Adam and Eve and . . . Lilith? (More on "teh gay menace

[Portia]

So, (A) I'm becoming wearing of the other thread; (B) I still have what I see as an honest, serious question, so I'd appreciate it if anyone who answered treated it as such, and didn't resort to ad hominem attacks on me or accusing me of falsifying anything (I'm not).

I often hear an argument for anti-gay-marriage being that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. My question for the Mormons, especially, arguing in favor of exclusively monogamous heterosexual marriage, is how do you reconcile your reading of the Adam/Eve/marriage-was-instituted-by-God's-hand thought, with your own history of sexual-more-challenging polygyny?

Most Christian denominations that argue against gay marriage do not have a history of polygyny. This is clearly not true for the LDS. I think anyone in the Mormon belt has a great-great-great grandfather who had a bevy of wives. The problem is, folks, that many, many, people (myself included) sees polygyny as just as much an "alternative lifestyle" as gay marriage! Don't tell me that the frumpy, weird clothes; lack of real education; and fenced in compounds aren't "alternative" to how normal Americans live.

So, it seems to me you have two choices. Either you accept what all your cultural conservative friends call traditional (heterosexual, monogamous) marriage, and repudiate polygyny as not only outdated, but morally wrong (something I have yet to really hear from "the faithful"); or you embrace what many see as "kinky," "aberrant," and "wrong" behavior, because God told you it was okay, but then fight for the government staying out of ALL martial relationships, including gay marriage.

The jury is still out on the effects of homosexual parenting on children, but it's abundantly clear that children from polygynous families suffer, and the women suffer. I would really, really recommend reading the journals and writings of these pioneer women--it's often heartbreaking, quite frankly, but an eye-opening and important part of our culture and heritage.

Also, please note my use of "polygyny" and not "polygamy." Polygamy=having more than one spouse of either sex; polygyny=more than one wife; polyandry=more than one husband. I rarely if ever see Mormons defending my right to polyandry. If I wanted to hop in bed with one man for his money, and another for his hot body, I don't think I'd see the religious right running to my defense. I think it's hypocritical to allow men to not keep it in their pants, but not women, if they so desire.

And that's what this comes down to, in my mind: sex. This isn't about Harvey Milk or feminine guys who like showtunes or West Coast cities with people that dress differently than you: it's about gay sex, which a certain proportion of the population finds distasteful. And for the vast majority of Americans then and now, what's wrong with polygyny is sex: the fact that something special, something important, is shared with multiple people, and watered down. So I say, accept your libertine past (and sometimes present doctrine about "heavenly relationships," let's be honest), and let other libertines their right to practice as they please, or realize that maybe it wasn't Adam and Steve, but it wasn't Adam and Eve and Lilith that were married by God's hand either!

Also, to pre-empt a couple of possible objections:

1. Underage polygyny. I think just about everyone at this point agrees that 14-year-olds should not be betrothed to 70-year-olds, which we see a lot in these cult-like groups. The problem in my mind is that with polygyny's emphasis on fertility, that's kind of a natural outgrowth. However, I definitely think you can find those who think the government should get out of marriage supporting age-of-consent polygamous relationships; you could look into the polyamory lifestyle for more on that.

2. "Look to the Biblical patriarchs!" you might say. The problem with this line of reasoning is that most Christians don't see the people of the OT as Christians, but as Jews. They would say that polygyny was an aspect of the Mosaic law that was done away in Christ, and immediately point you to where Paul tells Timothy that a bishop must be the "husband of one wife," etc., etc., etc. This argumentation just doesn't hold water for pretty much anyone outside your worldview: Christians see polygyny as a corruption, and secularists see the OT as an arbitrary, outdated, contradictory tome.

[Laser Jock]

fight for the government staying out of ALL martial relationships

Except I think war is acceptable in certain situations. Oh, wait, I don't think that's what you meant. (Sorry, couldn't pass up the opportunity.)

Anyway, I'm not going to tackle your question directly, but there are a couple of assumptions you seem to be making that I disagree with.

1. You talk about polygyny as if the only way to practice it is the way it's done by modern, radical offshoots of the LDS church (like the FLDS). It's not.
2. You seem to think that the reason polygyny was practiced in the past was for sex; men who couldn't "keep it in their pants," as you put it, were the people who practiced it and motivated it. Wrong again, with respect to LDS history.

