Any non-partisan study you find will show the same result.
Any study that has contradictory findings must be fatally biased?
If that's truly your opinion I have no reason to listen to anything else you have to say.
The second link is simply a news story about a study which concluded "We found that sexual orientation of the adoptive parents was not a significant predictor of emotional problems", which is a far cry from concluding that homosexual couples provide an equivalent child-rearing environment.
The first link is merely a re-posting of the second link. (Did you just Google something and post the first four links you found? You should at least read your sources before you post them.)
The third link says only "But findings by a nonpartisan adoption group being released Thursday conclude that gays and lesbians are an important resource for children awaiting adoption." That is not the same thing as "they provide an equivalent child-rearing environment"; it could merely mean "we have too many kids, and it might be better to place them in a sub-par home than make them wait."
The fourth link you provide is the only really relevant one. Though the author lists studies both for and against gay adoption, some of which reference or contradict each other, his conclusion boils down to this:
"I believe the pro studies, not the con studies."
How, exactly, is that an authoritative conclusion? Some guy working for the Adoption Institute says he believes one set of studies over another, so I should just believe him?
The fact is, there are many studies out there which contradict each other. I told you that you would not find one that conclusively proves your point; none of your links have contradicted that. The fact that some of those studies contradict what you believe does not mean they are biased, partisan, or flawed.
Dell has never once updated their nVidia drivers for my Inspiron 6400 laptop (which is two and a half years old). Fortunately nVidia started releasing mobile drivers that work for it. That's for laptops, though; for discrete graphics cards I never use the manufacturer's drivers.
It wouldn't force me to personally marry another man, no; however, it would force me to accept as a legitimate marriage a relationship which I do not view as a legitimate marriage.
This becomes problematic in cases like adoption agencies which believe gay couples cannot provide an adequate child-rearing environment. If "marriage" is redefined to include homosexual couples, then those agencies could not use that as a basis for decision - even if it's a legitimate basis - for fear of discrimination lawsuits. (And don't tell me "well good, that is discrimination" unless you can show me evidence that such an adoption agency would be conclusively wrong. Hint: there is no study that would support your claim.)
If you don't see a problem with shutting down adoption agencies for something like that, then I think we're done here.
First you argued that civil unions were the same. You've given up on that and tried the 'it's not a legal right' argument.
Well when you keep ignoring me, I have to try another tactic.
If you're saying it's unfair to impose the morals of the majority on the minority, how is it somehow more fair to impose the morals of the minority on the majority? (Making something law is imposing those morals on everyone.)
One of the interviewees in the linked article was Elder Oaks, who is a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which (along with the First Presidency) runs the Church; one would assume he approved of Elder Wickman's comments, given that they were interviewed together.
In any case, the interview can be taken as the Church's official stance; read the end of the second paragraph (emphasis mine):
The transcript of the interview appears below in order to help clarify the Church’s stand on these important, complex and sensitive issues.
The article itself states that its purpose is to clarify the Church's position on these issues. Furthermore, the article is posted on the Church's "Public Issues" site, which states:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued official statements regarding many of the social issues of today. Several of these statements are collected here.
"Same-Gender Attraction" is fourth on the list that follows.
It is a stretch to take this article as anything but the Church's official position on the matter, so the answer to the question at the end of your post is, from the Church's official standpoint, a resounding "yes".
I would not have given the same answer earlier today... but who am I to argue with God?;) As I said in an earlier post, there is much to ponder.
I will ask again: do you think it's right to apply your religion to others who don't follow yours?
I think the only fair way to run a country is for the morals of the majority to apply to everyone.
It is unfair to force the majority to view (through the law) as "acceptable" a behavior that is a) thought of as immoral by that majority, and b) only practiced by four percent of the population. (Four percent was the figure I found a few months ago. If you have another figure, feel free to present it.)
You're telling me that a hundred years ago, when laws were written that include the word "marriage", they did not have in mind a heterosexual marriage?
