Homosexual marriage... - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Cali Coug · 03-03-2006, 09:12 PM

Well, I imagine I am about to freak out about 99% of you, but here goes.

I think the church is completely wrong to fight for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. Here is why:

The church and its leaders have certainly been subjected to their share of discrimination. In the earlier days of the church when the church practiced polygamy, one cannot count the grievances committed against the church, both by private and government entities alike. At the end of the day, the church lost the polygamy battle (phew!- I can't even keep out of trouble with one wife!). For some reason, however, I don't think the church has learned a valuable lesson from that experience and others.

At a recent talk I heard given by the University of Utah's president and by Bill Atkin, LDS General Counsel, both expressed tremendous concern over the stifling of minority cultures within Utah. Their theory, which I absolutely agree with, is that the LDS church and its members have no room to complain about their religious freedoms being stifled outside of Utah if they stifle minority views within Utah. As an example, public pools in Utah county are not allowed to be open on Sundays in Utah County as a direct result of the LDS members' influence in lawmaking there.

So how does this relate to homosexual marriage? While homosexual marriage probably doesn't relate to religious freedom, it is a question of morality, a question with widely divergent viewpoints. Is the church right to enforce its moral views on others? How can the church then complain about others enforcing their moral views on the church?

To an extent, all lawmaking is based on morality- largely a Western Christian morality. That does not, however, open the doors up for all moral issues to become legislatively controlled. The church itself has had issues with defining what marriage is and what it isn't. In the 1800's, society disagreed with the church and the church lost. Now the church is disagreeing with much of society, though this time they may "win."

Why not leave this issue alone? Why is it not sufficient to say, "homosexuality is a sin, stay away from it"? I find this issue to be different from abortion. I think the church can legitimately be involved in advocating a legal position on abortion because, depending on your views, abortion could constitute murder in some instances. I tend to think abortion should be left alone legally, but I can accept the church's involvement in that area. Homosexual marriage does not fall within that same realm.

The church has been persecuted for its definition of a moral marriage in the past. Why would it now persecute others for their definition of moral marriage?

Thoughts? Apologies for the length of my comments.

creekster · 03-03-2006, 09:23 PM

First, I think you underestimate us if you truly believe that most of us
will be 'freaked out' upon reading your post.

Second, I am not keen on any type of constitutional amendment that delves too far into subsrtance, as this seems to.

That having been said, however, I am also concerned about the long term effect of further legitimizing alternative lifestyles. I guess I need to read more about the burch's position (is it actually a position/policy at this point?) as I am insufficiently familair with it to provide a fully reasoned response.

MikeWaters · 03-03-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

I guess I need to read more about the burch's position (is it actually a position/policy at this point?) as I am insufficiently familair with it to provide a fully reasoned response.

church = john birch? freudian slip?

Cali Coug · 03-03-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

I guess I need to read more about the burch's position (is it actually a position/policy at this point?) as I am insufficiently familair with it to provide a fully reasoned response.

church = john birch? freudian slip?

LOL! You read my mind!

creekster · 03-03-2006, 09:46 PM

As you well know, I have a sordid history of typos. Rather than Freudian, it was a mechanical slip of the index finger.

Besides, wouldn't a Freudian slip require something to do with cigars, locomotives in tunnels or one of my parents?

Archaea · 03-03-2006, 09:50 PM

Mildly entertained as opposed to freaked out. To follow your logic, the Church must basically live by consensus of the normative process and should never advocate anything.

By the way, using loaded terminology such as "discriminate". I guess you win. The Church should never express its view on anything, except maybe abortion.

I don't understand the logic here.

Hazzard · 03-04-2006, 12:10 AM

I don't see a problem with the Church advocating most political positions it feels are in the best interest of the Church. The Church advocated polygamy and lost; therefore, we don't practice polygamy anymore. The Church advocates against gay marriage and, so far, has won (for the most part); therefore, gay marriage remains illegal.

I'd like to share a story.

Bill Eskridge, a Yale law professor and a leading proponent of gay marriage (http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...e2/profile.htm), spoke at my law school a few years ago about gay marriage. He said three things that stood out to me:

1. When asked why gay marriage was probably going to pass in Massachusetts, he said there was one reason and one reason only: very few foot soldiers campaigned against it. In California and most other states, LDS Church members and others went out in droves to oppose it, but in Massachusetts there was very little opposition.

2. The strongest and most reasoned opposition he receives from legal academia to his pro-gay marriage views comes from BYU law professor Lynn Wardle (http://www.law2.byu.edu/Law_School/f...p_frameset.htm). I was glad to hear BYU is offering solid legal and political arguments in favor of the Church's stated position.

3. His main counter-argument to those who oppose gay marriage is that they have no evidence whatsoever that gay marriage is harmful to children or harmful to society. So I posed to him the following question, hoping to catch him in a trap: "Professor Eskridge, if we discovered, through future research, that gay marriage is clearly harmful to children and families, would you still advocate gay marriage." He dodged my question, leading me to believe that his views are somewhat disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. He refused to concede, even if my premise were true, that he would then have to agree politically, in the name of intellectual integrity, with those who oppose gay marriage.

JohnnyLingo · 03-04-2006, 01:15 AM

Quote:

I think the church is completely wrong to fight for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

Just to be clear... are we entirely discounting the idea that the leaders of the church are acting according to God's command?

Cali Coug · 03-04-2006, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Quote:

I think the church is completely wrong to fight for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

Just to be clear... are we entirely discounting the idea that the leaders of the church are acting according to God's command?