Reading through your post, I wasn't sure if you were trying to argue with people not of our church, based on their assumptions and beliefs, or if you were trying to argue with people who are LDS, based on our history and beliefs. After reading it twice more, I think that the reason your post was confusing is that you were actually trying to argue to both audiences at once. As a result, you mixed the 1800s ("pioneer women") with the FLDS ("frumpy, weird clothes; lack of real education; and fenced in compounds"). You mixed LDS views of why polygyny was practiced (God commanded it) with how most other people probably see it (men wanted sex with more women).

I think this mixing explains (1) and (2); in other words, you weren't actually making those assumptions, your arguments were just unclear. (If you actually believe that polygyny inherently leads to poor education and frumpy clothes, feel free to correct me. Likewise if you really believe that polygyny, as practiced by the LDS Church in the 1800s, was driven by desire for sex.)

An interesting contradiction appears in the argument you present from the viewpoint of mainstream Christians: you take as a premise that the creation of Adam and Eve, as documented in the Old Testament, is a valid argument against gay marriage and against polygamy. You then say that "looking to the Biblical patriarchs" is not a valid argument in favor of polygyny. So is it okay to use the Old Testament or not? How do you pick and choose which parts you use and which ones you say don't count? (Note that I'm not saying this is a contradiction you are making: rather, it's a flaw with the arguments used by some mainstream Christians.)

As LDS, our response would be that we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Many mainstream Christians, however, don't admit the possibility of error in Biblical translation and transcription, and so they don't have that option. In other words, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is a catchy slogan but not really a good argument for anything.

Which leads me to two questions: you said your question was for "the Mormons, especially, arguing in favor of exclusively monogamous heterosexual marriage." How could someone who's LDS, who understands our doctrine, make such an argument? (I, at least, have never heard a member seriously try, and I can't see how it would ever work considering our theology. But maybe there's a good reason I'm missing.) And if they did make that argument, why would they pick Adam and Eve to try to make their point, knowing full well our belief in continuing revelation?

[vorpal blade]

Dear Portia,

As you know, sometimes people with whom we share the same general objectives do and say really stupid things. This hurts our cause, as the opposition is sure to pick these things up and repeat them over and over again as though these stupid things were what everyone believes on our side of the issue. I can’t speak for what everyone else believes; I can only give what I believe, and what I’ve seen from reliable Church sources.

The “Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve” slogan is a short cut, I think, to the concept that no where in the Bible does God support same-sex relationships. While our Christian friends may not accept polygyny as practiced by the Mormons, it is not hard for Mormons to reconcile it with the Bible. So, for us, there is no conflict with an opinion of “no on gay marriage,” and “yes” on polygyny, when it is commanded by God.

I can understand how someone could see polygyny as just an alternate lifestyle, like gay marriage. And the LDS church is opposed to polygyny in every individual case where it is practiced without the express approval of the LDS prophet. We are opposed to an effort to legalize polygyny in any country, because some people would live this law without God’s specific command, and then it would be wickedness, or morally wrong.

I think it is true that when polygyny is lived, without God’s express command, all those involved (children, women, and men) suffer. True, Mormons don’t defend the right of anyone not of the LDS faith, and not at a time when God has commanded it, to live polygyny, polyandry, or any other “alternate lifestyle.” But we do allow all libertines to practice as they please.

Polygyny, as practiced by those whom God has commanded to practice it, is not about giving men libertine license to have unlimited sex. I don’t see anything like that as I read the journals and writings of these pioneer men and women.

Those who wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman are not trying to stop gay sex between those who practice it. People who want gay sex are going to have it, whether they are married or not. Saying that they can’t call their relationships “marriage” in no way prevents them from having those relationships. In fact, getting married often puts a damper on sex. The Church’s opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with whether people find gay sex distasteful. It is about the possible effect calling gay relationships “marriage” might have on society.

[krebscout]

I'm with VB. It's just a silly slogan, not an actual argument.

[Werf_Must]

I'd really like to hear more opinions on this topic...

As for me, I've always been one to think that the government ought to grant civil unions to everyone, heterosexual or otherwise (with the same rights as currently instituted under marriage). Marriage should be left to churches, and hey, if some church out there wants to marry gays, power to them... I guess I just don't really understand how it would personally affect my marriage--or better yet "the sanctity of marriage". I mean for goodness sake, there are drive-thru chapels in Vegas where you don't even have to get out of the car. So sacred right there. I just don't think the government should be judging my relationship--separation of church and state type thing. I think the same should go for plural civil unions--hey, if it is cool with you and your husband and you're all 18+ it doesn't seem like I ought to be sticking my nose in it.

