards researching secular reasons for marriage to be confined to the definition of one man/one woman so you can respond with an answer better than "tradition" or "religion" when asked why marriage should be so restricted in scope.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

According to President Hinckley, it was almost half in 1990.

"Some of you within the sound of my voice could recount family sorrows in your own experience. But among the greatest of tragedies, and I think the most common, is divorce. It has become as a great scourge. The most recent issue of the World Almanac says that in the United States during the twelve months ending with March 1990, an estimated 2,423,000 couples married. During this same period, an estimated 1,177,000 couples divorced. (See The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1991, New York: World Almanac, 1990, p. 834.)

This means that in the United States almost one divorce occurred for every two marriages."

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vg...____&hideNav=1


It may be lower today, but the discussion here is about the "overwhelming success" of marriage in US society. Even at 1/3, can you really call it an overwhelming success? What percentage of marriages suffer infidelity? This is a bit of a different discussion than the focus of the thread, however.

President Hinckley was not a statistican, nor was he a demographer.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

President Hinckley was not a statistican, nor was he a demographer.

Take it up with him. You were using religion as the basis for your argument, so I thought I would provide a statement from a religious leader to help you understand.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Take it up with him. You were using religion as the basis for your argument, so I thought I would provide a statement from a religious leader to help you understand.

If you honestly want to bring religion into the argument, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Was President Hinckley trying to state a case for same-sex marriage by quoting this stat?