Quantcast
U.S. & World

Pennsylvania pastor facing church trial over gay marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 18, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    The rift in the Methodist church is interesting to watch. This isn't just "fringe" pastors agitating for change.

    The former Bishop for Northern California -- a past president of the National Council of Churches -- Melvin Talbert, has urged pastors to defy this church law, and has performed at least one same-sex marriage himself.

    Talbert has said: "Weddings are going on all the time, all across the church, but it's privately done, and bishops are just looking the other way, and it's time for someone to say, 'Let's deal with the elephant in the room.' "

    He also said: "I declare to you that the derogatory language and restrictive laws in the Book of Discipline are immoral and unjust and no longer deserve our loyalty and obedience."

    More than 1000 ministers have signed on to Talbert's call to action.

    Rev. Frank Schaefer, the pastor who is about to go on trial, has said of his son: "After years of affirming him and standing by him through his struggles over sexual identity, to refuse to perform the wedding would have negated everything I told him, which was that you were created by God the way you turned out."

  • Commodore West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Interesting....3 out of the 4 kids of the pastor mentioned in this story are homosexual. Are genetics responsible for that or an accepting home environment? I tend to lean towards a home environment being the cause.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Nov. 18, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    Good for this Methodist minister. It's time people woke up and realized that it is not Christian to judge someone for they way they were born.

    @Commodore: Let me get this straight: People actually believe that an "accepting home environment" is responsible for a child being gay?

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    The church has the right to do that, good for them.

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    Nov. 18, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    3 out of 4 would definitely show some element of "choice" is involved in being gay. I think at least some percentage of people in this group do so purely out of personal choice. The percentate is even higher if you include the people who openly identify themselves as bi sexual. For them, anything is acceptible.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    Good for the church. It will take a lot of courage to stand up against the invasion of homosexual "acceptance."

  • michaelsuperman1 Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 18, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    Commodore:
    Back Talk:

    Your inference that either this is the choice of "some" or due to the home environment is not sustainable.

    In the first place that vast majority of homosexuals do not come from an "accepting" home environment. In the second place for those that are great parents and do create an accepting home environment the majority of their children are not homosexual.

    The last stand of those against equal rights for homosexuals is that it is a lifestyle choice and/or a sin. It has now long since been disproved that it is a lifestyle choice. Subsequently it is not an act of choice and can not be a sin.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Nov. 18, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    @Commodore

    What makes you so sure it is because "an accepting home environment", not because the three brothers have similar genes?

  • michaelsuperman1 Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 18, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    ChrisB: Yes the church has the right to do that. But that right does not make it the right thing to do. All churches have made poor decisions throughout their histories. Denying equal rights to certain groups of people is only one of many. Rectifying those poor decisions is always extremely difficult for a church. What is more difficult is a church showing repentance after correcting its mistakes. Study your history.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    @Back Talk, I agree. I think homosexuality has almost become a sort of fad lately. Given the amount of attention that homosexuals get whenever they do something these days, I think many people choose to live that lifestyle out of desired attention.

    Also, I found it interesting going around the news this past week was the story of a lesbian waitress who was given no tip but instead a note was left saying the patrons couldn't support her lifestyle. What was interesting was the waitress never told the family she was a lesbian, and yet she claims a tip wasn't left because she is gay. The comment was only that the family couldn't support her lifestyle, it didn't say anything about her being gay. And we're constantly told by those who support BLTG people that its impossible to tell someones sexuality by how they dress, act, or cut their hair. So how could this family has possibly known she was a lesbian?

    Point is, I think people do things to get attention and I think gays often do dress/act in a way to ensure everyone knows they are gay. Its an attention thing often.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    There's talk here about gay being a personal choice somehow, the goal being that defining it as a choice means that it can be modified by coercion or force, both of which religion is comfortable with. I just don't see it as a choice. Even today, and almost everywhere, being gay is to be abused and discriminated against. Sometimes in the most horrible ways. I can't imagine anyone choosing that.

  • Filthy Kuffar Spanish Fork, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    And we're surprised by this? We are living in the last days, folks. Expect even more debauchery and evil from here on out. This day has been prophesied for millenia, and we are seeing prohesy unfold right before our very eyes. See 2 Timothy 3:1-7 for an insight of what we are dealing with from a religious perspective.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    @michaelsuperman,

    Your cries of equal rights don't hold much water unless you people all start fighting for polygamists to be able to marry, as well as 2 brothers who wish to be married. Come back when you truly support equal rights for all and I'll listen. Until then, you're still picking and choosing like everyone else.