[Portia]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#33319827

I'd encourage everyone who is interested in this topic to watch this clip. Regardless of whether you agree or not, I think it's really important for anyone taking a political stand against Prop 8, especially because of the Mormon church, to realize what "the outside viewpoint" thinks. I hope that if any of you are going to campaign against gay marriage, that you won't use such ridiculous arguments as "pro-straight-marriagers are a persecuted minority, just like blacks were in the '60s." Um, NO. Anyone want me to bring up the record on blacks and the LDS church? Wasn't so pretty.

So please, I live here in Utah; I'm sick of my state becoming a laughing stock of the political viewpoint I espouse. I know that Latter-day Saints have often embraced their "peculiar people" status, but it's just getting tiresome. "Yes" on Prop 8 won! Can't we move on to fight other evils, like poverty, chain smoking, and our byzantine tax codes. Gosh, I yearn for the days when the Hot Topic at BYU was "traditional gender roles." (And this is, um, me. Plenty on the record as far as my viewpoint there!)

So yes, I do believe gay civil marriage is a civil right: and I guess I don't care if anyone comes over to "the dark side;" I guess I just wish people would realize that many good people, moral people, ethical people, SMART people espouse this viewpoint. A minority of Canadians and British people and Iowans have been getting gay married for a while now, and I don't see those civilizations sinking into the sea. Like, this isn't the first time that people politely made their personal viewpoints, which contradicted LDS Church leadership, known through their votes: Utah was the state that led to the overturn of Prohibition. Now I think drunk driving and wife beatings and homeless dudes spending their spare change on booze are MUCH WORSE societal ills than two lesbians raising a kid. So, I guess I am just completely fed up with the droning on about something that is politically inevitable, and just doesn't seem like the end of the world. Now, if the Quorum of the 12 want to start a tirade about the countless funds we pour into Wall Street, I'd be all for that!

And see, what's most ironic about this, is I don't even know any gay people that well! I don't really know any black people, either, but that doesn't stop me from being pro-civil-rights, and anti-Priesthood-segregation and anti-ridiculous, insulting-arguments. But I guess if you really think that the cause of same-sex marriage won't prevail in California, you're foolin' yourself. As previously mentioned, it went through in Iowa.

Maybe no one's opinion will be changed by this, but especially if you're at BYU, I think you just hear the same arguments over and over again till it seems they must be true. Walking in someone else's shoes never hurt.

[Laser Jock]

I'm a little confused: is your second post in any way connected to your first (or to any of our responses), aside from showing your support for gay marriage? You raised several questions and made several arguments in your first one, and people responded. Your latest post seems to totally ignore all that, though, and instead makes a fresh argument for gay marriage. It's kind of hard to have a conversation when you ignore what the other people say.

[Imogen]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


from the supreme court's loving v. virginia decision. the first line is most important. i bolded it so everyone sees it. TADA!! the supreme court has once decided that marriage IS a basic human right that should be extended to all and not restricted by the government.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

from the supreme court's loving v. virginia decision. the first line is most important.

Well that makes things interesting. That makes things very interesting. Legal precedent, I'm surprised that pro-gay groups haven't cited it yet. (Or maybe they have?)

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I hope that if any of you are going to campaign against gay marriage, that you won't use such ridiculous arguments as "pro-straight-marriagers are a persecuted minority, just like blacks were in the '60s." Um, NO. Anyone want me to bring up the record on blacks and the LDS church? Wasn't so pretty.

Heh, sort of funny that Olbermann in one breath ridicules Oaks' statements of persecution, while simultaneously calling him the "Worst Person In The World." Olbermann was kind enough to provide a couple direct quotes, but his summarization of Oaks' comparison to the persecution of Blacks entirely distorts what Elder Oaks said (emphasis mine):

In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

Yeah, he didn't say "in their degree or method they are like... intimidation of blacks." He specifically said effect, which is a totally different thing. If you're going to argue about the effects being different, fine. But don't argue about something he didn't say! Do Mormons feel intimidated about supporting Proposition 8? Yes. Are we afraid for our lives? No. But, I, for example, am apprehensive about not being admitted into any of the graduate programs (in the Humanities, several in California) I apply to, based on being from Brigham Young University. I have been careful about not writing anything publicly in support of Proposition 8 with my name attached. I'm not afraid for my life, but I am for my livelihood. Is the effect, shutting me up, the same? Well, you can argue that, but at least argue THAT, and not what Elder Oaks didn't say

And on the record of Blacks and the church, it's actually entirely irrelevant to this argument.

