It's Time to Speak Out Against The 'Mormon Boycott'

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

reds8n wrote: err... I don't think peple are arguing that you can or even should use laws to change opinions.

I agree this would be a fallacy, if not impossible.

It's also a fallacy to pretend that chnaging the definition of amrriage would alter future or existing marriages in any way what so ever.

I don't get how it's an " attcak on tradition" even. Surely the fact that people want to get married, as opposed to just shacking up/living in sin/whataver shows the tradition is more valid and worth keeping than was previously thought.

You can't argue that marriage, at least in Americ, has traditionally been between a man and a woman. But the actual nature of the marriage itself had changed in countless ways throughout this same period. It's only by adapting and evolving (slightly) that traditions stay alive or vaguely relevant.

Traditionally you eat a gose at Xmas. But we don't most go for Turkey. Hell, I'm doing steak this year . It's the basic principle : family/friends sitting down and sharing a meal in compansionship or in religious celebration that is the essence of the tradition.

marriage is about 2 people ( consenting adults blah blah) making a special vow to each other. As this is, lets be honest, pretty cool and generally has proven laregly beneficial for society we throw certain advantages to people who undertake this. Thengenders of those involved is, surely, irrelevant.

When I was in High school, there was a group of kids that wanted to say the Pledge of Allegiance with their left arm in a raised salute. If them doing so did not prevent me from putting my hand over my heart, I shouldn't have objected right? My use of tradition was not stopped. But it offended those who love the tradition. Same with marriage. It would not destroy my practice, but would be very offensive to the majority of its practitioners. It would 'dilute' the tradition. My marriage would be less special as it was so casually tossed about.

p.s.- I am not saying my example is the same, only saying the argument above was flawed.

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes.

In that instance there is a common denominator, legal tender, upon which the valuation of two different commodities can be measured. The same should be true of the law with respect to marriage, at the moment that is not the case.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The silly argument of separate in not equal can be used against gay marriage. You are not straight. Therefore you are not the same. You therefore cannot be equal. See, it is silly.

That rest one the premise that 'straight' is a rigid category against which 'same' can be judged. Such an assumption is false.

**Mekniakal**

Edit:

A bizzare double post.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Mekniakal wrote:

Here's an idea:

What if the government could only issue civil unions, and then the churches decide whom they want to marry? They can marry only those that they believed are allowed to in the eyes of their god.

I would be happy with that so long as marriage was still confined to a man and wife, pastors/bishops/etc are still licensed to perform marriages, and marriage certificates can still be issued to young couples of opposite genders. (i.e.- still ownership of the word marriage). The government would recognize the marriage as having the civil union rights.

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

When I was in High school, there was a group of kids that wanted to say the Pledge of Allegiance with their left arm in a raised salute. If them doing so did not prevent me from putting my hand over my heart, I shouldn't have objected right? My use of tradition was not stopped. But it offended those who love the tradition. Same with marriage. It would not destroy my practice, but would be very offensive to the majority of its practitioners. It would 'dilute' the tradition. My marriage would be less special as it was so casually tossed about.

p.s.- I am not saying my example is the same, only saying the argument above was flawed.

Of course, as is often claimed, if marriage is founded on the opinion of an individual, then it follows that to presume parity across multiple individuals is a flawed notion. Someone observing a given tradition denoted by a common linguistic referent is no more diluting of that tradition than the various sects of the Christian faith are of it.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dogma wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes.

In that instance there is a common denominator, legal tender, upon which the valuation of two different commodities can be measured. The same should be true of the law with respect to marriage, at the moment that is not the case.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The silly argument of separate in not equal can be used against gay marriage. You are not straight. Therefore you are not the same. You therefore cannot be equal. See, it is silly.

That rest one the premise that 'straight' is a rigid category against which 'same' can be judged. Such an assumption is false.

The argument being made was about words. "Marriage" vs. "Civil Unions". They can have the same right (don’t now, right?). Therefore they would be equal before the law.

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

I would be happy with that so long as marriage was still confined to a man and wife, pastors/bishops/etc are still licensed to perform marriages, and marriage certificates can still be issued to young couples of opposite genders. (i.e.- still ownership of the word marriage). The government would recognize the marriage as having the civil union rights.

So, what you're saying is that you want the government to tell any given Church how to apply its beliefs?

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The argument being made was about words. "Marriage" vs. "Civil Unions". They can have the same right (don’t now, right?). Therefore they would be equal before the law.

In something so deeply linguistic as the law a separation of terminology will never allow for absolute equivalence.

**reds8n**

I don't get how it dilutes your tradition.

If you're forced to follow then yeah I get that, but you're not, so I really don't see any issue.

I can see how things like divorce might- used to be very frowned upon, and things like those in-and-out weddings that Vegas etc do dilute or remove any sense of specialness to the idea of marriage.

But, seeing as we all agree with all couples getting the same full legal treatment, and to use a phrase I've noticed a lot of Americans use " If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...etc etc".

**dienekes96**

In the United States, you have to get a state-administered legal document of a union to get married anyway.

Let's face it...Britney Spears has done more damage to marriage than any homosexual ever could.