  • michaelsuperman1 Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 18, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    Chris B: I would agree some BLTG's do things to get attention. And?? So do a heckofa lot of other people. Everyone has different personal styles. Some BLTG's like to dress flamboyantly, some do not. I know a lot of straight people that dress in ways I would consider flamboyant. That's fine for them. Some BLTG's are doing it to get attention for their cause. That's fine also. Finding ways of bringing attention to a cause is one of the most common things there is.

    The main reason many BLTG's are bringing this to the forefront now is because there is change happening and that is how change happens. Same as all other civil rights changes in this country.

    The point is... they deserve equal rights the same as the rest of us do. They are well on the way of receiving them. And a lot of the reason is... they bring attention to the mistreatment they have endured.

  • michaelsuperman1 Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 18, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    Chris B: Why yes I am "picking and choosing", never said I wasn't. There is a definite difference between to gays marrying and two brothers marrying. The same as there is a difference between an adult and a minor being married. The same as there is a Difference between an adult and an animal marrying.

    Jumping from equal rights for gays to "anything goes" is another attempt to confuse the issue. Because you are for one does not mean you are for all. That is the same argument used in the past to restrict non same races being able to marry or non same religions to be able to marry.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    @Chris B:

    1) Polygamists are already allowed to marry the (first) person of their choice. We're fighting to be able to do even that much, we can worry about those who want extra marriages once we cross this first bridge.

    2) When did you choose to be straight? Have you any idea how much time and energy most of us spent simply trying to change to straight? Enormous amounts of energy, all to no avail - it is NOT a choice.

    3) I don't really care what your religions do, as long as they stop interfering in the lives of people who do not belong to their organizations. Until that ends, there is going to be a fight.

    @Filthy Kuffar;

    Your "prophetic" fantasies are fiction. Nothing more. As for "decadent", why don't you look at how the religious leaders are living lives of luxury; now there's some real decadence.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    @Chris B --

    "people do things to get attention..."

    Oh, sure.

    All those gay kids living out on the streets because their parents threw them out -- just did it for the attention.

    All those gay men and women getting bashed and even killed every day just for being gay -- just did it for the attention.

    All those gay men and women getting fired, and not getting hired, every day just for being gay -- just did it for the attention.

    All those gay couples being denied equal marriage rights just for being gay -- just did it for the attention.

    Riiiiiiiiiiight.

    "What was interesting was the waitress never told the family she was a lesbian, and yet she claims a tip wasn't left because she is gay."

    This waitress -- a former Marine, btw -- initially shocked her customers because she has short hair, which the wife specifically commented on.

    Another waiter at a different restaurant was left a non-tipping note reading (edited for DN): ""We hope you will see the tip your (gay) choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly," "It is never too late for GOD’S love, but none shall be spared for (gays).”

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    michaelsuperman,

    You're using the same argument used in the past to restrict non same races or non same religions from marrying for polygamists or brothers not being able to marry. Why is the love between polygamists or two brothers any less real than between two gay men?

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    @Chris B --

    "Your cries of equal rights don't hold much water unless you people all start fighting for polygamists to be able to marry"

    Here we go again.

    TWO facts are necessary in order to justify the legalization of gay marriage:

    1. Marriage is a civil right;

    AND

    2. Gay marriage in particular does not cause a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Now, marriage in general clearly IS a civil right, as established by the US Constitution and reaffirmed by multiple SCOTUS decisions.

    AND nobody has ever been able to show that gay marriage causes a significantly increased risk of harm to anyone.

    In stark contrast, polygamy is very well known to convey a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children in particular.

    Therefore, polygamy fails to qualify under the harm principle.

    The harm principle is a universal legal principle that is very often used to limit our rights and freedoms. For instance, we have no "right" to drive drunk, because drunken driving significantly increases the risk of harm to others.

    Similarly, polygamy conveys a significantly increased risk of harm. Therefore our government has an interest in continuing to ban it.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    Contarius,

    But I thought it was impossible for people to know others sexuality based on how they act, dress, talk, and cut their hair? Gays don't shove their sexuality in others faces and don't dress/cut their hair in a certain way in order to flaunt their life choices.