I agree that Gay Marriage seems to be an odd issue for the church to choose to address, of everything. But I'm not sure your point. If the church is wrong, they should drop the issue; but if they're right, (and them being right includes their predicted consequences of the family being undermined), there is hardly a more serious issue.

I guess I just wish people would realize that many good people, moral people, ethical people, SMART people espouse this viewpoint.

Agreed. And vice versa. Demonization or stupidification of either side is wrong (looking in your direction, Olbermann)

A minority of Canadians and British people and Iowans have been getting gay married for a while now, and I don't see those civilizations sinking into the sea.

First, the UK does not recognize gay marriages.

Second, Canada had only had gay marriage for 4 years. The longest any country has had gay marriage in modern times is 8 years, in Belgium. It can take longer than that for a drug to pass FDA testing. Come on, the results of any big change of societal institution will probably have both short term and long term effects. It's a little premature to say how gay marriage has or hasn't, will or won't effect society. It's like if you were to safely walk 10 feet onto a frozen lake, and then declare the entire surface of the lake stable. Don't be mad when some of us wait at the edge of the lake to see if it still holds when you get to the center. I admit, it might prove that the lake is well-frozen and safe; then we'll be glad to join you.

But I guess if you really think that the cause of same-sex marriage won't prevail in California, you're foolin' yourself. As previously mentioned, it went through in Iowa.

...so jump on the bandwagon? That's the worst argument I've ever heard.

Maybe no one's opinion will be changed by this, but especially if you're at BYU, I think you just hear the same arguments over and over again till it seems they must be true. Walking in someone else's shoes never hurt.

I don't think this is exclusive to BYU at all. People tend to only listen to people who agree with them, wherever you go in America. Yeah, we need to stop listening to hacks like Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Maher.

Portia, I think you have every right, civilly and morally, to support gay marriage. I'd be more interested in your logical arguments FOR gay marriage, rather than your arguments against opposition to gay marriage.

[Damasta]

I recently had a discussion about this with a colleague. He expressed dismay that conservative Christians were spending so much time fighting gay marriage when really they should be trying to reduce the incidence of divorce and single-parent families among their own numbers. "Divorce bad, marriage good" was his mantra. Gay marriage hasn't ruined traditional marriage and families in Canada or Europe! So why not deal with the real problem: divorce?

I was appalled and pointed out to him that it was liberal 'Progressives' in California that kicked off 'no-fault' divorce laws in the 1960s (not to mention that during the century before that they were involved in repealing laws that made adultery and fornication punishable by law and making any sort of divorce legal in the first place)! They made that mess and now we should worry about cleaning it up but ignore the fact that they're trying to make another? I think that alone should give us pause. Half a century ago liberal progressives were certain that the world would be a better place with no-fault divorce laws. Instead the net effect on human happiness has been a decrease. Seems their track record on marriage is a little sketchy. Do we really think they'll be right about this one?

I'm with W&S—we can't really say that 'gay marriage' is harmless until we've waited a few decades. Let Europe be the treatment and we'll be the control. Then in 40 or 50 years we'll see where things stand.

And to respond to Imogen's quote: 1. Just because the Supreme Court said it doesn't make it true. It just makes it precedent until such time as that precedent is overturned. There's no Constitutional protection of marriage as a right. 2. I think the procreative implications of "fundamental to our very existence and survival" undermine any argument that can be made for using this quote in favor of gay marriage since they are fundamentally sterile unions. 3. Gays and lesbians aren't denied this 'fundamental freedom'. If a lesbian wants to marry a man, she still may. If a gay man wants to marry a woman, he still may. That freedom isn't denied to them. Since marriage is a contract and an institution, the government can regulate its terms without it necessarily constituting discrimination. The terms in most states currently are defined as "between a man and a woman", "of sound mind", "of legal age", etc. Anybody—including homosexuals!—who is willing to abide by these terms may do so.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Oh, and unless it was repealed, Mexico City has been allowing civil unions/gay marriage to gay couples for over 2 years now, except it's lacking a few rights.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Civil Unions are different from gay marriage.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Civil Unions are different from gay marriage.

Yes they are. I only did the slash because in Mexico the only legal marriage is a civil marriage. So either way, Mexicans go to a judge to be joined together and married. They just lack a small number of rights that marriages do in Mexico.

