The Divine Institution of Marriage
 

The church lays out the case.

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsr...on-of-marriage

Wow.

It was an interesting read, but I was hoping to read something new. It was the same stuff.

The overall layout was thus:

1. Religious argument
2. Blame gays for the bad acts of heterosexuals (divorce, abortion, single-parent households)
3. Re-emphasize religious argument
4. Predict calamity
5. Re-emphasize religious argument

Another question I have that I have yet to hear answered well......if homosexual marriage will increase the likelihood of gender confusion in children/teens, how do we explain the fact that pretty much all homosexuals today were raised in heterosexual households? I don't really see any distinct advantage in that particular area.

The repeated emphasis that children be raised by a father and mother is pointless. Gays are adopting the unwanted children that heterosexuals have basically tossed aside. Gays aren't having their own children. They are raising the children that straight people threw away.

You're missing the point: if we allow gay marriage, then the terrorists win.

Seriously, though. Your questions are apt. That's pretty good for a quick read late at night.

Tomorrow when everyone is rested, we can go over the misleading reference to Catholic Charities....an entirely different issue given that Catholic Charities USA receives significant funding from the state to run this adoption arm of its eleemosynary institutions. If you want state bucks, you need to comply. The Catholic Church simply didn't want to do it on its own dime, so it shut down shop. LDSSS does not use state or federal money, at least not to my knowledge.

This may be your best post ever.

I read this,

"The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people,"

and couldn't help being reminded of this:

"I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it."--MEP

The religious argument of course dodges the central question--the elephant in the room--do you choose your sexual preference?

Yes, I think we deserve to have this addressed.

Gays are adopting kids that hetero's don't
 

want? That's a new one. Using your term, hetero's ARE (and want more kids to adopt) adopting kids hetero's don't want.

Jury is still out on that one. Both sides
 

can make a case. However, the natural 'man' is born to have sex. Does that mean John Edwards should be excused for his adultery because he was born that way?

Are you saying that no one ever chooses their sexual preference? Are you saying that applies to every single one of the 6+ billion people on earth?

Lots of interesting things to discuss in the article. Here is a paragraph that really puzzled me:

Huh? I just don't get that one.

Obama has admitted that not having a father in the home has made him somewhat of a pussy.

With all the time and research going into these Prop 8 communications, I have noticed a suspicious absence of any data on the effect of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts...where it has been legal now for several years.

In fact, the only reference to Mass. has been the misleading adoption issue.

Does anybody know if, as some have claimed here and elsewhere, children in Mass public schools are now being indoctrinated with homosexuality? Has there been a rise of teens coming out of the closet? Has society in Mass. crumbled? What exactly has happened there that we can safely assume will also happen in California and elsewhere?

...

What kind of data are you looking for and what kind of credible data would you expect to see emerge from such a short time horizon?

Ha...you are tax a guy, I forgot.....the insurance stuff.

Please explain Catholic Charities USA to all of us.

Where does it get its funding? How much of it is directly from the state? how much of it comes from large corporations? Why doesnt the Catholic Church simply privately fund its adoption agency? And in what way is the LDS adoption situation different from the CCUSA situation?

Anything.

It isnt hard for someone in the Church to go verify whether homosexuality is now a forced part of the public school curriculum, now is it?

Are you now of the position that there is no real way to gauge the effects of gay marriage on society without waiting for a long time horizon after such practice is legalized? If so, I would agree.

That's all you got from that quoted section? You completely missed the main point.

Would you care to demonstrate where I stated otherwise before?

The main point is what exactly?

That the US is going to conform its domestic family laws using the EU as legal precendent?

That religions will lose their exemptions to worship as they may? And that if any such effort is made to do so, that Jews, Catholics, Christians, and Muslims would not all unite to fight any such government intervention?

That the referencing of CCUSA is totally misleading because CCUSA is a partially publicly funded organization that receives over a million dollars a year from the state of Mass?

That's all you got? You completely missed the main point.

OK. You're not interested in a serious discussion. Got it. Carry on.

A serious discussion with you? Do you have a link pointing me to one in which you have engaged?

I am waiting for you to drop another "fag" bomb on the group this morning. I am sure your dad would be proud.

If you make your facilities open to the general public, why would you want to single out gays for discrimination?

Ha. I have a hard time believing this one.

What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? And why would a religious club at a university want to ban gays from membership? This is a mindset that we are supposed to rally around? Argh.

I don't get it either.

In general, I found the appeals to "history" or "the ages" vague, unconvincing, and probably inaccurate (from a historian's point of view)

E.g.: I would consider this to be a very presentist definition of marriage. Or, at best, very clumsily worded.