If the church wants to define it a certain way, I have no problem with that. Separation of church and state. But the church does not provide any legal benefits to its members. As it should be.

There. We can all be happy.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dogma wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The argument being made was about words. "Marriage" vs. "Civil Unions". They can have the same right (don’t now, right?). Therefore they would be equal before the law.

In something so deeply linguistic as the law a separation of terminology will never allow for absolute equivalence.

Such as African American Male Vs. White Male. No equality in the law?

**Gen. Lee Losing**

reds8n wrote:I don't get how it dilutes your tradition.

It is difficult to understand something alien to you. It is just as hard for traditional marriage types to understand how it Won’t! My union of man and wife is marriage. Your union of man and man (or woman and woman) is not marriage by tradition. It deserves equal rights. But it is not marriage. Changing that word would dilute the tradition.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dienekes96 wrote:In the United States, you have to get a state-administered legal document of a union to get married anyway.

Let's face it...Britney Spears has done more damage to marriage than any homosexual ever could.

If the church wants to define it a certain way, I have no problem with that. Separation of church and state. But the church does not provide any legal benefits to its members. As it should be.

There. We can all be happy.

It is State sanction, but can be ministered by clergy. I am arguing that civil unions should have identical language in its law, save that marriage is between a man and woman. That way both sides win. Equal rights/Traditional Marriage.

**Pook**

I know it's been dropped for a while, but I feel a need for clarification: the current stat is 5% homosexual and 5% bisexual population throughout the world, not 2%. Not much of a difference percentage-wise, but this affects a lot more people than many think.

I also have to state this:
Marriage is a religious institute, therefore they should be able to say who can and cannot be married in their holy places. HOWEVER a civil union should not be controlled by religion, and they should be given to whoever asks (assuming they follow the other laws ie 2 consenting adults so on and so forth). Marriage is simply a trumped up civil union. I personally say let marriage stay with what religion defines it to be, but civil unions be open to whomever wants one.

You're not trampling anyone's rights and keeping the religious buffs happy. I know it's been said before, I couldn't help but throw in my 2 cents.

**reds8n**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
reds8n wrote:I don't get how it dilutes your tradition.

It is difficult to understand something alien to you. It is just as hard for traditional marriage types to understand how it Won’t! My union of man and wife is marriage. Your union of man and man (or woman and woman) is not marriage by tradition. It deserves equal rights. But it is not marriage. Changing that word would dilute the tradition.

Fair enough(ish) I suppose.

can you see therefore how it might be equally important for a gay couple to be able to say they are married, not just joined in a civil union ?

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Such as African American Male Vs. White Male. No equality in the law?

African American Male, and White Male are not written into the legal framework. Anywhere.

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

It is State sanction, but can be ministered by clergy. I am arguing that civil unions should have identical language in its law, save that marriage is between a man and woman. That way both sides win. Equal rights/Traditional Marriage.

Traditional marriage has nothing to do with the law.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

reds8n wrote:

Fair enough(ish) I suppose.

can you see therefore how it might be equally important for a gay couple to be able to say they are married, not just joined in a civil union ?

ABSOLUTLY! I can really understand that! No one wants to be different. But a gay couple is different. (Not less! just different in its composition)
In earlier posts I talked about a percentage of the population. Homosexuals are a small percentage. Being a small percentage does not negate their validity of existence, but it does mean they are not 'normal' in the since of 'same as everyone else'. Nothing wrong with that. A genius is not 'normal' (I should know!

)
Gays may not want to be known as Unified Civilly, but their union is different. Just as they are different. At some point the designation "gay" has to get annoying too. (i.e. my 'gay' friend as opposed to my friend).

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dogma wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

It is State sanction, but can be ministered by clergy. I am arguing that civil unions should have identical language in its law, save that marriage is between a man and woman. That way both sides win. Equal rights/Traditional Marriage.

Traditional marriage has nothing to do with the law.

Well, technically marriage is defend as a traditional marriage. That is its connection to current law.
But you are right. The use of the word marriage is based on tradition. The phrase "gay marriage" makes no sense based on the definition of marriage as a man and wife. It is like saying a one person marriage (i.e.- husband with no wife). It does not make since if you use the definition of marriage.

Hence I am saying Civil Unions are the answer.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dogma wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Such as African American Male Vs. White Male. No equality in the law?

African American Male, and White Male are not written into the legal framework. Anywhere.

So there is no Affirmative Action???

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
dogma wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Such as African American Male Vs. White Male. No equality in the law?

African American Male, and White Male are not written into the legal framework. Anywhere.

So there is no Affirmative Action???

Not any that is government sponsored in the way you consider it. The legal framework simply states that the government will "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." Which is nothing more than a justification for investigating claims of discrimination. Any measures taken to avoid such accusations are not a part of the legal system.

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Well, technically marriage is defend as a traditional marriage. That is its connection to current law.

Who decided that? Definitions are far from fixed in a living language.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But you are right. The use of the word marriage is based on tradition. The phrase "gay marriage" makes no sense based on the definition of marriage as a man and wife. It is like saying a one person marriage (i.e.- husband with no wife). It does not make since if you use the definition of marriage.