If you believe that, you really need to brush up on your history.
Technically they didn't exclude homosexual couples. There's a difference. The DOMA merely clarified what was previously thought to be "obvious" (since up until shortly before that time, nobody had thought to apply "marriage" to homosexual couples in a legal context).
I know what garments do. He doesn't call them magic underwear, I do.
Those two statements are contradictory, you know. There's nothing magic about them, so if you call them magic then you clearly don't know what they "do".
Do you call Protestant ministers' collars "magic collars"?
By "moral decay" I was simply referring to the moral trends of society over the last 200 years. Moral standards have broken down, relaxed, and in some cases have been removed entirely.
You can't fault me for simply observing that truth. It's not really specific to religion, it's specific to society as a whole.
just as no one should force them not to have pre-marital sex if they don't believe it's wrong and harms anyone (it doesn't unless you can point out some sort of statistic that indicates otherwise)?
I guess teen pregnancy and STDs aren't statistic enough?;)
Point being: if nobody had sex until they were married, the STD and teen pregnancy rates would be zero. You'd have to be crazy to say that would be a bad thing.
(You're going to mention condoms, I'm going to mention psychological issues inherent in young people having sex, etc etc, it goes on forever. Point is, the whole mess can be avoided, and young people don't know the risks well enough to make an informed decision.)
Sure, those protections might exist currently for civil unions. If, however, existing marriage laws are to be reinterpreted to include homosexual couples, then a church's ability to perform marriages must also be reinterpreted (legally speaking) since it is a law that deals with marriage.
Once premarital sex was accepted as normal, there was no reason to complain about shows like The Bachelor, since premarital sex cheapens marriage far more than shows like The Bachelor could have.
Before you ask, yes, my wife and I waited until we were married.
Anyway, you guys really got your scripture out of a hat? From one guy translating a language no one had heard of before, using magic lenses?
Sure, if you count a dialect of Egyptian as "a language no one has heard of before".
As for "out of a hat", you can believe what you want. We believe Joseph Smith translated the text from plates of gold; three witnesses have their testimony published in every copy, in which they state that an angel showed them the gold plates and told them they were from God.
All three of those witnesses later left the church over non-doctrinal disagreements; however, all three of them stood by their testimonies regarding the Book of Mormon's origin until their death. One even went to great personal expense to correct a pamphlet claiming he had recanted - he hadn't - despite the fact that he wasn't a member of the church anymore.
he got furious and claimed that, because she lost the translation, God had changed things and he couldn't retranslate the same way?
That's not what he said at all. He was fully intent on retranslating the lost text; however, God told him not to, because the old manuscript had fallen into the hands of someone who had modified it in order to "prove" that the text had changed.
In other words, text A was produced. The current possessor changes it, producing text A'. If Joseph were to produce text A again, the other person could provide A' as "proof" that Joseph produced a different text the second time, even if the second text were the same.
Further, what he translated next was not a modified version of the original. He merely continued where he left off.
And God Sent Jesus to America, but no one except you guys have ever heard of it?
Nobody? On the contrary - there are plenty of native american legends of a white God who visited them, and will visit again. Why do you think they thought the Europeans were gods when they showed up (at least at first)?
And the 'Red Man' is somehow cursed, and a lesser person, for what reason, exactly?
That's not doctrine - it's taking scripture out of context and applying it somewhere it doesn't belong. Neither the Book of Mormon nor the LDS Church teach that idea. (I know where the claim comes from, and I'll be happy to elaborate if you wish.)
something invented out of whole cloth by a guy who just wanted to marry lots of women?
Are you aware that there is no evidence Joseph ever had sex with anyone other than Emma? Why would anyone marry lots of women and then never sleep with them, if not because God commanded it?
You can't claim to be in a polyamorous relationship (however you spell that) and then make fun of Joseph for teaching polygamy - it's hypocritical.
Do they not let you watch TV in the compound?
