UCC Forums

Jeff:

 Thanks! Silly me for imagining my link would work for those without a subscription.    What was I thinking.    FWIW, the online price is less than the paper version I dumped after 30 years along with our local paper.  I'll post one of the articles below.

Thanks Steven.  Very good column.   

The way forward for traditionalists may me not to asking them to abandon their values but to appeal to them in a new way.  I hear Jon, Bobbie & others wanting to participate in society's established institutions not transform them.  That's hard to argue with, if framed right.

Bingo! 

"No, civil marriage is a real thing, not just something in our minds.  Currently, civil marriage in the U.S. isn't what I think it should be, but that doesn't make civil marriage a figment of my imagination. "

I agree! I think marriage transcends governments & formal religion.

Thanks Steve. I think "marriage" trancends governments and religion with respect to people who consider themselves to be married regardless of any restrictions applied by government and religion, but civil marriage cannot trancend government because civil marriage is defined by government.

Here's another article from the Wall Street Journal that seems to try to advocate progress without disdaining those of traditional views.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324485004578426841033535214.html?mod=lifestyle_newsreel

I can't read the article because I don't have a subscription to the WSJ.  (darn capatilist must expect me to pay for enjoy work produced by the sweat of their brow  )

IMO, the SCOTUS ruling against same-sex marriage will not matter.

I am far less than certain that they will rule against same-sex marriage, especially as applied to the facts in California.

The direction of the sensibilities of the public seems clear. Eventually, same-sex marriage will be recognized nationwide but not on a straight, painless line.  The GOP might be wise to encourage the values of marriage: life-long commitment  stability  cooperation, communication, consideration, forgiveness & go silent on other aspects.

I agree completely, except I would think it wise for all political parties to do as you suggest. 

What kind of relationships merit government recognition as marriages? Tough! I've done taxes for married couples who separated years ago & rarely see each other. I know others who have never owned property jointly & keep their finances separate. With the current rates of divorce & % of dissatisfied couples I counsel, I'm sure lots of legal marriages are merely legal contrivances for long dead relationships.  But, should the government care?

I think the government should hold them to the contract they made with the government, and trying to do anything beyond that wouldn't be an efficient use of the governments time and resources.

Jeff:
Thanks!
Again, we may flounder helplessly without a common definition of "marriage".    If I knew your definition, I might be able to agree.

Back at you.   

If marriage is mainly & merely a civil contract, why give it special treatment different from other relationships?

Civil marriage is a contract. Our nation and others give it special treatment because they have found out over time that it is more efficient for the served society and its individuals to do so and beneficial for the served society and its individuals to do so.  For example, soceity benefits when people make a life long commitment to love and care for another specific person, so society, via the government that serves the society, grants such relationships some special treatment as a means to encourage such relationships.  Historically marriages have served addtional purposes and provided other benefits (see, for example, creating a connection between competing families, tribes, or even nations, providing for a desired transfer of wealth, providing for more than one parent for a child).

A reason to disagree would be James Rix' analysis that marriage is a social construct devised within each society as it sees fit & will not necessarily be consistent from one society to another or from generation to another.

Civil marriage is a social construct.  Unfortunately, societies don't always come to the best social constructs for themselves.  Currently, with respect to plural civil marriages, the society of the entire U.S. has failed itself, and with respect to SSM much of the society of the U.S. continues to fail itself.  At least in my view.   

So, your view of marriage is True for you & mine is True for me but there is no marriages apart from our imagination.  It recalls a line from the 1st Matrix movie: "There is no spoon!"

No, civil marriage is a real thing, not just something in our minds.  Currently, civil marriage in the U.S. isn't what I think it should be, but that doesn't make civil marriage a figment of my imagination.

I've got lots of views for which I can't see any reason for anyone not to agree. I don't imagine my lack of imagination makes me right. 

Let me add that I see many reasons to agree that plural marriages and same sex marriages should be allowed.     I don't think that one's lack of imagination makes one right, but I do think a lack of imagination can make one wrong.   

Closely genetically-related people have higher risks for recessive traits that may be problematic. Genetic counseling and, when warranted, contraception can address this issue for fertile heterosexual couples.

I think risks are problematic.  I wonder if genetic counseling and contraception are sufficient to address the risks.

Additionally, there can be harmful psychological and power issues in a sexual relationship between closely-related persons. This can be addressed by counseling.

These are biggies for me, and I am very doubtful that counseling would be sufficient to address the problems, although it may be sufficient for some.

For couples who love each other, do not have a history of familial contact between each other, and who are incapable or reproducing, it would seem incest has few genetic and psychological risks.

It would seem, but I wonder what happens after they understand the family relationship.

That said, I am not interested in a sexual or romantic relationship with any of my relatives, and I would think that those who are interested constitute a small fraction of society. It would be more helpful to address the issue by reducing harm than by stigmatizing such couples, as the latter would merely increase the chance that the relationship would be carried on in secret.

I like the idea of reducing harm, but disagree that stigmatizing "merely" increases "the chance that the relationship would be carried on in secret".  Stimatizing increases the chance that a potential victim of an incestual relationship will not become a victim.  Kinda of like saying that we stigmatizing sex with an underage person "merely" increases the chance that the rape would be carried on in secret.  I just can't agree.

Anyone have suggestions for a "Hymnal Supplement" that would have more contemporary music - words and tunes?

Steven,

Thanks for the link.  It is an article that should be required reading for anyone who claims to be concerned about violence in the U.S.A.  It highlights what I have pointed out several times during the discussion here.  Gun violence is concentrated in certain locales and in certain populations in the U.S.A, and if we really want to reduce violence, and particularly gun violence, we should focus an appropriate amount of attention and resources on those locales and populations.  This quote from the article points out part of the problem, and it's something that has recently been done in our own denomination when Rev. Black pranced around in a hoody without showing a similar level of activism for the thousands and thousands of gun deaths that occurred during his tenor in the office of President and General Minister before the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Quote from the article:

"When a white man shoots an unarmed black man in this country, the black community yells and demands swift justice. But when a black man shoots an unarmed black man in many urban cities, the black community yells silence," King said."

I would add that it isn't just the so-called "black community" that yells silence.  It's the news community, the entertainment community, the political community, and the church community, at least the church community outside of the locales where the gun violence is focused.  When was the last time, or the first time for that matter, when any of us here in UCC land recieved an "action alert" email from the so-called "Justice and Witness" ministry highlighting the gun violence that is highlighted in the article???

Steven,  All good points.  I agree.

Denise,

Try this link, which brings up all kinds of other links for GS 29: http://www.ucc.org/synod/
It can be found under the New and Events drop down menu on the new main page for UCC.org.