Church Members Supporting Gay Marriage

[bobtheenchantedone]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/69359/

I really liked Rating Pending's answer and basically second everything he said (and quoted as being said).

A discussion along these lines was had at the Easter dinner at Marduk's house on Sunday - one of his cousins recently supported gay marriage on Facebook, and was summarily scolded by several of his relatives, so wanted to talk it over in a more understanding environment. One point that was brought up there was that marriage is currently defined as being between a man and woman, but at other times that has not been the case (both polygyny and polyandry have been practiced in the Church's history). With that definition having been in flux not only in the history of society but also within the Church itself, it's fairly easy for some to see the "between a man and a woman" definition more as a current policy and less as rock-solid doctrine.

Another point that was brought up is that the Church teaches that agency is one of the most important facets of our life here on earth, which in this case was applied to the idea that even if we believe gay marriage is wrong (as the beleaguered cousin did, in fact, believe) we should still not only not try to legislate morality but should want it to be possible for people to make that choice. Otherwise we are denying them their agency, something that God Himself does not do.

[krebscout]

I don't really buy the argument that legislation denies anyone their agency, but I agree with the sentiment. I was one of the quotees in that answer, but RP put it all together much more beautifully than I ever could. He's amazing like that.

[No Dice]

One point that was brought up there was that marriage is currently defined as being between a man and woman, but at other times that has not been the case (both polygyny and polyandry have been practiced in the Church's history). With that definition having been in flux not only in the history of society but also within the Church itself, it's fairly easy for some to see the "between a man and a woman" definition more as a current policy and less as rock-solid doctrine.

Your point seems to be that because the "number" part of the definition of marriage has changed in the past, the "gender" part of it might have the potential to fluctuate in the future. Does that sum it up right?

If so, I think that's interesting. I agree with what I think is the underlying implication—if proponents of gay marriage are right that we should relax the "gender" part, there's probably no principled reason to not relax the "number" part.

But would the Church be in the same situation—would it also lack a principled reason to relax one and not the other? There seems to be lots of scriptural evidence that God sometimes tweaks the "number" bit: I'm thinking Jacob 2:25-30, and also a good deal of the Old Testament. I'm not aware of any that he might tweak the "gender" part.

So I'm interested to know how you bridge the gap. I can see how the Church's definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has changed, but I still don't quite see how that means it might change between a man and a woman, if those italics make any sense. Unless it really is just as simple as saying that because there's change in some part of the definition, there might be change in all of it. Which I'm not sure I find compelling in this case.

[UnluckyStuntman]

One point that was brought up there was that marriage is currently defined as being between a man and woman, but at other times that has not been the case (both polygyny and polyandry have been practiced in the Church's history). With that definition having been in flux not only in the history of society but also within the Church itself, it's fairly easy for some to see the "between a man and a woman" definition more as a current policy and less as rock-solid doctrine.

Your point seems to be that because the "number" part of the definition of marriage has changed in the past, the "gender" part of it might have the potential to fluctuate in the future. Does that sum it up right?

If so, I think that's interesting. I agree with what I think is the underlying implication—if proponents of gay marriage are right that we should relax the "gender" part, there's probably no principled reason to not relax the "number" part.

But would the Church be in the same situation—would it also lack a principled reason to relax one and not the other? There seems to be lots of scriptural evidence that God sometimes tweaks the "number" bit: I'm thinking Jacob 2:25-30, and also a good deal of the Old Testament. I'm not aware of any that he might tweak the "gender" part.

So I'm interested to know how you bridge the gap. I can see how the Church's definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman has changed, but I still don't quite see how that means it might change between a man and a woman, if those italics make any sense. Unless it really is just as simple as saying that because there's change in some part of the definition, there might be change in all of it. Which I'm not sure I find compelling in this case.

In polygamy and polyandry, couldn't the other wives or husbands be considered married to one another? I realize that they tend to use different term (like "sister wife" instead of just "wife"), but I don't think it's a stretch to consider that the relationship between two sister wives (or brother husbands [?]) might be more "marital" than between two people who do not share the same spouse.

So I don't think it's just a numbers thing. Polygamy and polyandry might not always look the same as polyamorous relationships (especially in terms of power differential or gendered roles), but I don't see any rules which say there isn't/hasn't been some overlap between the concepts (even in the church).

[No Dice]

In polygamy and polyandry, couldn't the other wives or husbands be considered married to one another?

That's interesting; I hadn't thought of it that way before. I believe, though, that on Church records, they're all separate sealings, right? That would seem to suggest that the women are sealed to the man, but not to each other, and taking sealing as a proxy for marriage, that they're not married.

[bobtheenchantedone]

One point that was brought up there was that marriage is currently defined as being between a man and woman, but at other times that has not been the case (both polygyny and polyandry have been practiced in the Church's history). With that definition having been in flux not only in the history of society but also within the Church itself, it's fairly easy for some to see the "between a man and a woman" definition more as a current policy and less as rock-solid doctrine.

Your point seems to be that because the "number" part of the definition of marriage has changed in the past, the "gender" part of it might have the potential to fluctuate in the future. Does that sum it up right?

I don't think that the Church necessarily has to be willing to change the "gender" part in order for that point to be of relevance in this conversation; what I'm arguing is more that people think far more things are set in stone than really are. To try to declare that "between a man and a woman" is the one true doctrine is false and therefore not a valid argument against gay marriage (in my mind, at least).