Allowing gay marriage and putting less social stigma on gay hookups in general, ironically, might DECREASE the number of gays in the future.

That is, we might have less gays marrying the opposite sex, either supressing their urge to have sex with the same sex, or getting some on the down-low. Gays marrying the opposite sex have children. And pass on their genes.

So, if you wanted to "eradicate" gays through eugenics, you would support gay marriage. Someone please pass this onto the church. If gays are eradicated through this, then the church won't ever have to explain to Sister Smith why her son Jimmy ended up gay, beyond the sort of statement we frequently hear from Mormons: Sister Smith raised a son who made the choice to be gay.

Boy there are so many ironies in all of this. Is the church going to put out a news release explaining how the practice of polygamy destroys the family?

Don't lose faith, my friends. Inmates do from time to time run the asylum, but there reign isn't permanent.

As much as SU's appeal to Mussolini was over the top, the desire to turn control of one's decisions over to another, "to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us" (Foucault, 1983, p. xiii) is fascist. It is also, I think, Oedipal.

All of a sudden, homosexuality's relationship to the Oedipal makes sense.

Someone needs to tell them that brevity is the soul of wit. I'm always struck by how their public statements are about five times too long.

I wonder who wrote this press release. An Apostle? Some functionary?

It wasn't very well written or reasoned, and it was much too long.

Plus, I agree with Lebowski, the last point on political freedom rang with a loud atonal clang.

It wasn't over the top. Intense longing and nostalgia for the past, a sense of self steeped in a highly mythologized past, a chauvenistic sense that only those sharing a common heritage are elect in some sense, a welcoming of authoritarianism as a means to achieving a highly idealized society in conformance with the ultra conservative vision, a sacrificing even of offspring to maintenance of the greater authority (of course, since one's whole sense of self derives from the greater authority), are all hallmarks of fascism.

This is why "Islamofascism" is a very precise epithet. I have no doubt that if America were a Mormon theocracy the September Six would have been shot and buried in a common grave and we'd all be risking our lives and liberty right now. Fascism is really the oldest, and most enduring form of authoritarianism. You are seeing a re-emergence of it right now in Russia. Tragically, Solghenytzin turned out not to be a lover of liberty but a fascist (fascism and communism get along like cats and dogs, which makes a lot of sense, but that's a subject for another day). Fascism is what is holding China together right now, and its dark impulses are now being stirred by the pagentry of the Chinese Olympics.

It isn't a coincidence that the LDS Conference Center looks like it was designed by Alber Speer.

See Downfall for a popular primer on the allure and effects of fascim. If Mormonism suffered its Gotterdamerung I'm sure many would choose to be immolated with the greater authority.

TIC

"As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility. "

Isn't this section from the statement basically saying that individual Church members have a right to abstain from campaigning for Proposition 8 and they shouldn't be hassled by other members for this? That's how I read it.

Yes. Or at least this is how I read it, too.

In that spirit, I do sincerely apologize if I have not been civil during this discussion....Indy, Tex, BDB. Sorry. It is nothing personal against any of you, of course. I messed up. No excuses.

this was my thought as i read through this bulletin. I've been to Mass. since marrital rights were extended to all people, and i was there before.

i could tell no discrenible difference. then again, i guess i didn't go into their schools to hear all of the homosexual propoganda being shoved down the throats of the children that the bulletin predicts. that's a snide comment because i know that isn't what the church is really saying, but it's not far from the truth the church is arguing with this parade of horribles they have presented regarding the divine institution of marriage.


a good friend of mine who worked for the Catholic Charities, and they confirmed to me that ddd is right on the reason for them not doing adoptions.

also, i think that SU is right that the elephant in the room is not being addressed. the church is a bit passive aggressive with this issue - they talk about sin, but never come out and say that all of these homosexuals and lesbians are dirty sinners. that's what they want to say, but they also want to make statements about compassion and tolerance (watered way way way down, though)!

i don't think that any gay member of the church, or gay right's group, is seriously thinking that they can get the government to force gay temple marriages. that is absurd.

the parade of horribles argument is much too speculative for me and nothing in that letter has made me change my mind.

As for the letter from the First Presidency, here is a quote: "We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage."

The use of the words "all you can" "to assure" "best efforts are required" make me think the church wants to mandate this effort, but just won't come out and say it.

The "fag bomb" was not intended as an actual slur against you. It was just a joke given the topic of that particular thread and the "lather" comments.

My hope is that is what they think. but, it does say "level of involvement" which makes me think that the church won't accept no involvement as a response to their efforts.

bull shit, indy. you're a homophobe but don't want to admit it. it was very distasteful.

Piss off, you Ute wanker.

nice job handling the truth. you're like my 7 year old.