Wow. There is no "compound". I really hope you don't actually believe that.
but you guys don't have the best reputation amongst other religious types.
That's because they refuse to bother understanding what we believe. For example; plenty of people say we're not Christian; if worshipping Christ as our one and only Savior and Redeemer (and the only path to God) doesn't make me Christian, then nobody on the planet is Christian.
It's easy to think poorly of someone you don't bother to understand.
So yes, I understand exactly why people regard my church with disdain. It's because they're too lazy to ask us what we believe - instead they ask people who make it their goal in life to drive people away from our church.
To make my point clearer: if I want to know something about Coca-cola, should I ask Pepsi? If I want to know something about Obama, should I ask McCain? If I want to know something about Mexicans, should I ask the guy down the street who publishes anti-Mexican propoganda?
Then why do people refuse to ask Mormons what Mormons believe, and instead ask those who have made it their goal in life to spread confusion and often blatant lies about the LDS Church?
Yes... that is certainly something to be aware of.
I hesitate to publicly disagree with my church leaders, because I strongly believe they are literally chosen by God through direct revelation... and as such if they say "X is unacceptable to God" I must either believe them or be a hypocrite.
In any event it seems I need to ponder the issue some more...
Just that, you know, all the, hmmm, silly little things your religion advocates? I know ALL about them.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to refer to. Feel free to post a list here, or e-mail me, or whatever.
Even the patently ridiculous ones you wish people don't know about, the stuff that could get you excommunicated (you guys are plain CRAZY for that one, eh?) for talking about, yeah, we know that stuff.
I'm unaware of any LDS teachings that I would wish hidden from public knowledge (and I'm quite confident in saying you don't know anything I don't know). Further, I don't think there's anything truthful I could say about the LDS Church that would result in excommunication.
And, for clarification, there's no such thing as "magic underwear"; if your former Mormon friend calls them that... well, for his benefit, I'll assume he's ignorant, rather than malicious. They serve the same purpose as a Protestant minister's collar - they're simply a reminder to be faithful to God's commandments.
That is what you are trying to do, and you have the utter hypocrisy to claim that by refusing to let you impose your view on me, I am the one imposing my view on you.
Federal law currently defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Who, exactly, wants to change it, thus forcing everyone to change their definition of "marriage"?
You want to force me to change the existing legal definition. If you don't see how that's imposing your views on me, I can't really help you.
You cannot simply pick someone and sponsor them in any other manner.
I know an older couple who spent a few years in the Dominican Republic. While there, they sponsored several Dominicans to travel to the U.S., and I don't mean on vacation. I don't know that any of them applied for citizenship, but that's a relatively small step over getting an extended travel visa.
What is the difference what word they use. These folks only want the same rights granted to any married couple.
Well that's exactly the point. Personally, I support civil unions for gays, and if necessary, those civil unions can be fixed to allow the same benefits as a marriage. However, it makes a big difference what word is used for those relationships.
In addition to cheapening the meaning of the word "marriage" in the minds of many religious people, it could have various legal ramifications against churches that teach homosexuality is immoral.
For example:
Churches in the U.S. are currently allowed to have any member of their clergy perform legal marriages in addition to whatever religious marriage rites they may perform. If "marriage" is legally defined to include same-sex couples, then churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages could lose the ability to perform legal marriages, because it could be considered discriminatory.
In other words, the government would be dictating what a church has to believe in order to have its clergy officiate marriages. I hope you'll agree that would be discrimination based on religion.
I think the "straight" crowd has done quite enough to 'cheapen' the word marriage with the gameshows like "The Bachelor", "How to Marry a Millionaire", ad nauseam.
I agree...
I think we've lost all right to refer to the sanctity of marriage.
... but I disagree with this. You're saying other people acting like morons means I can't try to maintain the sanctity of marriage?
I say, the spirit of the law is 'love each other and treat each other as you would be treated,' and you are completely ignoring THAT, the CORE of your religion's value system, so don't even try that argument.
