tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17269295.post7173045248742493362..comments2023-10-31T08:13:50.130-04:00Comments on Lair of the Sinister Porpoise: Someone Explain the Mormon Argument Against Same Sex Marriage to me, PleaseThe Sinister Porpoisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06598370622023551565noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17269295.post-22165973070378184962012-02-23T10:49:57.735-05:002012-02-23T10:49:57.735-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.borsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15392999512678140601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17269295.post-31441878744551036892011-05-24T14:16:53.063-04:002011-05-24T14:16:53.063-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.final izlehttp://www.finalizle.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17269295.post-90002777507011943402008-10-01T05:30:00.000-04:002008-10-01T05:30:00.000-04:00I hadn't heard this argument against same sex marr...I hadn't heard this argument against same sex marriage (that allowing it might open the doors for polygamy) before reading your blog. That's a new one for me, who until about three months ago was an active Mormon. If this is really what Mormons are using nowadays as an argument to combat same sex marriage, I find it weak and absurd. What is a more probable argument (although admittedly a Mormon-created justification) is the definition of family provided in 1995's <A HREF="http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0" REL="nofollow">"The Family: A Proclamation to the World."</A><BR/><BR/>I should point out that, despite my upbringing, I now fully support same sex marriage. I am only offering my response by way of possible explanation for the LDS Church's opposition to the practice. The "Proclamation" defines Mormon's core beliefs about gender issues, marriage, and family.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17269295.post-3996670248675986382008-07-05T19:18:00.000-04:002008-07-05T19:18:00.000-04:00Welcome to the Lair of the Sinister Porpoise, Vane...Welcome to the Lair of the Sinister Porpoise, Vanessa.<BR/><BR/>Shall I point out the flaws in your arguments or do you recognize them without my intervention? <BR/><BR/>Please explain the Mormon position in context of what I wrote. You have explained your personal position.The Sinister Porpoisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06598370622023551565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17269295.post-87917533627096184112008-07-05T14:12:00.000-04:002008-07-05T14:12:00.000-04:00I am LDS and don't feel any hatred towards gays. I...I am LDS and don't feel any hatred towards gays. I do oppose same-sex marriage primarily because of the effect it will have on Children. Men and Women are different. Children benefit greatly by having a Mother and a Father. Sure there are some kids, because of circumstance or the poor choice of parents to treat each other poorly and get divorced. But the institution off marriage as commonly understood between a man and a woman provides a child with a mother and a father in a committed relationship. This idea that marriage is a contract between consenting individuals is a new one. There are other parties involved besides the husband and wife. Children and Society are involved. They are stakeholders. Children do the best where a mother and father raise them in a committed relationship. Same-sex marriage, by design and definition, precludes a child from having a mother or a father. As numerous studies show, society pays a price through a number of social ills when a mother or father is taken away from a child’s life. <BR/><BR/>The analogy that prohibiting same-sex marriage is the same thing as prohibiting marriage on the basis of race ignores an important reality. Men and Women ARE different in ways that matter to society. Only Women can be mothers. Only men can be fathers. The whole point of the civil rights struggle was that there are no meaningful differences between the color of your skin that mattered as to what you are able to do - take a job, be married etc. <BR/><BR/>A man cannot be a mother. A child should have a mother. I support the constitutional change that will keep the definition of the basic unit of society - a married couple - as one that will send the message to all future generations that truly first comes love, than comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage -- and the baby has a mother and a father. Society has an absolute right to promote this ideal. It provides the best chance for a stable productive citizen. <BR/><BR/>Please note, our law does not yet see marriage as simply as a contract between two persons. It is the sanction of the State and or Church. Why? Because both institutions have an interest in marriage and children. <BR/><BR/>If the proponents truly believed that their relationship was simply a "contract" between two consenting adults and not an issue for the state, why are they seeking the state sanction? Because they recognize that marriage is more than just a contract. Other stakeholders are involved - children. The state has a responsibility to encourage an environment that is best for children and that with a loving Mothers and Fathers. That is the standard that best helps children. The standard shouldn’t be changed just because people are not perfect. In California, civil unions already provide all of the benefits of marriage to same sex couples. <BR/><BR/>They recognize that marriage is more than just a contract. Other stakeholders are involved - children.Vanessa Honda Photography Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10824669543470232750noreply@blogger.com