Currently I'm not arguing for gay marriage as much as for those opposed to have better arguments, or at least for them to not assume I'm apostate because I support gay marriage despite what has been said by Church leaders.

[No Dice]

Hm. So what if I declared that all of the true doctrines (leaving aside whether there's a multiplicity of true doctrines on marriage or just a multiplicity of doctrines, only one of which is true for a given group of people at a given time) of marriage cabin it as being between men and women? That's not false, right?

I see how "God has always said that marriage is between a man and a woman" is a bad argument, because it's obviously wrong. But I don't see how "God has always said that marriage is between men and women" is a bad argument because as far as I know, it's true.

If the idea is that too many people "think far more things are set in stone than really are," I think the right rejoinder is that the number part isn't set in stone, but the gender part is. Is that the better argument?

[Portia]

This seems to be arguing from lack of evidence to the contrary.

[bobtheenchantedone]

https://theboard.byu.edu/questions/71792/

Again, excellent answers; I especially appreciated Thor's and in fact teared up a little.

One note to a couple of the responders, though: marriage has been defined as a whole slew of things throughout history, including monogamy, polyandry, polygamy, and group marriages; arranged marriages; betrothals from birth; rules to keep bloodlines pure; use for power or gain instead of love; in name only while those married were allowed to seek sexual partners elsewhere; even separated from sex and/or families almost entirely. Please stop trying to assert that marriage has been one thing for all of history, especially since that isn't even true of the history of the Church!

[Imogen]

https://theboard.byu.edu/questions/71792/

Again, excellent answers; I especially appreciated Thor's and in fact teared up a little.

One note to a couple of the responders, though: marriage has been defined as a whole slew of things throughout history, including monogamy, polyandry, polygamy, and group marriages; arranged marriages; betrothals from birth; rules to keep bloodlines pure; use for power or gain instead of love; in name only while those married were allowed to seek sexual partners elsewhere; even separated from sex and/or families almost entirely. Please stop trying to assert that marriage has been one thing for all of history, especially since that isn't even true of the history of the Church!

This response is one of many reasons I heart you, bob. I know I've mentioned it before, but, when my parents met and got married, it was still illegal in some states (in name only, but it was a by-product of the past). Marriage in Egypt was defined as "between relatives" basically. How many Ancient Egyptians married their siblings or even parents? Marriage in Muslim nations is "a man and up to four wives he treats completely equally," hence why most men only have one (in my dad's words "why would you put yourself through having more than one wife? One is more than enough!").

I also wound up talking about this at Easter, and my friend's VERY Catholic family agrees with civil unions for gays. I pointed out that the laws as they stand are unfair because they can't even do that in most states. And even they agree that the law is unfair. The Catholic Church will never marry gay couples. And I think that's fine. It's the belief. But no religion: mine, yours, or theirs, should stop someone from receiving governmental rights as a spouse, which is what is happening now. I think we need to recognize that there are people who don't get married in religious institutions as it stands. They hit up the courthouse one afternoon and they're married. So, in the government's eyes, it's really not tied to religion. Why can't we just follow the European model and require EVERYONE to get a civil union for benefits, and if you want to get married in your church then you do you without the government meddling in your affairs?

And I HATE the argument "Well, gays CAN get married to members of the opposite sex. See, they're equal!" No. It's not equal. I can marry any man I end up dragging down the aisle. I can dedicate myself to someone who I love. People already marry for terrible reasons. Why continue to perpetuate that? If they thought W&S' argument was patronizing, this argument is even more so. It completely dismisses a desire to live and create a family with someone you love and are sexually attracted to and want to be with. We need to encourage more loving relationships in this country, not more marriages for convenience.

[Portia]

I also wound up talking about this at Easter, and my friend's VERY Catholic family agrees with civil unions for gays. I pointed out that the laws as they stand are unfair because they can't even do that in most states. And even they agree that the law is unfair. The Catholic Church will never marry gay couples. And I think that's fine. It's the belief. But no religion: mine, yours, or theirs, should stop someone from receiving governmental rights as a spouse, which is what is happening now. I think we need to recognize that there are people who don't get married in religious institutions as it stands. They hit up the courthouse one afternoon and they're married. So, in the government's eyes, it's really not tied to religion. Why can't we just follow the European model and require EVERYONE to get a civil union for benefits, and if you want to get married in your church then you do you without the government meddling in your affairs?

long-distance high five European laïcité solves so many problems.

[Hypatia]

In polygamy and polyandry, couldn't the other wives or husbands be considered married to one another? I realize that they tend to use different term (like "sister wife" instead of just "wife"), but I don't think it's a stretch to consider that the relationship between two sister wives (or brother husbands [?]) might be more "marital" than between two people who do not share the same spouse.

In the appeals court following Prop 8, this was specifically addressed. The anti-marriage lawyer stated that this didn't count as a non-"traditional" marriage since a polygamous relationship was made of many single, one-man-one-woman relationships.

I have to say I'm so proud of how the Board has grown from when I left and applaud everyone with the bravery to state how they feel about this rather divisive issue.

[No Dice]

I remembered this thread as I read this treatment of the gay marriage/polygamy issue in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... y-marriage.

I think it's an interesting perspective. For what it's worth, the magazine officially endorsed gay marriage ages ago (mid-90s, if I remember right).