Yeah, there's a difference, I know.

[Imogen]

i've said this before and i'll say it again: WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU WANT TO MARRY SOMEONE YOU DON'T LOVE?!?!!?!?! that is the STUPIDEST thing i have ever heard. this is not feudal england. i mean, mr. and mrs. loving could have married people of their own race, but they loved each other and wanted to be together even if it meant risking prison. i see on the board all the time how important love is to a stable marriage and how you need to marry someone who is LDS. well what if it became illegal for you to get a marriage of your choice to someone you loved? would you marry someone youwere allowed to just because you could, or would you fight for your right to be with the one you loved? i mean, seriously? that is the single most offensive argument used against gay marriage in my opinion.


ETA: also, my parent's divorce was the best thing that could've happened to me. they HATE each other, and if i had grown up in a household with parents who stayed together because they HAD to and not because they wanted to...well, it makes me scared to even think about it. i was much better off with my single mother. plus, i wouldn't have my sister if they had stayed together. so i am all for divorce under the right circumstances. not every marriage can be saved.

ETA after a night of restful sleep: also, i don't think they mean procreation by the words "our very existence and survival" otherwise any couple that can't or won't have children shouldn't get married because there will be no babies. or, they may try and have kids and fail, but their existence and survival is aided by being married (second income or breadwinner, someone to share life's trials with, someone to tell you you don't look fat in those pants, etc).

[Damasta]

1. I never said that gays had to marry someone they didn't want to. I said that there were still cases where they still could get married, so it wasn't exactly discriminatory. Defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman doesn't exclude homosexuals from entering into a marriage covenant, it only limits the ways they may do so. Neither did I say that homosexuals should be satisfied with that arrangement. I was just making a technical point. We're not banning homosexuals from getting married at all.

2. My point about divorce wasn't that it's never acceptable. It's unfortunate, but sometimes it really is the best thing. I'm sorry that your parents had to go through that, but I'm glad that things improved for you. My point was that liberals/progressives have a bad track record when it comes to marriage. They've consistently made things worse. And it's ludicrous for them to tell conservatives to fix old mistakes that they (liberals/progressives) have made and ignore the new ones that they (liberals/progressives) are currently making.

3. As I said, I disagree with the Supreme Court on this one. I think marriage isn't a fundamental human right. But even with their interpretation that it is a right, "our very existence and survival" refers to the raising of children, not "a satisfying life". Marriage is fundamental to the "very existence and survival" of our children. All other benefits from marriage (e.g. "second income or breadwinner, someone to share life's trials with, someone to tell you you don't look fat in those pants, etc") enrich life, but don't sustain it. Those things, as nice as they are, aren't fundamental and are dispensable. Lots of people get through life fine without a second breadwinner or companionship. But children need to be raised in a good, safe home. Some children, unfortunately, are raised in unsafe environments, and the effects on the rest of their life are often catastrophic. If all children were raised in unsafe environments, our continuance as a species would be gravely threatened. Marriage between a man and a woman is the environment best suited for raising healthy, well-rounded children. So, if it is a right, then marriage is a right for children, not for adults.

4. If the government refused to recognize a union between me and the woman of my choice, I would still go through with the religious ceremony. Ultimately the benefits that the government provides to married people are irrelevant. They might make my life easier, but they're not essential. The religious ceremony will reinforce the commitment between my wife and I, which commitment is necessary for raising our children in a happy, protective, and nourishing home. The real validity of my marriage is determined by God, anyway, not the fickle and misguided government of any particular nation. I guess the equivalent for homosexuals would be this: I know two lesbian couples who traveled to Canada this summer to get 'married'. Fine. They get to feel that their union is valid, even though legally it's not recognized.

[Imogen]

yes because no conservative ever got divorced or cheated or abused their spouse. you're just using poltical rhetoric now, and it's just ridiculous. whatever. coggers wa right, there's no place for me on this board anymore. peace out.

[Damasta]

I didn't say conservatives don't get divorced, don't cheat, and aren't abusive. I said it wasn't conservatives' idea to repeal divorce laws or allow no-fault divorces. Conservatives opposed those measures, but liberal-progressives pushed them through. And we're generally worse off for them. Sure there are cases where divorce is the best thing. It's sad but true. But do we really need a 50% divorce rate? (source) Has this really made most people happier? I'm sure that the people who pushed for these changes had good intentions. They didn't mean to make things worse, but they did. The people who want to make marriage available to homosexuals mean well. They're decent, caring people. But conservatives are convinced that that will just add to the mess, not help clean it up.