    That's what we hear all the time.

    So how did the family know she was a lesbian?

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    Realistically the Pastors' superiors should have first reaffirmed to him that to perform the ceremony was against Church Law. Then followed up by verifying that he did indeed perform the ceremony anyway. At that point they should have brought charges against him. That's what should have occurred but did not.

    As to the situation of the person being homosexual, I don't know of any Christian church that believes it's a sin to be homosexual. Most however believe that engaging in sex with someone of the same gender is a sin and is to be avoided just like any other sin.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    @Contragion,

    Fellow bltg supporter michalesuperman disagrees with you:

    "Chris B: I would agree some BLTG's do things to get attention. And?? So do a heckofa lot of other people. Everyone has different personal styles. Some BLTG's like to dress flamboyantly, some do not."

    MichaelSuperman,

    What straight people DONT do is dress in a certain way to try and ensure everyone knows they are straight. Its not about getting attention, but drawing attention to one's life choices of sexuality that is seen as shoving a lifestyle in others faces. Again, there are certainly straight people who want to get attention, but don't try and draw attention to the sexuality.

    No straight person ever chooses clothing or wears their hair in such a way for the sole purpose of make sure everyone else knows they are straight. Gays do.

    If they didn't, I ask again:

    How did the family at the restaurant know the woman was gay?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    @Filthy Kuffer
    "Expect even more debauchery and evil from here on out. "

    The funny thing is, same-sex marriage involves two people wanted to make lifelong commitments to each other. Would you rather they not get married and forget that whole wanting to make commitments thing, just sleep around with whoever?

    @Chris B
    "Your cries of equal rights don't hold much water unless you people all start fighting for polygamists to be able to marry, as well as 2 brothers who wish to be married."

    Your cries of limiting rights don't hold much water unless you start fighting to ban interracial marriage (see, you're not the only one who can make strawman arguments).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    @Chris B
    "Why is the love between polygamists or two brothers any less real than between two gay men?"

    Well there's no logical reason why sleeping around should be legal while polygamy is illegal. The funny thing is same-sex siblings don't have the issue normally raised against opposite-sex siblings.

  • BostonLDS Salt lake City, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    Three of his four children are gay? Yikes! I hope they don't reprimand him too much - he was trying to be there for his son. That's a tough choice to make.

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    Nov. 18, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    @Contrariusiest

    You stated: "polygamy is very well known to convey a significantly increased risk of harm to women and children in particular" Really? What harm is "really well known"? I am guessing you can't come up with any examples specific to polygamy that couldn't also occur in gay or straight marriages. If it can occur in straight or gay marriages, then you cannot use the "significant harm" theory against polygamists either.

    AND, I am fairly certain the "significant harm" to children and others was once used against gay marriage as well, but it is "not PC" to make those arguments anymore, so no one accepts them. My guess is that it will soon "not be PC" to claim polygamy, relative marrying relative, or adult marrying children causes harm either. (Don't believe me? Google the issue that was created under the current APA DSM V mess that decided pedophilia was no longer a disorder)

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 18, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    @Christopher B --

    "But I thought it was impossible for people to know... "

    Sorry, Chris, but I'm not responsible for your thoughts.

    Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it isn't. In the same way, sometimes it's possible to tell that a person's Republican -- and sometimes it isn't.

    There are a few very interesting recent studies on ID'ing gay men by facial features. I'll be happy to post refs, if you're interested. But I warn you -- they argue pretty darned strongly against that "gay by choice" theory of yours.

    "Gays don't shove their sexuality in others faces..."

    Not any more than anyone else does.

    Does your own dress and hairstyle "flaunt" your life choices? Sure it does. Does my own fondness for tie-dye "flaunt" my life choices? Sure.

    "michalesuperman disagrees with you: "

    No he doesn't. He actually agrees with me that some people of ALL persuasions do some things for attention. That is not at all the same as claiming that people BECOME gay for attention.

    "What straight people DONT do is dress in a certain way..."

    Of course they do. Not all, of course, but just as many as the reverse.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Nov. 18, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    @Fred Vader --

    "What harm...?"

    I can provide quite a few specific studies, if you're interested.