I don't agree that this is an issue which is derived from inspiration. If it was, the church would require support for the ammendment. It recommends support, but church standing is in no way jeopardized by disagreeing.

The church has been wrong on a lot of social issues over the years. I think this is yet another example.

Cali Coug · 03-04-2006, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Mildly entertained as opposed to freaked out. To follow your logic, the Church must basically live by consensus of the normative process and should never advocate anything.

By the way, using loaded terminology such as "discriminate". I guess you win. The Church should never express its view on anything, except maybe abortion.

I don't understand the logic here.

Wait a minute- aren't you the one who likes the normative process and the status quo?

I most certainly did not say the church shouldn't express its view on anything except abortion. Certainly you can be more intellectually honest than that.

03-03-2006, 09:12 PM	#1
Cali Coug Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,996	Homosexual marriage... Well, I imagine I am about to freak out about 99% of you, but here goes. I think the church is completely wrong to fight for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. Here is why: The church and its leaders have certainly been subjected to their share of discrimination. In the earlier days of the church when the church practiced polygamy, one cannot count the grievances committed against the church, both by private and government entities alike. At the end of the day, the church lost the polygamy battle (phew!- I can't even keep out of trouble with one wife!). For some reason, however, I don't think the church has learned a valuable lesson from that experience and others. At a recent talk I heard given by the University of Utah's president and by Bill Atkin, LDS General Counsel, both expressed tremendous concern over the stifling of minority cultures within Utah. Their theory, which I absolutely agree with, is that the LDS church and its members have no room to complain about their religious freedoms being stifled outside of Utah if they stifle minority views within Utah. As an example, public pools in Utah county are not allowed to be open on Sundays in Utah County as a direct result of the LDS members' influence in lawmaking there. So how does this relate to homosexual marriage? While homosexual marriage probably doesn't relate to religious freedom, it is a question of morality, a question with widely divergent viewpoints. Is the church right to enforce its moral views on others? How can the church then complain about others enforcing their moral views on the church? To an extent, all lawmaking is based on morality- largely a Western Christian morality. That does not, however, open the doors up for all moral issues to become legislatively controlled. The church itself has had issues with defining what marriage is and what it isn't. In the 1800's, society disagreed with the church and the church lost. Now the church is disagreeing with much of society, though this time they may "win." Why not leave this issue alone? Why is it not sufficient to say, "homosexuality is a sin, stay away from it"? I find this issue to be different from abortion. I think the church can legitimately be involved in advocating a legal position on abortion because, depending on your views, abortion could constitute murder in some instances. I tend to think abortion should be left alone legally, but I can accept the church's involvement in that area. Homosexual marriage does not fall within that same realm. The church has been persecuted for its definition of a moral marriage in the past. Why would it now persecute others for their definition of moral marriage? Thoughts? Apologies for the length of my comments.

03-03-2006, 09:50 PM	#6
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Mildly entertained as opposed to freaked out. To follow your logic, the Church must basically live by consensus of the normative process and should never advocate anything. By the way, using loaded terminology such as "discriminate". I guess you win. The Church should never express its view on anything, except maybe abortion. I don't understand the logic here. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

03-03-2006, 09:23 PM	#2
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	First, I think you underestimate us if you truly believe that most of us will be 'freaked out' upon reading your post. Second, I am not keen on any type of constitutional amendment that delves too far into subsrtance, as this seems to. That having been said, however, I am also concerned about the long term effect of further legitimizing alternative lifestyles. I guess I need to read more about the burch's position (is it actually a position/policy at this point?) as I am insufficiently familair with it to provide a fully reasoned response.

03-03-2006, 09:46 PM	#5
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	As you well know, I have a sordid history of typos. Rather than Freudian, it was a mechanical slip of the index finger. Besides, wouldn't a Freudian slip require something to do with cigars, locomotives in tunnels or one of my parents?

03-04-2006, 12:10 AM	#7
Hazzard Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 158	I don't see a problem with the Church advocating most political positions it feels are in the best interest of the Church. The Church advocated polygamy and lost; therefore, we don't practice polygamy anymore. The Church advocates against gay marriage and, so far, has won (for the most part); therefore, gay marriage remains illegal. I'd like to share a story. Bill Eskridge, a Yale law professor and a leading proponent of gay marriage (http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html...e2/profile.htm), spoke at my law school a few years ago about gay marriage. He said three things that stood out to me: 1. When asked why gay marriage was probably going to pass in Massachusetts, he said there was one reason and one reason only: very few foot soldiers campaigned against it. In California and most other states, LDS Church members and others went out in droves to oppose it, but in Massachusetts there was very little opposition. 2. The strongest and most reasoned opposition he receives from legal academia to his pro-gay marriage views comes from BYU law professor Lynn Wardle (http://www.law2.byu.edu/Law_School/f...p_frameset.htm). I was glad to hear BYU is offering solid legal and political arguments in favor of the Church's stated position. 3. His main counter-argument to those who oppose gay marriage is that they have no evidence whatsoever that gay marriage is harmful to children or harmful to society. So I posed to him the following question, hoping to catch him in a trap: "Professor Eskridge, if we discovered, through future research, that gay marriage is clearly harmful to children and families, would you still advocate gay marriage." He dodged my question, leading me to believe that his views are somewhat disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. He refused to concede, even if my premise were true, that he would then have to agree politically, in the name of intellectual integrity, with those who oppose gay marriage.