Let's stop beating around the bush

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think I recall reading somewhere that it is the "slippery slope" argument. Once you give them civil unions, marriage will be next.

[Archaea]

Adam's solution is more elegant.

We should abandon marriage in favor of church sealings. Churches should abandon marriage altogether.

It allowed the state on one hand to legitimize Church authority but it also allowed government to dictate it.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Adam's solution is more elegant.

We should abandon marriage in favor of church sealings. Churches should abandon marriage altogether.

It allowed the state on one hand to legitimize Church authority but it also allowed government to dictate it.

This is very likely. I argued this back in 2000, when same sex marriage first seemed to be ascending.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Adam's solution is more elegant.

We should abandon marriage in favor of church sealings. Churches should abandon marriage altogether.

It allowed the state on one hand to legitimize Church authority but it also allowed government to dictate it.

Yeah, my dad trotted out the argument that if gays are allowed to be married, gays will have to be allowed into the temple endowment ceremony because of the current wording of the temple ceremony concerning marriage.

There are a lot of church members who believe crap like this.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yeah, my dad trotted out the argument that if gays are allowed to be married, gays will have to be allowed into the temple endowment ceremony because of the current wording of the temple ceremony concerning marriage.

There are a lot of church members who believe crap like this.

How did you get that from my argument?

Maybe in the hereafter, Heinlein's Stranger is more representative of how relations will be and our current cultural expectation for relations will be changed or done away with.

The real reason is for control and money. Perhaps societies merely created the artifice of marriage to control the delivery of offspring and its retention.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think I recall reading somewhere that it is the "slippery slope" argument. Once you give them civil unions, marriage will be next.

well once you don't beat them to death and tie them to a fence post in Wyoming, they will be asking to not be killed. Once not killed, they will ask not to be beaten. Once not beaten they will ask not to be harassed. Once not harassed, they will ask to be ignored and allowed to live. Once ignored and allowed to live, they will be asked to be treated as normal human beings. Once treated as normal human beings, they will ask to be able to associate in public. Once able to associate in public they will ask to be able to hold hands and kiss in public. Once able to hold hands and kiss in public, they will ask not to be arrested for having sex in their own home. Once not arrested for having sex in their own home, they will ask that people realize they can be committed couples. Once realized that they can be committed couples, they will ask for legal rights such as hospital visitation. Once able to have legal rights such as hospital visitation, they will ask for rights to be bundled in the form of civil unions. Once rights are bundled in the form of civil unions, they will ask that they be given the same name as the heterosexual form of civil unions. Once given the same name as the heterosexual form of civil unions, they will be married.

And the minions of hell will be loosed upon the earth, daughters ravaged, sons raped, and horses loosed to run wild and trample the crops of man, death and starvation the result of the sins of the world.

Got it. It really is a slippery slope.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

well once you don't beat them to death and tie them to a fence post in Wyoming, they will be asking to not be killed. Once not killed, they will ask not to be beaten. Once not beaten they will ask not to be harassed. Once not harassed, they will ask to be ignored and allowed to live. Once ignored and allowed to live, they will be asked to be treated as normal human beings. Once treated as normal human beings, they will ask to be able to associate in public. Once able to associate in public they will ask to be able to hold hands and kiss in public. Once able to hold hands and kiss in public, they will ask not to be arrested for having sex in their own home. Once not arrested for having sex in their own home, they will ask that people realize they can be committed couples. Once realized that they can be committed couples, they will ask for legal rights such as hospital visitation. Once able to have legal rights such as hospital visitation, they will ask for rights to be bundled in the form of civil unions. Once rights are bundled in the form of civil unions, they will ask that they be given the same name as the heterosexual form of civil unions. Once given the same name as the heterosexual form of civil unions, they will be married.

And the minions of hell will be loosed upon the earth, daughters ravaged, sons raped, and horses loosed to run wild and trample the crops of man, death and starvation the result of the sins of the world.

Got it. It really is a slippery slope.

It's a shame they came out so quickly against civil unions. I think it could have been a reasonable compromise.

[LA Ute]

And when the bill proposing them was in the California State Legislature, the Church said and did nothing. Draw your own conclusions.

The current debate in California is really over what "marriage" means, because registered domestic partners have all the rights of married people. That's what I find fascinating about this -- the entire bruising battle is over the meaning of a word: marriage. It not about whether same-sex couples can be together and enjoy all the benefits of marriage. That has been decided.

(Disclosure: I am part of the Prop 8 grass roots heirarchy, with responsibility for supervising the effort in 10 stakes. So I have a dog in this fight.)

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by LA Ute

And when the proposing them was in the California State Legislature, the Church said and did nothing. The current debate in California is really over what "marriage" means, because registered domestic partners have all the rights of married people. That's what I find fascinating about this -- the entire bruising battle is over the meaning of a word: marriage. It not about whether same-sex couples can be together and enjoy all the benefits of marriage.

(Disclosure: I am part of the Prop 8 grass roots heirarchy, with the effort in 10 stakes under my responsibility. So I have a dog in this fight.)

I feel like I've just seen a sasquatch. I can scarcely believe my eyes.

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I feel like I've just seen a sasquatch. I can scarcely believe my eyes.

Hey, Dan, that works both ways. I kinda wondered where you had disappeared to as well! I also kinda forgot about this board. It seems a lot like the Ute board once was.