Lobby Congress Against Mormon Marriage

Personally, I think it's rather hypocritical of the Mormon Church to lobby Congress to amend the Constitution to forbid gay marriage. Weren't they persecuted for their form of non-traditional marriage a little over a hundred years ago?
How soon they forget. I say we should remind them that they don't want to be persecuted for their beliefs. As has been pointed out on The World, According to Me blog, evangelicals might take this opportunity to ban Mormon Temple marriages while they're at it.
I think we ought to lobby Congress to amend the constitution to make Mormon Temple marriages unconstitutional. Because really, those secret rituals are kind of creepy and not very much in keeping with traditional marriage.
Okay all you Mormon folk, before you start hating, I don't really think the Mormon temple marriage ritual is ALL THAT CREEPY. Maybe a little. I've been to one or two in my lifetime, but it is definitely not very traditional. The whole thing is a rhetorical argument. I don't really want Congress to ban Mormon temple marriage. I don't think the Constitution should be amended for such petty things as banning any form of marriage. But I really am going to lobby Congress asking them to ban Mormon temple marriage to make a point!
If you'd like to join me, you can find your senator's contact info on the United States Senate site or your Representative's contact info on the U.S. House site.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think there are many religious rituals and traditions, that to 'normal' people are 'creepy and strange'. This entire world is one huge strange mystery. Why go after the Mormon religion? They have always been against same sex...anything! That is a major part of their moral belief system, there are other religions around the country / world that won't accept gay-marriages. i grew up in an LDS home and do not actively particpate in, nor plan to go to church. I don't agree with everything about them either, but they are not a hateful bunch and certainly have done their share of helping others lately. If a gay man or woman needed help, medical, shelter, food etc., the Mormons would be the first to donate and support that person, without judgement. Before jumping on an organization or religious group, take a good, long look at what's really going on and decide. Do you want to 'attack the Mormon's'? I was forced to attend all church activites for years and although I choose not to go now, I still feel strongly that what you are starting is wrong and will make your fight weaker. Good luck, I'm guessing that all this will do is stir up a bunch of defensive e-mails from active-Mormon's and LDS people. I do think that gay people shouls have the rights we all have, but they need to have their weddings in a church where it is embraced and not a problem or a feeling of being judged. Good luck with your plight. -Peace

31/5/06 13:44  
Blogger Tyler Farrer said...

Have you been to one or two Temple Marriages, or Receptions? There is a difference. The first being that L.D.S. Receptions can be a little creepy (i.e. can't get anybody to dance and you have to stand in these huge lines to see people you already know). :)

As far as early Mormon marriages not being traditional, have you read the Bible(specifically, the parts about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob getting married multiple times)? In America, the Bible, is accepted as fairly traditional.

The Church is advocating a position that it believes is likely to bring about the most stable, and happy of societies. You are advocating a position that is designed to hurt the Church. Now, which of your are on higher moral ground?

31/5/06 15:51  
Blogger Stenar said...

I have been to a few temple marriages, specifically in the Salt Lake temple, the Stockholm Sweden temple and the Jordan River temple.
I'm not "going after" the Mormon religion any more than they are going after gay families.
They are the ones who started this by campaigning against gay families.
It's one thing to say, we don't want gay people to be in our church or to be allowed to be married in our temple and entirely a different thing to try and amend the constitution such that no gay people may be married.
What about the religions which allow gay marriage? Their rights to offer these services are being trampled on by people such as the Mormons who want everyone to believe as they believe.
The Mormon church is advocating a position which is designed to hurt gay families.

31/5/06 15:58  
Blogger Stenar said...

And Tyler, you're kidding yourself if you think the Mormon church or anyone else in America considers polygamy to be traditional marriage. It was the religious right which coined the phrase "traditional marriage" in their fight to ban gay marriage.
The LDS church's letter which was read to all congregations in the USA on Sunday referred to it as the "traditional institution of marriage." Now, you know they weren't referring to polygamy.

31/5/06 16:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LDS leadership ruined my sex life with my wife by telling us what we can't do. She can't get over it and it sucks (or doesn't suck)!

Stay out of people's bedrooms, and stop the judgemnet!

31/5/06 17:12  
Blogger Tyler Farrer said...