    In the meantime, a few relevant quotes:

    1. UN Report of the Human Rights Committee -- polygamy is "a practice which is an affront to women’s dignity and is incompatible with the Covenant" and "highly detrimental to women's rights"

    2. UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- "Polygamy violates the dignity of women. It is an inadmissible discrimination against women. Consequently, it should be definitely abolished wherever it continues to exist."

    3. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

    "If it can occur in straight or gay marriages, then you cannot use the "significant harm" theory against polygamists..."

    Of course we can.

    Automobile accidents can occur whether a driver is drunk or sober. Nonetheless, drunk driving is illegal because there's a much HIGHER risk of accidents when drunk.

    Similarly, abuse can occur whether in monogamous or polygamous marriages. Nonetheless, polygamy is illegal because there's a much HIGHER risk of abuse in polygamous marriages.

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    Nov. 18, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    "An affront to women's dignity" is all you have? Isn't that supposed "significant risk of harm" highly subjective? The same argument could be made about gay marriage as well.

    However, I'm guessing if you polled the polygamist females in and around Utah, you would find it doesn't "affront their dignity" at all. But they don't get to make that decision because they are not a part of the UN? So it causes harm because it is PC (likely from feminists in the UN) to say so.

    If the UN decided gay marriage was an affront to someone's dignity, then you would be ok with not allowing gay marriage?

    Again, you haven't shown there is any actual harm, let alone "much HIGHER" risk, other than someone's subjective opinion that it causes harm to their "dignity". But I get it, it is not currenly the PC trend...but it soon will be.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Nov. 18, 2013 2:30 p.m.

    @Fred Vader --

    ""An affront to women's dignity" is all you have?"

    Nope. 200-word limits, remember?

    Here's just a few studies and reports for you:

    International Journal of Social Psychiatry: "A Comparison of Family Functioning, Life and Marital Satisfaction, and Mental Health of Women in Polygamous and Monogamous Marriages"

    Canadian Department of Justice: "Polygyny as a Violation of Human Rights Law"

    Status of Women Canada: "Polygamy in Canada: Legal and Social Implications for Women and Children" (this one is nearly 300 pages -- great resource!)

    Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs: “Behavioral Problems and Scholastic Adjustment among Bedouin-Arab Children from Polygamous and Monogamous Family Structures: Some Developmental Considerations.”

    Transcultural Psychiatry: "Women from Polygamous and Monogamous Marriages in an Out-Patient Psychiatric Clinic."

    Journal of Divorce and Remarriage: "Wife Abuse among Polygamous and Monogamous Bedouin-Arab Families.”

    Journal of Social Psychology: "Mental Health Aspects of Arab-Israeli Adolescents from Polygamous Versus Monogamous Families.”

    There's a TON more out there, if you're interested.

    In contrast, attorneys in many court cases -- both across this country and in other countries -- have spectacularly failed to prove ANY significant increase in risk of harm from gay marriages.

    Guess why.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    Ranch,

    "1) Polygamists are already allowed to marry the (first) person of their choice"

    And gays are already allowed to marry the (opposite gender) person of their choice.

    If they don't want to? Well, a polygamist doesn't want to marry just one. Denying them the ability to marry that second person they love just as much as a gay loves his partner, is no different.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    alt134,

    Clever reply, but like most liberal responses, fall short of logic.

    "Your cries of limiting rights don't hold much water unless you start fighting to ban interracial marriage "

    Those against gay marriage aren't being self righteous and hypocritical in their behavior by pretending to be accepting to all, as those who support gay marriage do. So its a far claim to call those out who support "equality" and "anti-discrimination" policies. Do you support equality for all, or not? If the claim that the love between two gay people is just as valid as a heterosexual couple, be prepared to answer why the love between 3 people or siblings isnt' just as valid.

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    Nov. 18, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    @Contrariusester:

    You said, "There's a TON more out there, if you're interested" Yep, you need to supply them, because what you have produced above is nothing more than the subjective opinions you produced before. (Probably thought I wouldn't read them.)

    The majority of your sources were studies of Arab polygamy/religious relationships. Most of the reported "significant harm" comes from the religious beliefs of the Arab participants, not the polygamy.

