"Bundle of Rights" argument

[MikeWaters]

ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

Interesting. Church clearly opposed to civil unions.

What is not clear is if they also oppose a la carte "rights" for homosexuals. Contracts, visitations, inheritance, etc.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of opposing the "bundled" rights, but not opposing a la carte.

But if you do oppose a la carte, in my mind, that is lunacy and complete abrogration of liberty.

That's the problem with talking so much about this. You dig yourself a hole that doesn't make sense.

For example, in the piece, they conflate eternal marriage with secular marriage. Is the definition of marriage what God says, or what the state says? It sure isn't clear in that article, because they endorse both.

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/a...-4-202,00.html

[MikeWaters]

I should have continued reading before posting. Wickman continues:

As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.

So they allow the a la carte approach. Seems to be a narrow legalistic approach. God disapproves of "bundle" but a la carte is ok.

One man's bundle could be another man's a la carte.

[Detroitdad]

The legalese is mesmerizing.

Surely interfering with another's fundamental liberty to direct or participate in certain rights ought to be taboo (clear to me at least).

Why should we care anyway? Is the "bundle of rights" granted by the government the purpose of marriage. Or is it the spiritual effects of doing so? This ought to be a purely secular issue, if we don't like those types of marriages we don't preform them.

[MikeWaters]

Seems to me the only marriage that God recognizes is the kind in the temple. Heterosexual sex within civil marriage (or it's equivalent--in my mission couples need not be married formally to be baptized) is allowed. But that state-defined civil marriage must be what? There is clearly no one single standard.

[Detroitdad]

I agree that the only type of marriage recognized by God are temple marriages. Therefore, I am unsure what the grave danger. I get a strong whiff of homophobia from this.

The "but they're gay, they don't deserve rights " argument is maybe not the strongest one in an open society.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

The legalese is mesmerizing.

Surely interfering with another's fundamental liberty to direct or participate in certain rights ought to be taboo (clear to me at least).

Devil is in the details there. What "rights" are we talking about here that you would discribe as a "fundamental liberty." And when you use that phrase, do you mean in the constitutional sense or in the "nature law" or "inalienable rights" sense? Just trying to understand what you mean.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I should have continued reading before posting. Wickman continues:



So they allow the a la carte approach. Seems to be a narrow legalistic approach. God disapproves of "bundle" but a la carte is ok.

One man's bundle could be another man's a la carte.

This is what's called sophistry--saying things in a way that borrows jargon from fields that employ reason to justify what is just subjective bias or belief. What this smug yewt needs is to have one of his kids turn out gay. That would knock him off his high horse. I can hear the General Conference intonation as he says these empty words.

[MikeWaters]

I don't know if inheritance is a fundamental right. But to say that inheritance setups are okay, except for ones involving gay partners, is crazy in my book.

[MikeWaters]

if a member opposes adoption by his gay sibling, should he oppose the sibling and his child from staying with the members family, so as not to condone the adoption?

you take this to the full logic of not condoning, and pretty soon you are on absurd pharisaical (is this a word?) grounds.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't know if inheritance is a fundamental right. But to say that inheritance setups are okay, except for ones involving gay partners, is crazy in my book.

It's sophistry.