I think in my first comment I came off as very condescending, and for that I apologize. The point I wish to make is that those, such as myself, who support a strict definition of marriage do so because we wish to protect society as a whole. Not to harm a small faction in society. Let me give one example. France has eased restrictions allowing for 'partnerships' to be formed between any that wish it. It doesn't really count as marriage, but it carries all the same weight as far as the government is concerned. It is a very watered down contract that is easy to dissolve. The intent was to allow for homosexual partnerships to occur without hurting heterosexual partnerships. What happened, surprisingly, is that heterosexual couples also decided to form partnerships instead of marriage because it was easier. The whole meaning that once existed for the majority of French society has been lost.

I believe the same thing would occur here, and that an Amendment is appropriate to preserve what is already good in our culture. Few would disagree with me that marriage is worth saving in our Country. I believe the position of the Church is motivated by a concern for the sanctity of the family. Hate does not enter the equation.

Now regarding polygamy, as it was once practiced in the L.D.S. Church; and as it was practiced anciently, has far more in common with today's 'traditional marriage' then a homosexual marriage. It has a Biblical history, although it is not practiced by active Latter Day Saints. I think one should define traditional marriage as that between a man and a woman, yes.

31/5/06 20:18  
Blogger Stenar said...

Tyler, according to your example then, the USA should legalize gay marriage and not civil unions as some religious people suggest who do not want to allow gay people to be married.

31/5/06 20:21  
Blogger Tyler Farrer said...


I'm saying that any of those options; creating legal partnerships, or watering down the definition of a marriage will harm heterosexual marriage. The faulty thought process, that failed in France, was that by giving homosexuals something they did not have, they would not harm heterosexuals. They were wrong.

1/6/06 08:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not sure how society would be helped by maintaining "traditional" marriage. I have been married for 14 years and have a wonderful life and family. If gay marriage is made legal, how does that take away from my own marriage? I am for equality to! It wasn't too long ago that it was illegal to have interacial marriage and the mormons were all over that one too. If you care to look you can see all their reasoning against interacial marriage is very similar to that of same sex marriage. Would you call a man and woman of different races a "traditional" marriage? Are we not just picking a new group of people to "pick" on to make ourselves feel more holy?

1/6/06 08:44  
Blogger Tyler Farrer said...

If an approach that tried to sidestep the institution of marriage has done so much damage to marriage in France. What do you think a full attack on the definition of marriage will do to the institution? Both approaches are flawed, but the latter is a more direct assault on marriage.

1/6/06 10:33  
Blogger Stenar said...

How does providing more choices for French couples hurt French society?

1/6/06 10:35  
Blogger Tyler Farrer said...


I'm not concerned about the message that is sent to you and your wife of 14 years. I applaud your fidelity. I am concerned about the message that is sent to your children, and my children.


Marriage is not just about choice. It comes bound up with obligations, responsibilities. It is, also, intent upon creating a suitable environment for children to grow and contribute to society. Sometimes, granting more choice, cuts away at the inherent duties that belong with a contract. The French have legislated away duty in the interest of giving more choice.

1/6/06 11:31  
Blogger Stenar said...

You miss the point. There are millions of children currently being raised by gay parents. And millions of gay couples. These couples and children need the protection afforded by marriage to heterosexuals.
Amending the constitution, which is an incredibly harsh step, won't change the fact that millions of children are being raised by same-sex parents and will continue to do so.
If this argument were really about creating a suitable environment in which to raise children, then more people would be clamoring for gay marriage to protect these children as well as children of heterosexual parents.

1/6/06 11:40  
Blogger Tyler Farrer said...

I'm not sure how many homosexual couples are raising children, but according to the U.S. Census Bureau there are 11.9 million single parents in the U.S. and they too would benefit from marriage but are not married. We shouldn't encourage people to be single parents, but we do the best we can when the situation arises.

If my heterosexual child came to me with the idea that she was going to get married in order to get the protections that come from marriage, then I would tell her she's jumping into that commitment for the wrong reasons. We shouldn't get married for a tax break. We should remember that marriage comes with responsibilities.

1/6/06 16:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope you don't mind, but I will respond to this column with the same response that I gave on my site:


Your question: "What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give in Marriage according to the law, or not?"

My response: "Shew me the marriage license. And they brought unto him a paper. Whose is this state and insignia?"

Your reply: "Utah’s."

My rebuttal: "Render therefore unto Utah the things which are Utah's; and unto God the things that are God’s." (see Matt 22:17-21 for my inspiration.)