    One of your "Canadian" sources said the "harm" was caused by depression that came from being a polygamous wife. Guess what? I know plenty of gay marriages where one of the partners has depression too. Guess that means "gay marriage" causes "significant harm" too...

    That "Canadian" source also said the sexual "harm" being caused by these Arab polygamous relationships were the result of the spread of AIDS from one wife to husband to another wife. The spread of AIDS among gays is also high, so gay marriage would have a "HIGHER incidence of harm" as well.

    Like I said, there are no arguments against polygamy, that can't also be used against gay marriage. Only difference is one is PC and the other isn't.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Nov. 18, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    @Ken

    A husband with 4 wives and a wife who has to share her husband with 3 other women, these two people are simply not equal in such an institution.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Nov. 18, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    @Ken --

    "Denying them the ability to marry that second person they love just as much as a gay loves his partner, is no different."

    Harm is the difference.

    "prepared to answer why the love between 3 people or siblings isnt' just as valid."

    That's already been answered -- many times.

    Polygamy and incest convey greatly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Nov. 18, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    @J.S. And I suppose you think children with siblings are somehow not equal to only-child households, as the children with siblings must share their parents?

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Nov. 18, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    @Ken

    And you suppose to understand parent-child relation and spouse-spouse relation are two different things

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Nov. 18, 2013 6:27 p.m.

    I support the ban on polygamists marrying their computers, and filling up these threads with nonsense.

    If you have a Gay child (not so rare in big mormon families), could you really tell him or her to make a choice between living as a second class citizen, or leave the church and marry?

    Meanwhile -- SO disappointing to see some of the other comments.

    And nonsense like this:
    "But I thought it was impossible for people to know others sexuality based on how they act, dress, talk, and cut their hair? Gays don't shove their sexuality in others faces and don't dress/cut their hair in a certain way in order to flaunt their life choices."
    .... Some people feel the need to express themselves a certain way for THEMSELVES. The waitress was a somewhat butch US Marine, for instance, and would look stupid in a dress.
    Most Gay people "look regular", but some are called to express themselves differently.

    Do we have "freedom of expression, as long as I approve of you" in the the United States?

    If that were true, mormon missionaries knocking on doors would have a hard time.

  • wigglwagon Mariion, Va
    Nov. 19, 2013 1:04 a.m.

    For as long as I can remember, the federal government has given people discounts on their taxes for being married. The churches are fighting a losing battle when they try to keep homosexuals from becoming eligible for the same tax discounts as everyone else.

  • Kafantaris WARREN, OH
    Nov. 19, 2013 1:54 a.m.

    "You'll give an account for that at the last day," Christopher Fisher told the jury in urging them to convict a good and loving pastor.
    Well, Christopher, "you'll give an account for that at the last day," as well.
    So much for the United Methodist Church claiming to be progrssive. It's as anachronistic as ever. And now everyone knows it.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 6:23 a.m.

    Ken says:

    "Ranch,

    "And gays are already allowed to marry the (opposite gender) person of their choice.:

    Dear Ken;

    What didn't you understand about the word "Choice"?

  • collegestudent25 Cedar City, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 6:45 a.m.

    This seems to be a very interesting but unfruitful discussion in this comments section. From my point of view this is not about denying or giving anyone one rights. I can't marry a someone of my same gender either. The idea here is universal recognition of something being moral and good. No amount of discussion will change whether or not homosexual behavior is moral. None of us have the right to change another's moral principles.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Nov. 19, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    @Fred Vader --

    "nothing more than the subjective opinions... "

    Baloney. There's a huge difference between "subjective opinions" and the peer-reviewed scientific research I've referenced.

    "(Probably thought I wouldn't read them.)"

    I know for a fact that you didn't read them completely -- since the two Canadian reports alone total more than 400 pages. ;-)

    "Most of the reported "significant harm" comes from the religious beliefs of the Arab participants..."

    Nope.

    If you HAD actually read these studies, you'd already realize that these were *controlled* studies. They compared polygamous families to monogamous families IN THE SAME CULTURES. All the families had the same religious and cultural beliefs.

    "One of your "Canadian" sources said the "harm" was caused by depression that came from being a polygamous wife. "

    Remember -- 400 pages. They said MUCH MUCH more than that. ;-)

    "gay marriage would have a "HIGHER incidence of harm" as well."

    Nope.