I hope you don't really mean that there's no place for you here. Just because you have views different than some of us here doesn't mean we don't appreciate your input. Talking about something like this with someone who has an opposing viewpoint, like yours, helps me more than discussing it with someone who shares my viewpoint. It challenges me and forces me to think through my position carefully. People don't change their minds by not talking about things. But even though you and I don't agree on this issue doesn't mean that no one does. Some of the other contributors don't share my views on this. Please don't burn your bridges just because some of us disagree with you on this issue.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Just to say some things that I have noticed while talking to people about gay marriage...

1. I never said that gays had to marry someone they didn't want to... We're not banning homosexuals from getting married at all.

In their point of view, we are banning them from being married. If we look outside the aspect of religion and into the culture and politics of America, gay people don't care about gender. They view marriage as love, just as we do, except they love someone of the same gender. So to them, we are banning them from being married.

As members of the LDS church, we may not view marriage as right, but more of a privilege or an institution. Gay people don't, they view it as a right. Just Google marriage to see if it is a right or not, and you will find many discussions of people saying that it is a right.

2. My point was that liberals/progressives have a bad track record when it comes to marriage. They've consistently made things worse.

Conservatives get divorced too. John McCain is on his second wife I think. The governor of South Carolina may get a divorce because of an affair he had. Other Republicans have had discussions. This is a moot point.

3. As I said, I disagree with the Supreme Court on this one. I think marriage isn't a fundamental human right.

Again, a lot of people, regardless of what the Supreme Court has said, do think that being joined together under the word and institution of marriage is a right.

Marriage is fundamental to the "very existence and survival" of our children... But children need to be raised in a good, safe home. Some children, unfortunately, are raised in unsafe environments, and the effects on the rest of their life are often catastrophic. If all children were raised in unsafe environments, our continuance as a species would be gravely threatened. Marriage between a man and a woman is the environment best suited for raising healthy, well-rounded children. So, if it is a right, then marriage is a right for children, not for adults.

And if you look at what people say in the political spectrum, advocated for same sex marriage make this same argument. Is there a difference between having parents of both genders rather than of one gender? Yes, but having parents of the same gender doesn't make the home that the kid lives in unstable, and in fact, could and may be a better place to raise a kid than some mom and dad homes. If this weren't the case, there'd be no need for Family Services. They also argue that it helps gets kids out of orphanages and into homes. So they make the same case as you.

4. If the government refused to recognize a union between me and the woman of my choice, I would still go through with the religious ceremony. Ultimately the benefits that the government provides to married people are irrelevant. They might make my life easier, but they're not essential.

It does more than make your life easier I bet; there's the tax benefits of having children as dependents, you receive protection, hospital visiting rights, adoption rights, and many other things that we take for granted that gay couples don't receive. To them, these legal benefits and rights that the government has attached to marriage are not offered to gay couples in many places, and they're fighting to get them.

[/quote]The religious ceremony will reinforce the commitment between my wife and I, which commitment is necessary for raising our children in a happy, protective, and nourishing home. The real validity of my marriage is determined by God, anyway, not the fickle and misguided government of any particular nation. I guess the equivalent for homosexuals would be this: I know two lesbian couples who traveled to Canada this summer to get 'married'. Fine. They get to feel that their union is valid, even though legally it's not recognized.[/quote]

And that is what they are looking for, validation in some aspects. They want to be joined under the word of marriage to feel that same commitment that you have with you wife under the institution of marriage.

As for the religious aspects of it, many don't care if it is an acceptable religious thing to do or not, they want the promises of separation of Church and State. In fact, there are a few churches that allow gay marriage. So what now? Yes, we believe that God has reserved marriage to be between a man and a woman, but those arguing for same sex marriage don't care. They want want they perceive as their right, which from a legal perspective, is their prerogative to pursue and obtain.

So that's the problem, the reconciliation of the religious view of marriage and the growing minorities legalistic view of marriage. And you know what, sooner or later they will win, because they have have the furor, the desire and every legal right to pursue the legalization of gay marriage. The fight isn't over about keeping things how they are, the fight is about asserting religion's rights, so churches won't be sued for not marrying gay couples, and won't have to close down their adoption shelters for not adopting to gay people. That is what the fight is over, as I see it.

[krebscout]

Dear Imogen:

Please come back.

With love,
krebscout