Your arguing that this opens the door for the government to ban other types of marriages is misleading. Whether or not a Temple Marriage is recognized by the US government isn't the issue. If it weren't I am sure that the church would encourage a separate civil marriage for government recognition. According to LDS theology, the higher marriage would be the Temple Marriage. But in the eyes of the government it would be the civil marriage. Render unto Caesar...

Many would argue that there is no need for civil recognition and they have some very valid points. However, there is much convenience in government and legal issues for marriage to be recognized.

The problem here isn't that gays want to be married. If they wanted to they could probably find a church that would perform such a marriage. The problem is that they want government sanction of their marriage. They want this sanction in order to overthrow the two-parent home and its importance and influence in society. There are avenues (albeit more difficult) for gay couples to have their relationships recognized legally. But this isn't what they want. They want to overthrow the American family. Thus, we as proponents of the American family must fight back. And this Amendment is just one way.

2/6/06 02:07  
Blogger Stenar said...

Tyler, what rock have you been living under? A tax break for marriage? Huh? Married couples pay more in taxes than single people. Believe me, gay people don't want to get married just for some mythical tax break.

And I don't think any gay people are wanting to get married just for the protection. They are already in committed relationships and have families which require all of the responsibilities with none of the approximately 1400 benefits and protections which come with civil marriage.

2/6/06 09:21  
Blogger Stenar said...

Tyler, you can't have it both ways. If gay people say, "We want to get married because we love each other and want to have a committed relationship," the religious right says, "Marriage isn't about love. It's about raising children." And then gay people say, "But we're already raising children and we need all the help we can get to protect them, too." And then you say, marriage isn't just about the protection you get. Why don't you admit it. It's just an emotional issue for you that you haven't been able to accept, yet, that gay people can be in love and have committed relatiionships just like straight people? Instead of making people jump through imaginary hoops that keep shifting.

2/6/06 09:30  
Blogger Stenar said...

I'm not the one who came up with the idea that the govt might try and ban temple marriages. If you read my entire blog entry, you would see that.
The whole point is NOT about banning anything in the constitution. It's a rhetorical argument.
With that said, I'm sure it would be rather inconvenient for LDS members to have to go through two marriage ceremonies.
I know there are many countries where this is the case and the church regularly lobbies those govts. to allow them to make their temple marriage also count for the civil marriage.
As you yourself have stated, there are many benefits to having a civil marriage. Gay people want govt sanction of their marriages just as Mormons want govt sanction of their temple marriages. It's very simple. Gay people don't want to destroy the family system. Having strong, healthy families keeps our society functioning and that benefits gay people just as it does straight people.
The "avenues" you mention for getting legal recognition for gay relationships are much, much more difficult and costs thousands of dollars in legal fees, unlike the $50 or so you and your wife plunked down for your marriage license. And these "avenues" only provide a handful of benefits or protections, whereas civil marriage affords an estimated 1,400 benefits to married couples.

2/6/06 13:10  
Blogger Tyler Farrer said...


The "rock" you can look under to see the possible tax break for marriage is to be found in a law passed in 2001. You can read more about it on The Tax Foundations blog here and here.

Now I'll concede that a better example than a tax break would have been found in one of the 1400 civil benefits of which you are aware-Pick one!

Let me clarify my position regarding children. The key to my stance is that I believe a marriage is the ideal state to begin to reproduce and nurture children. I do not believe that a homosexual marriage would meet one of those criteria-reproduction. Now I know that homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproduction, but not without a third parties involvement. I am also aware of heterosexual individuals incapable of reproduction. Generally speaking, however, heterosexual marriage will more likely lead to reproduction without complications than homosexual unions.

Yes, the above argument rests on a moral framework. However, I believe the Constitution should express moral ideas.

2/6/06 16:31  
Blogger Stenar said...

As another blog said:
As we immerse ourselves in this fantastically productive debate, it might be worth considering these words, written by justice Greaney in his assent to the landmark Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, aka the “gay marriage ruling”:

I am hopeful that our decision will be accepted by those thoughtful citizens who believe that same-sex unions should not be approved by the State. I am not referring here to acceptance in the sense of grudging acknowledgment of the court’s authority to adjudicate the matter. My hope is more liberating. The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. As pointed out by the court, their professions include investment advisor, computer engineer, teacher, therapist, and lawyer. The plaintiffs volunteer in our schools, worship beside us in our religious houses, and have children who play with our children, to mention just a few ordinary daily contacts. We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do. The union of two people contemplated by [the Massachusetts marriage law] “is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because of the terms of [Article 1 of the Massachusetts constitution], the plaintiffs will no longer be excluded from that association.