    Remember, multiple partners -- as in polygamy -- helps to spread AIDS. Monogamy -- as in gay marriage -- DECREASES the spread of AIDS. Therefore, gay marriage is actually REDUCING risk of harm from AIDs.

    Keep trying, Fred. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it magically disappear.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    collegestudent25 says:

    "The idea here is universal recognition of something being moral and good. No amount of discussion will change whether or not homosexual behavior is moral. None of us have the right to change another's moral principles."

    1) Universal recognition of something moral an good? What planet do you live on? Morality is relative. Many people in the world consider it "moral" to discriminate against their fellow citizens. Here, let me rephrase your comment to show you...

    " No amount of discussion will change whether or not bigoted behavior is moral. None of us have the right to change another's moral principles."

    BTW; I find bigotry to be immoral and homosexuality to be every bit as "moral" as heterosexuality. (See, more relativity relating to morality).

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    Liberals still unable to say why two brothers shouldn't be able to marry or 3 polygamists. So I guess when they get on their soap box about equality, they only support equality for some, and not others.

    There is no reason to deny the true love between 2 brothers or 3 polygamists simply because other polygamists relationhships weren't healthy.

    I can point to studies that show violence is more prevalent in interracial couples - I suppose using liberals argument therefore that interracial people shouldn't be allowed to marry?

    "Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial Couples: A Comparison to White and Ethnic Minority Monoracial Couples" Rachel Fusco - 2009

    As this study proves, there is increased risk of violence in interracial couples. Some of these boards have argued(poorly) that any increased risk of harm is reason to prevent couples from marrying.

    I do not believe in discrimination and I don't believe believe it should be illegal for interracial couples to marry. Unbelievable that some people here would suggest it be illegal, due to increased risk.

    Still no reason to deny 2 brothers or 3 polygamists from marrying the person/people of their choice.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Nov. 19, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    Ranch,

    What didn't you understand about choice when it comes to the man who wants to marry his brother? Or the man who wants to marry two people? Perhaps his "Choice" is to marry his brother and another person.

    Please be respectful of others choices if you are promoting equality.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Nov. 19, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    @Christopher B --

    "Liberals still unable to say..."

    Actually, we've said it many times. Your refusal to listen doesn't change the facts.

    Polygamy and incest convey a significantly increased risk of harm. Gay marriage doesn't.

    "There is no reason to deny the true love... "

    Yes there is. Risk of harm.

    As for the brothers --

    Remember, the harm principle is about the increased RISK of harm -- not the certainty of it.

    Some rare individuals may be able to drive drunk and never have an accident. But that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legalized.

    Similarly, some rare individuals may be able to partake in incestuous or polygamous relationships without harming society. But that doesn't mean that incest or polygamy should be legalized.

    "As this study proves...."

    No, it doesn't.

    As another study in that same vein ("Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial and Monoracial Couples") specifically states: "regression analyses indicated that interracial couples demonstrated a higher level of mutual IPV than monoracial white couples but a level similar to monoracial black couples."

    Unless you want to outlaw all black marriages, you'll have to do better than that.

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    Nov. 19, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    The whether it's your genes or whether it's the environment is a pointless argument now. Recent research has shown that our choices actually change our genes over our life time. So.. we are flawed to think that our genes influence us totally. Now we know what we do and how we think influences them. So... it could be our choice to be gay or it could be in our genes or both... and from a scientific perspective only it's not possible to know which right now with the current research.

  • Girlse State Midvale, UT
    Nov. 20, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    All this talk of "increased risk" is comical. So some people think that there is a baseline risk in marriage that is acceptable but anything above that is reason to prevent others from marrying?

    Nonsense.

    Lets just say for sake of argument the baseline risk of harm in marriage is at 10%. What if a study proved that risk of harm increased to 11% in marraiges where there is an age gap of more than 5 years?

    Should be make it illegal for anyone greater than 5 year difference in age to marry?

    its already been pointed out that not some races have increased risk in marriage, shall we ban certain races from marrying?
    What is it can be proven that when a democrat marries a republican the risk of harm increases from 10% to 10.2%, should it be illegal for a republican to marry a democrat?
    We're fine as a society with an inherent risk of harm at 10%(just as an example), and that's it?
    And yet we already allow other races(whose risk is higher) to marry?