No, it does not make sense if you use the definition which you subscribe to. But, again, no word is subject to an unchanging definition.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Hence I am saying Civil Unions are the answer.

They are the answer, when that is the legal term applies to everyone. The only was you'll get that resolution is if the State is not permitted to recognize ANY religious marriage.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dogma wrote:

Not any that is government sponsored in the way you consider it. The legal framework simply states that the government will "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." Which is nothing more than a justification for investigating claims of discrimination. Any measures taken to avoid such accusations are not a part of the legal system.

I see. You win that point.
Perhaps male and female would be better examples of different words that have same legal rights. I am not a law buff, so please forgive my assumptions.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dogma wrote:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Well, technically marriage is defend as a traditional marriage. That is its connection to current law.

Who decided that? Definitions are far from fixed in a living language.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But you are right. The use of the word marriage is based on tradition. The phrase "gay marriage" makes no sense based on the definition of marriage as a man and wife. It is like saying a one person marriage (i.e.- husband with no wife). It does not make since if you use the definition of marriage.

No, it does not make sense if you use the definition which you subscribe to. But, again, no word is subject to an unchanging definition.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Hence I am saying Civil Unions are the answer.

They are the answer, when that is the legal term applies to everyone. The only was you'll get that resolution is if the State is not permitted to recognize ANY religious marriage.

1 -The people of california had previously voted to legally define marriage a few years back. So that is the current legal definition.
2- based on the above, the 2nd point was technically valid.
3- If I said that I want Gay to mean straight, and thus Gay marriage would be straight marriage, you would say I was an idiot. If words are so easily cahnged in meaning, then laws (a collection of words) are doomed to fail the moment they are written. (i.e.-Murder means cutting throats. I only shot him!) Marriage has a definition. You don't like. I am sorry.

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
1 -The people of california had previously voted to legally define marriage a few years back. So that is the current legal definition.
2- based on the above, the 2nd point was technically valid.

If that's the case then the law is in violation of the first amendment in a pretty clear way. After all, legal definitions only have merit within the court of law and the application of such a definition to the term marriage as it impacts individuals churches violates the capacity of that church to engage in free worship.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
3- If I said that I want Gay to mean straight, and thus Gay marriage would be straight marriage, you would say I was an idiot. If words are so easily cahnged in meaning, then laws (a collection of words) are doomed to fail the moment they are written. (i.e.-Murder means cutting throats. I only shot him!) Marriage has a definition. You don't like. I am sorry.

Words are that easily changed in meaning, and laws do fail for precisely that reason. To say that marriage has a single, immutable definition is disingenuous in the extreme.

Either way, you say you advocate civil unions for homosexuals, but marriage for heterosexuals. What you are essentially doing is turning this into a battle of definitional supremacy that will directly bring your case into conflict with the first amendment. The government does not have the power to legislate speech.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

dogma wrote:

If that's the case then the law is in violation of the first amendment in a pretty clear way. After all, legal definitions only have merit within the court of law and the application of such a definition to the term marriage as it impacts individuals churches violates the capacity of that church to engage in free worship.

Words are that easily changed in meaning, and laws do fail for precisely that reason. To say that marriage has a single, immutable definition is disingenuous in the extreme.

Either way, you say you advocate civil unions for homosexuals, but marriage for heterosexuals. What you are essentially doing is turning this into a battle of definitional supremacy that will directly bring your case into conflict with the first amendment. The government does not have the power to legislate speech.

It is no more a violation than prohibiting any religion from having child brides. The majority rule must protect minority, but that does not mean giving the minority what it wanted. It is not a matter of defination supremacy if each word has equal rights. Individuals would still have their right to treat one as better, but the law would not. That is legal equality. The law cannot change peoples hearts.

**Kilkrazy**

Education isn't about challenging parents' thinking, it's about challenging everyone's thinking, left wing, right wing, your parents', your professors'.

It's about equipping children with the intellectual tools they need to make decisions based on research, analysis and ethics, rather than a bundle of hoary political or religious mantras.

**JohnHwangDD**

over and out

**Typeline**

JohnHwangDD wrote:Meh.

I say, let the Mormons and the gays settle things Old Testament style in the deserts of Utah.

QFT

**dogma**

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
It is no more a violation than prohibiting any religion from having child brides.

Not so if you are defining marriage as a legal concept. In that case it does not have to remain consistent with any religious meaning, thereby freeing it from the 1st amendment. However, if that is indeed your intent, any line of religious argumentation is also rendered null and void due to the need to be free of the 1st amendment.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The majority rule must protect minority, but that does not mean giving the minority what it wanted. It is not a matter of defination supremacy if each word has equal rights. Individuals would still have their right to treat one as better, but the law would not. That is legal equality. The law cannot change peoples hearts.

No, it can't, but that is precisely what you're advocating by legally protecting the word 'marriage'. You are literally saying that your definition of the word marriage is superior to all others, and therefore the only one which can be sanctioned by state law. And, regardless of how you may feel, that necessarily violates the first amendment. The matter of equal rights for different terms does not enter into it at all. If you were really chasing legal equality you would simply remove marriage from the legal lexicon altogether.