I'm not ignoring it, but there is far more to Christianity than "treat people how you want to be treated". I don't think that line of conversation will be very productive, though, all things considered.
You don't say how, or why you think that, except that your religion told you so.
You do not get to impose your religious beliefs on my religion, no matter how you try to justify it, you can't do it thanks to the Constitution.
Yet it's ok for you to impose your religious beliefs on me?
Now, I would be fine with your last suggestion as well, as long as two men married by a church could call themselves married, if they got a civil union from the state and a separate marriage ceremony from their church.
Yes, but it's one neither side is proposing: abandon the word "marriage" entirely in a legal context. Replace it with "civil union" for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Prohibit new laws from using the word "marriage", "husband", "wife", or "spouse", instead using "[civil] union" and "partner".
That way the word "marriage" can be used by churches (or colloquially by whoever wants to use it) however desired without having any legal connotations.
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Um... what? As far as I'm aware, any adult citizen can sponsor any foreigner for immigration, assuming all the paperwork goes through...
Here's a few rights granted to married couples but denied to civil unions:
Virtually everything in the list can be trivially fixed without modifying the definition of "marriage", when they are issues at all. Some of them aren't even legal issues, they're corporate policy issues - joint insurance coverage, for example.
Social Security and Medicare are both individual benefits that don't have anything to do with whether you're in a marriage or civil union. I'm beginning to suspect you're padding the list with irrelevant items...
Anyway, assume all of those issues are completely fixed through means other than redefining "marriage". Would you still insist on redefining "marriage"? Why, if everything you're calling "rights" (which are actually benefits, not rights) are identical?
Slashdot Mirror
If it weren't an official statement, it would not be listed on the Church's website in a list of official statements ;)
Any non-partisan study you find will show the same result.
Any study that has contradictory findings must be fatally biased?
If that's truly your opinion I have no reason to listen to anything else you have to say.
The second link is simply a news story about a study which concluded "We found that sexual orientation of the adoptive parents was not a significant predictor of emotional problems", which is a far cry from concluding that homosexual couples provide an equivalent child-rearing environment.
The first link is merely a re-posting of the second link. (Did you just Google something and post the first four links you found? You should at least read your sources before you post them.)
The third link says only "But findings by a nonpartisan adoption group being released Thursday conclude that gays and lesbians are an important resource for children awaiting adoption." That is not the same thing as "they provide an equivalent child-rearing environment"; it could merely mean "we have too many kids, and it might be better to place them in a sub-par home than make them wait."
The fourth link you provide is the only really relevant one. Though the author lists studies both for and against gay adoption, some of which reference or contradict each other, his conclusion boils down to this:
"I believe the pro studies, not the con studies."
How, exactly, is that an authoritative conclusion? Some guy working for the Adoption Institute says he believes one set of studies over another, so I should just believe him?
The fact is, there are many studies out there which contradict each other. I told you that you would not find one that conclusively proves your point; none of your links have contradicted that. The fact that some of those studies contradict what you believe does not mean they are biased, partisan, or flawed.
Dell has never once updated their nVidia drivers for my Inspiron 6400 laptop (which is two and a half years old). Fortunately nVidia started releasing mobile drivers that work for it. That's for laptops, though; for discrete graphics cards I never use the manufacturer's drivers.
Actually, for a long time, nVidia's stock drivers would refuse to install on my Dell laptop (in Windows XP).
It wouldn't force me to personally marry another man, no; however, it would force me to accept as a legitimate marriage a relationship which I do not view as a legitimate marriage.
This becomes problematic in cases like adoption agencies which believe gay couples cannot provide an adequate child-rearing environment. If "marriage" is redefined to include homosexual couples, then those agencies could not use that as a basis for decision - even if it's a legitimate basis - for fear of discrimination lawsuits. (And don't tell me "well good, that is discrimination" unless you can show me evidence that such an adoption agency would be conclusively wrong. Hint: there is no study that would support your claim.)