    Flip, flop, flip flop.

  • Coontrariusester mid-state, TN
    Nov. 20, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    @Girlse State --

    "...talk of "increased risk" is comical."

    You may think it's comical, but the harm principle is a foundational principle of law.

    And if "increased risk" is comical, then why is drunk driving illegal when sober driving is legal, hmmmm?

    Just a couple of examples -- no room for more!

    Muth v. Frank: "“... the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting incest, we reject Muth's challenges to the constitutionality of the incest statute.” "Certain varieties of sexual conduct clearly remain outside the reach of Lawrence, things like prostitution, public sex, nonconsensual sex, sex involving children, and certainly incest, a condition universally subject to criminal prohibitions."

    People v. McEvoy: ""'In any given non-consanguineous relationship, the rate of severe abnormalities in offspring is estimated at two to three percent...children of siblings or a parent-child coupling have a risk between thirty-one and forty-four percent.'...This increased risk is surely sufficient to provide a legitimate basis for criminalizing incest..."

    in re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court: "...the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. "

  • Girlse State Midvale, UT
    Nov. 20, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    Its a falsehood(nice word for lie) to say that society has some sort of baseline acceptable inherent risk in marriage and that every marriage currently permissible falls below that risk level, but that Chris's suggestion that polygamists and brother be able to marry wouldn't.

    There are countless different dynamics that could be considered in studying marriage risks and which lead to higher risks(income levels, education, race, ethnicity, geographical upbringing, age discrepancy), and certainly not all of those dynamics would lead to exact equal "risk factor" If a study were done and proved that difference in age, income, education, led to "increased risk" would we suddenly make illegal any such marriages? No.

    As bizarre as two brothers marrying sounds, and regardless of one's support of polygamy, no such reason for not allowing them has been presented(unless those people also claim certain marriages with proven higher risk(as shown in Chris's study he mentions) that currently are legal should be made illegal. Chris, it doesn't happen often, but you've clearly won.

  • Girlse State Midvale, UT
    Nov. 20, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    Contariuser, perhaps you weren't aware, but two men can't procreate. Mother nature didn't want them to. So Chris's argument of two brothers still stands. Bringing in incest and deformed offspring is irrelevant when it comes to two brothers. That was a swing and a miss for ya. Want to try again?

  • Coontrariusester mid-state, TN
    Nov. 20, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    @Girlse State --

    "perhaps you weren't aware, but two men can't procreate. Mother nature didn't want them to. So Chris's argument of two brothers still stands."

    No, it doesn't.

    We can't make exceptions in the law for the tiny minorities of individuals who might be able to carry out incestuous marriages without harm. The laws are based on the RISK of harm, not the certainty of it.

    Similarly, we don't make exceptions in the law for the tiny minority of drivers who might be able to drive safely while drunk. Drunk driving laws are similarly based on the RISK of harm, not the certainty of it -- and drunk driving is illegal for EVERYONE, even if they can prove that know harm will be caused by their own individual drunk driving.

  • Coontrariusester mid-state, TN
    Nov. 20, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    Sorry, I missed your previous post.

    @Girlse State --

    "Its a falsehood(nice word for lie) to say that society has some sort of baseline acceptable inherent risk in marriage..."

    Sorry, but you'll have to take up that supposed "lie" with the courts.

    And please note that nobody has made any claims about *individual* marriages, but rather on the overall risks inherent with different *types* of marriages.

    "If a study were done and proved that difference in age, income, education, led to "increased risk" would we suddenly make illegal any such marriages? No."

    That is correct. we would not be likely to make currently legal marriages illegal.

    And you know why?

    It's because it's very difficult to take rights away from people after they have already been granted. It is much more practical to maintain prohibitions on behaviors that we know are risky, rather than to ban behaviors when they have already long been accepted and legal.

    Thus we maintain bans on types of marriage that we know convey significantly increased risks compared to other types of marriage, but we do not try to ban other types of marriage that are already legal.

  • donn layton, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    RE; Contrariusester, Paul's teachings that remaining single is better than marrying,

    (Paul)But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another. So I say to those who aren’t married and to widows—it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am.(1cor 7 7-8)

    and v 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman(nuns) or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit.,E.g..