2/6/06 17:15  
Anonymous obiwoon said...

Hey thanks for the comment on my blog. Do you mind if I link you? Think what you write about is interesting, made all the more exciting by Tyler's responses :)

2/6/06 17:41  
Blogger Stenar said...

Please link!! ;)

2/6/06 18:00  
Blogger Tyler Farrer said...

Thank you for not quoting the entire 65 page decision. That would have been a monumental challenge to answer. As it stands now, I think I will run out of space answering the bulk of Justice Grealey so, I will forbear. Let me offer, in response, another quote from that same decision.

"Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries."

Grealey's expansive and inclusive rhetoric aside, this is another example of this Court overreaching it's own authority, and by it's own admission. It certainly did mark "a significant change", but it was one that this Court had no authority to make.

Of course we should extend every charitable gesture, every kindness, and tolerance, that is humanities right, to homosexuals. We feel as much for those who are not yet married. Yet, contracts should have conditions, and what seems to be unrefuted is that marriage has existed for centuries with conditions.

The impetus for this Amendment is morally based. The engine for the enaction of law should be by the voice of the people. Not by a 4-3 Court decision.

2/6/06 21:56  
Blogger Stenar said...

I suppose you think black people should still ride at the back of the bus and not intermingle the races.

These are the same arguments that were made 40 years ago against interracial marriage and expanding civil rights for black people.

The courts have the authority. That is what they are there for, to protect the rights of the minorities. To provide checks and balances against the other branches of government that might otherwise suppress the civil rights of certain classes of people.

2/6/06 23:29  
Blogger Cris Peters said...


(Personal note: Thanks for reading my blog.)

One of the things that many people miss about "religion" is that a good percentage of people of faith believe that while "they personally" are opposed or for something, it is more about the choice of the individual than the choice of the church. So, as a straight white man I am not concerned with abortion, per se, because at 54 it will probably never come up as an issue for me. (Since I'm straight, I don't struggle with being gay, either). However, some people relish the thought that ALL PEOPLE think like they do so control of the issue (with such things as dogma for a church or an amendment for a government) is more important than humanity.

Freedom was very important to the Founding Fathers and indeed, any powers not given by the Constitution to government were considered the realm principally of the individual.

Now if only the right would listen to what the Founding Fathers they say they revere had said!

3/6/06 05:11  
Blogger Tyler Farrer said...


Nice try. I'm not taking the bait on this one. Consider the following quote.

"There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights. As the eminent historian Eugene D. Genovese observed more than 30 years ago, the black American experience as a function of slavery is unique and without analogue in the history of the United States. While other ethnic and social groups have experienced discrimination and hardship, none of their experiences compare with the physical and cultural brutality of slavery. It was in the crucible of
the unique experience of slavery that the civil rights movement was born."

The above is taken from an article writen by Eugene Rivers and Kenneth Johnson. Of special note is that Rivers is the pastor of the nation's largest historically Black Pentecostal denomination.

It does not follow that because I am opposed to one thing that oppose all things (or, a thing of your choosing). I take by your ad-hominem attack that you lack a logic-based rebuttal?

3/6/06 12:45  
Blogger Stenar said...

From an article about Coretta Scott King:
Religious Right: Don't Compare Blacks and Gays

The religious right is terrified that Americans might notice the obvious similarities between the African-American civil rights battle and the fight for equal rights by gay and lesbian Americans.

Coretta Scott King: Homophobia Same as Racism

Of course, there's a reason the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force links the issues of African-American civil rights and gay civil rights: Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, told them to. In a remarkable address before the Task Force's annual meeting, Mrs. King gave a forceful statement on the importance of gay rights to the overall civil rights struggle...
Excerpts of Mrs. King's numerous public statements in favor of gay civil rights are posted below.

Homophobia is Like Racism and Anti-Semitism

Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel, Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page.

MLK's Struggle Parallels The Gay Rights Movement

Quoting a passage from her late husband's writing, Coretta Scott King reaffirmed her stance on gay and lesbian rights Tuesday at a luncheon celebrating the 25 anniversary of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a national gay rights organization. "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said. - Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.

Mrs. King is Outspoken Supporter of Gay and Lesbian People

"For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people," King said at the 25th Anniversary Luncheon for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.... "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement," she said. "Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." - Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998, sec.2, p.4.

Sexual Orientation is a Fundamental Human Rights

We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000.