If you don't see a problem with shutting down adoption agencies for something like that, then I think we're done here.
First you argued that civil unions were the same. You've given up on that and tried the 'it's not a legal right' argument.
Well when you keep ignoring me, I have to try another tactic.
If you're saying it's unfair to impose the morals of the majority on the minority, how is it somehow more fair to impose the morals of the minority on the majority? (Making something law is imposing those morals on everyone.)
One of the interviewees in the linked article was Elder Oaks, who is a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which (along with the First Presidency) runs the Church; one would assume he approved of Elder Wickman's comments, given that they were interviewed together.
In any case, the interview can be taken as the Church's official stance; read the end of the second paragraph (emphasis mine):
The transcript of the interview appears below in order to help clarify the Church’s stand on these important, complex and sensitive issues.
The article itself states that its purpose is to clarify the Church's position on these issues. Furthermore, the article is posted on the Church's "Public Issues" site, which states:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued official statements regarding many of the social issues of today. Several of these statements are collected here.
"Same-Gender Attraction" is fourth on the list that follows.
It is a stretch to take this article as anything but the Church's official position on the matter, so the answer to the question at the end of your post is, from the Church's official standpoint, a resounding "yes".
I would not have given the same answer earlier today... but who am I to argue with God? ;) As I said in an earlier post, there is much to ponder.
I will ask again: do you think it's right to apply your religion to others who don't follow yours?
I think the only fair way to run a country is for the morals of the majority to apply to everyone.
It is unfair to force the majority to view (through the law) as "acceptable" a behavior that is a) thought of as immoral by that majority, and b) only practiced by four percent of the population. (Four percent was the figure I found a few months ago. If you have another figure, feel free to present it.)
You're telling me that a hundred years ago, when laws were written that include the word "marriage", they did not have in mind a heterosexual marriage?
If you believe that, you really need to brush up on your history.
Technically they didn't exclude homosexual couples. There's a difference. The DOMA merely clarified what was previously thought to be "obvious" (since up until shortly before that time, nobody had thought to apply "marriage" to homosexual couples in a legal context).
I know what garments do. He doesn't call them magic underwear, I do.
Those two statements are contradictory, you know. There's nothing magic about them, so if you call them magic then you clearly don't know what they "do".
Do you call Protestant ministers' collars "magic collars"?
By "moral decay" I was simply referring to the moral trends of society over the last 200 years. Moral standards have broken down, relaxed, and in some cases have been removed entirely.
You can't fault me for simply observing that truth. It's not really specific to religion, it's specific to society as a whole.
just as no one should force them not to have pre-marital sex if they don't believe it's wrong and harms anyone (it doesn't unless you can point out some sort of statistic that indicates otherwise)?
I guess teen pregnancy and STDs aren't statistic enough? ;)
Point being: if nobody had sex until they were married, the STD and teen pregnancy rates would be zero. You'd have to be crazy to say that would be a bad thing.
(You're going to mention condoms, I'm going to mention psychological issues inherent in young people having sex, etc etc, it goes on forever. Point is, the whole mess can be avoided, and young people don't know the risks well enough to make an informed decision.)
Sure, those protections might exist currently for civil unions. If, however, existing marriage laws are to be reinterpreted to include homosexual couples, then a church's ability to perform marriages must also be reinterpreted (legally speaking) since it is a law that deals with marriage.
It comes from the moral decay of society.
Once premarital sex was accepted as normal, there was no reason to complain about shows like The Bachelor, since premarital sex cheapens marriage far more than shows like The Bachelor could have.
Before you ask, yes, my wife and I waited until we were married.
Anyway, you guys really got your scripture out of a hat? From one guy translating a language no one had heard of before, using magic lenses?
Sure, if you count a dialect of Egyptian as "a language no one has heard of before".
As for "out of a hat", you can believe what you want. We believe Joseph Smith translated the text from plates of gold; three witnesses have their testimony published in every copy, in which they state that an angel showed them the gold plates and told them they were from God.