    Eunucks which were so born from their mother's womb; meaning, not such who, through a natural temper and inclination of mind, “could easily abstain from marriage, and chose to live single;” but such who had such defects in nature that they were impotent, unfit for, and unable to perform the duties of a marriage state; who, as some are born without hands or feet, these were born without proper and perfect organs for generation.

    Paul was personally chosen and called by Jesus to be an apostle. Acts 9:15,

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 22, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    @donn --

    "Eunucks which were so born from their mother's womb"

    That is correct. Jesus specifically said that people who were "born eunuchs" (which, btw, includes homosexuals), people who were made eunuchs (IOW, castrati), and people who chose to live as eunuchs (IOW, celibate priests), should not marry women.

    Which sort of puts paid to all those church leaders who have told gay men to get married to nice girls over the years.... ;-)

    As Clement of Alexandria wrote 1800 years ago (he is quoting the Bible and then referring to followers of Basilides -- and yes, this is a direct quote from Clement):

    "'...there are some eunuchs who are so from their birth...' And their explanation of this saying is roughly as follows: Some men from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman..." (Stromata, III. 1.1) .

    They acknowledged the meaning of this phrase 1800 years ago.

    "(Paul)But I wish everyone were single"

    That is correct. Paul taught that it was better to remain single than to marry. Do you agree with him?

  • donn layton, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    RE: Contrariusester, That is correct. Paul taught that it was better to remain single than to marry. Do you agree with him?”

    Yes, but when I was born again I did not receive that gift.

    The Bible does speak of celibacy as a gift, it is not listed with the spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12; Roman 12). Singleness is a gift that God gives everyone, at least temporarily. For some, the gift of singleness is permanent; for others, God takes that gift away and gives the gift of marriage in its place. The Bible Encourages those who are celibate in Christian service that they are an important part of God’s family.

    ” but such who had such defects in nature that they were impotent, unfit for, and unable to perform the duties of a marriage state; who, as some are born without hands or feet, these were born “without proper and perfect organs for generation.” Not normal human nature or behavior because of the fall.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 22, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    @donn --

    "Yes, but when I was born again I did not receive that gift."

    Really?? I'm surprised. In previous postings, IIRC, you and/or Sharrona have told us that marrying is one of God's commandments.

    Is it, or isn't it?

    "” but such who had such defects in nature that they were impotent, unfit for, and unable to perform the duties of a marriage state; who, as some are born without hands or feet, these were born “without proper and perfect organs for generation.” Not normal human nature or behavior because of the fall."

    That isn't the Bible, Donn. In fact, I don't think you've ever said where that quote is from.

  • donn layton, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    Contrariusester, That isn't the Bible. Wrong,

    General revelation is the revelation that God gives to all people, sinner or saint, in creation. The created order clearly and loudly tells all men about God’s power and divine nature (1:20).

    But though all men clearly know there is a God, they do not honor or give thanks to Him (1:21). The fall into sin has caused mankind to ignore and deny their Creator. Sin has affected our minds and causes our thinking to become futile apart from Christ. This effect of sin upon our minds is known in theology as the “noetic effects of sin.”

    The fall into sin has destroyed our capacity to reason. It is true that the unredeemed mind will ultimately lead a person into futility. However, though our minds have been affected by sin, they have not been destroyed. Unbelievers still find truth quite often and can attain a breadth of knowledge in various areas. Scripture presents logical arguments
    @marrying is one of God's commandments?

    Commandment,You mis-understood my point. E,g. Catholic Priests,Nuns and Paul have the gift of celibacy.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Nov. 22, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    @donn --

    "That isn't the Bible. Wrong,"

    Nope. Right. That quote you keep posting didn't come from the Bible. Where did it come from?

    "@marrying is one of God's commandments? Commandment,You mis-understood my point. E,g. Catholic Priests,Nuns and Paul have the gift of celibacy."

    That's not what I asked.

    Is marriage one of God's commandments, or is it not? A simple yes or no answer would be nice.

    If marriage is one of God's commandments, then how could Paul say that it is better to remain single? Was he speaking the word of God?

    And you still have never answered other questions about Paul, either.

    If Paul was a prophet of God, then how could he disagree with Jesus? Paul said that one should never divorce, but Jesus said divorce was okay in cases of adultery.

    Paul also said that women were inferior to men, and he supported slavery. Are these the words of God?