We Need a National Campaign Against Homophobia

"We have to launch a national campaign against homophobia in the black community," said Coretta Scott King, widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the slain civil rights leader. - Reuters, June 8, 2001.

Justice is Indivisible

For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law.... I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others. So I see this bill as a step forward for freedom and human rights in our country and a logical extension of the Bill of Rights and the civil rights reforms of the 1950’s and ‘60’s. The great promise of American democracy is that no group of people will be forced to suffer discrimination and injustice. - Coretta Scott King, remarks, press conference on the introduction of ENDA, Washington, DC, June 23, 1994.

3/6/06 15:44  
Blogger Stenar said...

Should interracial marriage bans have been held legitimate as long as they were approved democratically by the racist majority vote of a particular state? Was it illegitimate judicial activism when judges told the racist majority in Virginia that imperatives of freedom and equality dictated they allow whites and blacks to marry?

3/6/06 16:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"4 out of 5 Baptist Divorcees Want Gays to Quit Undermining the Sanctity of Marriage" -- Betty Bowers

3/6/06 18:50  
Blogger Bling Fatih said...

How quickly we forget out own history. The "Traditional Marriage" proponents are either unaware of or deliberately disregard important facts about the history of marriage.

For one thing, marriage as we know it today was an invention of the Roman Catholic Church in the medieval era. By forcing couples to actually be *wed* by a church official, rather than entering an agreement themselves, it allowed the Church more power over people's lives.

For another, "traditional" marriage implies a "traditional" family--you know, the type that same-sex marriage is trying to ruin. By "traditional" family, most people mean the "nuclear" family: husband, wife, and 2.5 children. Yet the nuclear family is a post-war, "atomic age" invention.

Consider: Prior to WWII, there were no suburbs. It was city or country, and wherever people lived, families enjoyed extensive kinship systems. Multiple generations lived in the same household. Living arrangements were messy--not the neat, tidy, mom + dad + kids.

People forget that the nuclear family popularized among the white middle class in the post-World-War-II era is a recent invention, so those who claim that same-sex marriage proponents want to "ruin" the "traditional" family have a very short collective memory of our cultural history.

Times change. Deal with it.

3/6/06 21:45  
Blogger Ke-Wa said...

You have stated, "I don't think the Constitution should be amended for such petty things as banning any form of marriage." Are you sure about this? The only reason I ask is because I heard about this story this morning on the radio and found it on the web.


I know it is a bit ridiculous, but seriously, what happens when Hindu's in the U.S. start lobbying for the right to marry whatever animal they choose?

5/6/06 12:52  
Blogger Stenar said...

The whole "slippery slope" argument that if we legalize gay marriage, then next we'll have people marrying dogs and children is really tired and disingenuous.
Animals and children cannot sign legal documents and therefore cannot be married.

5/6/06 13:17  
Blogger Ke-Wa said...

I understand your point about the slippery slope, but this isn't hypothetical. This is happening in other countries. You may be tired of the argument, but it isn't disingenuous. If we do not define what a marriage is and is not, then what is to keep Hindu's from making this argument? Signing a marriage license has nothing to do with the argument. The point is, they are married in other countries and those marriages are considered valid there. What if someone from another country wants their human/animal marriage legitimized here in the U.S.? Before we can reject their request, marriage must be defined. That is what is being sorted out today.

5/6/06 13:19  
Blogger Stenar said...

It is disingenuous, however, because first, the article you referenced says this is a religious ceremony. I doubt this marriage to a snake is actually recognized by the GOVERNMENT of India.
Second, marriage has always had an age of consent and consent must be given. Children and animals cannot give consent and therefore cannot sign the marriage certificate in America.

5/6/06 13:56  
Blogger john f. said...

First, who's hating here?

Second, to any readers who actually care, a Latter-day Saint temple marriage is not creepy at all. The wording is somewhat different than the typical Hollywood depiction of a marriage ceremony of "till death do us part" and all that, but otherwise it is pretty standard. A man and woman are married by a person authorized by the Church to do so. Nothing creepy about that.

8/6/06 09:29  
Blogger Stenar said...

First of all, you clearly did not read my entire blog post.

Second, whether the Mormon ceremony is creepy or not is entirely subjective. It may not be creepy to you because you've been brainwashed by your Mormon leaders.

But to suggest that the ceremony is similar to the stereotypical Hollywood view of the marriage ceremony is a flat out lie.

The Mormon wedding ceremony is widely divergent and weird compared with the typical wedding ceremony.

8/6/06 09:45  
Anonymous Mynoris said...