All three of those witnesses later left the church over non-doctrinal disagreements; however, all three of them stood by their testimonies regarding the Book of Mormon's origin until their death. One even went to great personal expense to correct a pamphlet claiming he had recanted - he hadn't - despite the fact that he wasn't a member of the church anymore.
he got furious and claimed that, because she lost the translation, God had changed things and he couldn't retranslate the same way?
That's not what he said at all. He was fully intent on retranslating the lost text; however, God told him not to, because the old manuscript had fallen into the hands of someone who had modified it in order to "prove" that the text had changed.
In other words, text A was produced. The current possessor changes it, producing text A'. If Joseph were to produce text A again, the other person could provide A' as "proof" that Joseph produced a different text the second time, even if the second text were the same.
Further, what he translated next was not a modified version of the original. He merely continued where he left off.
And God Sent Jesus to America, but no one except you guys have ever heard of it?
Nobody? On the contrary - there are plenty of native american legends of a white God who visited them, and will visit again. Why do you think they thought the Europeans were gods when they showed up (at least at first)?
And the 'Red Man' is somehow cursed, and a lesser person, for what reason, exactly?
That's not doctrine - it's taking scripture out of context and applying it somewhere it doesn't belong. Neither the Book of Mormon nor the LDS Church teach that idea. (I know where the claim comes from, and I'll be happy to elaborate if you wish.)
something invented out of whole cloth by a guy who just wanted to marry lots of women?
Are you aware that there is no evidence Joseph ever had sex with anyone other than Emma? Why would anyone marry lots of women and then never sleep with them, if not because God commanded it?
You can't claim to be in a polyamorous relationship (however you spell that) and then make fun of Joseph for teaching polygamy - it's hypocritical.
Do they not let you watch TV in the compound?
Wow. There is no "compound". I really hope you don't actually believe that.
but you guys don't have the best reputation amongst other religious types.
That's because they refuse to bother understanding what we believe. For example; plenty of people say we're not Christian; if worshipping Christ as our one and only Savior and Redeemer (and the only path to God) doesn't make me Christian, then nobody on the planet is Christian.
It's easy to think poorly of someone you don't bother to understand.
So yes, I understand exactly why people regard my church with disdain. It's because they're too lazy to ask us what we believe - instead they ask people who make it their goal in life to drive people away from our church.
To make my point clearer: if I want to know something about Coca-cola, should I ask Pepsi? If I want to know something about Obama, should I ask McCain? If I want to know something about Mexicans, should I ask the guy down the street who publishes anti-Mexican propoganda?
Then why do people refuse to ask Mormons what Mormons believe, and instead ask those who have made it their goal in life to spread confusion and often blatant lies about the LDS Church?
Yes... that is certainly something to be aware of.
I hesitate to publicly disagree with my church leaders, because I strongly believe they are literally chosen by God through direct revelation... and as such if they say "X is unacceptable to God" I must either believe them or be a hypocrite.
In any event it seems I need to ponder the issue some more...
Just that, you know, all the, hmmm, silly little things your religion advocates? I know ALL about them.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to refer to. Feel free to post a list here, or e-mail me, or whatever.
Even the patently ridiculous ones you wish people don't know about, the stuff that could get you excommunicated (you guys are plain CRAZY for that one, eh?) for talking about, yeah, we know that stuff.
I'm unaware of any LDS teachings that I would wish hidden from public knowledge (and I'm quite confident in saying you don't know anything I don't know). Further, I don't think there's anything truthful I could say about the LDS Church that would result in excommunication.
And, for clarification, there's no such thing as "magic underwear"; if your former Mormon friend calls them that... well, for his benefit, I'll assume he's ignorant, rather than malicious. They serve the same purpose as a Protestant minister's collar - they're simply a reminder to be faithful to God's commandments.
That is what you are trying to do, and you have the utter hypocrisy to claim that by refusing to let you impose your view on me, I am the one imposing my view on you.