Firstly, I'd like to say I'm a Mormon. I don't go to church because I have anxiety issues, but it's still the religion I believe in.

On a personal level, I don't believe homosexuality is right. I do believe it is a sin. I also believe that smoking and drinking are sins. And lying. Everyone lies at one point or another (even if that is an exaggeration, I'm sure most people lie at least twice in their life).

However, on a secular level, I can't see a reason to ban same-sex marriages. The church and state were meant to be seperated. I don't see how SS marriages harm those people who are aetheists or belong to religions that don't censure homosexual behavior. Since the whole of the US or Canada are not Christians, I don't think it's at all constitutional to deny them their partnerships.

On the other hand, I don't think they need any special treatment either.

5/7/06 12:18  
Blogger Stenar said...

No one's asking for "special" treatment.

5/7/06 16:43  
Anonymous Mynoris said...

Never said they were specifically. Though I'm sure some people think they should.

But my view is people shouldn't be harmed for any reason. If it comes to self defense, harming someone else might be necessary...but as long as the unions are allowed and there's no threat to their life choices, I don't see that the term 'marrige' needs to be applied as long as they aren't set back any other way.

But I'm not really in a thinky mood right now, so sorry if that didn't come out 100% clear.

6/7/06 12:43  
Blogger dreamerboy6 said...

If Mormon marriage should be banned for any reason, it's because it's a legalized form of blackmail. No mother is going to leave the church, knowing that if she does she'll never get to see her children wed. What more powerful form of blackmail than hanging the most important event of a loved one's life over someone's head?

8/9/06 06:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will admit that I did not read every comment made so forgive me if this has already been said. What you said about attending a sealing ceremony in the temple itself I find hard to believe. You need to be a worthy member of the church with a temple recommend in order to enter the temple. Given your opinions and what you state I must assume that you are gay and either an inactive member of the church or an excommunicated one. Whatever your situation to the former statements may be and that of which I do not care; if you are straight and an active member of the church you should know better than to be doing what you are doing. If you are in fact gay and an inactive or excommunicated member then I must say "hit pigeons flutter". You wouldn't be offended by the belief of the LDS church or of any other church that believes homosexuality to be wrong unless you feel that you have been jaded in someway by the church. The reasons for this animosity could be because the church won't conform to the world's/your opinions OR because you (being a general "you")knowing you are wrong but unwilling to admit it justify your "sin" to make yourself feel better and therefore you convince yourself you are right and the church is wrong. Again "hit pigeons flutter".

Your bringing into play the practice of polygamy incited a few comments and references to the Bible. I find it interesting when previous people offered the Bible as a reference to such a practice you didn't really acknowledge it. Fact is the practice of homosexuality is wrong. Plain and simple. Why do you kick against the pricks? You are not right.

Both my uncle and my late aunt practiced homosexuality but they were not mistreated or disowned by any of us who are all members of the church. We love them, care for them and would allow their partners to partcipate in family activities but they know where we stood. They knew and know as we did and do, that it is wrong.

Why would you even think to use the sealing ceremony against the ban of homosexual marriages? It does not make a good argument or point. They do not compare. Beware of those who call good evil and evil good.

18/12/06 12:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The mormon church is not the only group of people who are morally against gay marriage. Even Far left wingers are against it. And I was married in the temple and there is nothing creepy about it. it's a beautiful pure ceremony where my husband and I were married for time and all eternity and we made covenants to love and cherish one another. Also, these ceremonies are not secret, they are sacred. Because they are sacred, we protect them from mocking from people such as yourself who already have prejudices against us.

12/3/08 01:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a Mormon, born and raised in the church, served a mission, and am active and faithful. That said, the only person in the comments section who is speaking with any degree of RATIONALITY or REASON is Stenar. Opposition to same-sex marriage is obviously a form of bigotry. Stenar, I'm sorry for the narrow-mindedness of many of my co-believers.

18/5/08 20:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ban mormon marriage? ban mormons:
"If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats." Brigham Young 1
"The Mountain Meadows Massacre stands without a parallel amongst the crimes that stain the pages of American history. It was a crime committed without cause or justification of any kind to relieve it of its fearful character... When nearly exhausted from fatigue and thirst, [the men of the caravan] were approached by white men, with a flag of truce, and induced to surrender their arms, under the most solemn promises of protection. They were then murdered in cold blood." William Bishop, Attorney to John D. Lee

3/12/08 13:21  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home