Federal law currently defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Who, exactly, wants to change it, thus forcing everyone to change their definition of "marriage"?
You want to force me to change the existing legal definition. If you don't see how that's imposing your views on me, I can't really help you.
You cannot simply pick someone and sponsor them in any other manner.
I know an older couple who spent a few years in the Dominican Republic. While there, they sponsored several Dominicans to travel to the U.S., and I don't mean on vacation. I don't know that any of them applied for citizenship, but that's a relatively small step over getting an extended travel visa.
What is the difference what word they use. These folks only want the same rights granted to any married couple.
Well that's exactly the point. Personally, I support civil unions for gays, and if necessary, those civil unions can be fixed to allow the same benefits as a marriage. However, it makes a big difference what word is used for those relationships.
In addition to cheapening the meaning of the word "marriage" in the minds of many religious people, it could have various legal ramifications against churches that teach homosexuality is immoral.
For example:
Churches in the U.S. are currently allowed to have any member of their clergy perform legal marriages in addition to whatever religious marriage rites they may perform. If "marriage" is legally defined to include same-sex couples, then churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages could lose the ability to perform legal marriages, because it could be considered discriminatory.
In other words, the government would be dictating what a church has to believe in order to have its clergy officiate marriages. I hope you'll agree that would be discrimination based on religion.
I think the "straight" crowd has done quite enough to 'cheapen' the word marriage with the gameshows like "The Bachelor", "How to Marry a Millionaire", ad nauseam.
I agree...
I think we've lost all right to refer to the sanctity of marriage.
... but I disagree with this. You're saying other people acting like morons means I can't try to maintain the sanctity of marriage?
I say, the spirit of the law is 'love each other and treat each other as you would be treated,' and you are completely ignoring THAT, the CORE of your religion's value system, so don't even try that argument.
I'm not ignoring it, but there is far more to Christianity than "treat people how you want to be treated". I don't think that line of conversation will be very productive, though, all things considered.
You don't say how, or why you think that, except that your religion told you so.
No, I didn't, but all you have to do is ask ;) Link: Proclamation on the Family.
You do not get to impose your religious beliefs on my religion, no matter how you try to justify it, you can't do it thanks to the Constitution.
Yet it's ok for you to impose your religious beliefs on me?
Now, I would be fine with your last suggestion as well, as long as two men married by a church could call themselves married, if they got a civil union from the state and a separate marriage ceremony from their church.
I'm glad we can agree on something :)
Sure, I'll see if people will answer me. It's considered vaguely impolite, though not taboo, to ask people political questions at church ;)
And of course after replying I realized I'd missed the sentence where you suggested the idea. Silly me ^_^
Personally I think the religious among us would be more amenable to this idea than to redefining the word "marriage" to include homosexual couples.
Do you see a somewhat clean way out of this?
Yes, but it's one neither side is proposing: abandon the word "marriage" entirely in a legal context. Replace it with "civil union" for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Prohibit new laws from using the word "marriage", "husband", "wife", or "spouse", instead using "[civil] union" and "partner".
That way the word "marriage" can be used by churches (or colloquially by whoever wants to use it) however desired without having any legal connotations.
A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.
Um... what? As far as I'm aware, any adult citizen can sponsor any foreigner for immigration, assuming all the paperwork goes through...
Here's a few rights granted to married couples but denied to civil unions:
Virtually everything in the list can be trivially fixed without modifying the definition of "marriage", when they are issues at all. Some of them aren't even legal issues, they're corporate policy issues - joint insurance coverage, for example.
Social Security and Medicare are both individual benefits that don't have anything to do with whether you're in a marriage or civil union. I'm beginning to suspect you're padding the list with irrelevant items...
Anyway, assume all of those issues are completely fixed through means other than redefining "marriage". Would you still insist on redefining "marriage"? Why, if everything you're calling "rights" (which are actually benefits, not rights) are identical?