Homosexual marriage...

[il Padrino Ute]

The reason that I am against this particular issue is that it opens the door to other variations of marriage. If gay marriage is legal, then polygamy would have to be legal. So would marriage to animals. Perhaps there are some out there who would like to be married to trees as well.

Of course, I speak only for myself.

[Hazzard]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

If gay marriage is legal, then polygamy would have to be legal.

I disagree.

The legal and political underpinnings of the arguments favoring gay marriage are different than those favoring polygamy, thus the results may be different.

Gay marriage advocates, if I understand correctly, argue that if straight people have the right to marry their natural partners (members of the opposite sex), then gay people should also have the right to marry their natural partners (members of the same sex). It's an argument based on equal protection and/or the preservation of liberty.

Polygamy advocates argue, I presume, that the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause makes anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional. It's an argument based on freedom of religion, not equal protection. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

il Padrino, I assume the premise for your argument is that there is "straight marriage," then "all other kinds of marriage." If that is the foundation for your argument, and I think it's fair to a certain degree, then you would group gay marriage in with polygamy and all other alternative forms of marriage. The logical result would therefore be that if one alternative form of marriage is legal then all the others must be legal. But I believe the two groups are arguing from different legal and philosophical positions and thus we must consider their arguments separately.

[il Padrino Ute]

You make a very good point. I'll admit that I hadn't looked at it from the point of view that you have stated.

In that case, I'll retract my comment and go back to my usual stance of neutrality.

[tooblue]

I've argued this issue far too many times ... I lack the energy to discuss it further, all of my arguments ultimately lead to discussions of slippery slopes which according to so called rational persons is pure guess work. To hades with the notion of predicting consequences –it’s absurd to even try ;-)

I will contend with one of your points ... simply because the church was slow to change (or, as you put 'wrong') in regards to many political issues does not mean that it should stand idly by on this very issue for fear of repeating the behavior. Of course that’s assuming you are obviously more intelligent and knowledgeable about this particular subject than the men who indeed administrate the church.

I do not wish to disparage you or your thoughts but reality is the fallible men of church leadership are in fact smarter, more experienced, and quite frankly more capable than you, and have been ordained to discern and determine the church’s response to these particular social issues. I know, I know, they made mistakes (well not they specifically, they as in previous GA’s who have passed beyond the veil) so therefore they are going make another mistake … I’m sorry but such logic is woefully short sighted and erroneous.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Hazzard

I disagree.

The legal and political underpinnings of the arguments favoring gay marriage are different than those favoring polygamy, thus the results may be different.

Gay marriage advocates, if I understand correctly, argue that if straight people have the right to marry their natural partners (members of the opposite sex), then gay people should also have the right to marry their natural partners (members of the same sex). It's an argument based on equal protection and/or the preservation of liberty.

Polygamy advocates argue, I presume, that the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause makes anti-polygamy laws unconstitutional. It's an argument based on freedom of religion, not equal protection. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

il Padrino, I assume the premise for your argument is that there is "straight marriage," then "all other kinds of marriage." If that is the foundation for your argument, and I think it's fair to a certain degree, then you would group gay marriage in with polygamy and all other alternative forms of marriage. The logical result would therefore be that if one alternative form of marriage is legal then all the others must be legal. But I believe the two groups are arguing from different legal and philosophical positions and thus we must consider their arguments separately.

I am not a lawyer but such legal maneuverings in the fight to legalize gay marriage do not remain in the neat little bubble you have constructed. The ramifications for legalizing same sex marriage are far reaching and will affect future efforts to legalize polygamy.

Precedence in such cases will in fact be relied upon as momentum to drive any argument in favor of any other type of government sanctioned marriage.

The ultimate question is at what point do the rights of one group usurp the rights of another group? This will become an issue of free speech … is it possible for a government to sanction gay marriage and at the same time sanction the freedom of religious worship to vocally condemn it? You are naïve if you believe that the fight is truly about the right to marry!

[Hazzard]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

Every group that believes certain laws discriminate against it is free to seek redress through the legislative process and through the courts to correct such discrimination. High density LDS populations have a right to enact laws they see fit to enact and people who are not LDS are free to seek redress if they think such laws are unconstitutional. Likewise, low density LDS populations also have a right to enact their own laws and LDS people are free to seek redress if they think such laws violate their freedom of religion. I'm not sure how codified Sabbath Day restrictions violate anyone else's constitutional rights, but if they do then such people should take it to their legislatures (I know -- that's not going to help in Utah!) and to the courts. That's the process we have. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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?

First, the Church isn't enforcing its moral views on others. The church is expressing its opinion on an issue, and the populace, through its elected leaders, is choosing to prohibit gay marriage -- not only in Utah, but in almost every state in the Union.

Second, every organization (the Church included) is free to complain about laws with which it disagrees. I don't see what's wrong with the Church arguing in favor of laws it feels are in its best interest and arguing against laws which it feels are contrary to its interests.

As you pointed out, all laws are based on morality to one degree or another. Therefore, the legislative process is one big moral battle, with the judiciary (and hopefully the Constitution, not foreign law ) as the arbiter. If laws are, at their essence, nothing more than expressions of morality, then isn't it the solemn duty of the Church -- and every other organization -- to advocate the morality it thinks is best? If we are all going to be governed by someone's morality, and we think we have a great moral system, isn't it our obligation to work to advance this morality?

Of course, we should always stay within the framework of the Constitution -- and I am open to arguments that a gay marriage prohibition might be unconstitutional -- but as long as the Church advances good-faith moral arguments that are not clearly unconstitutional, I don't have a problem.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

You didn't say it, but you implied it.

Since marriage strikes at the very core of LDS beliefs, to advocate the LDS Church not speak out on it, means the Church shouldn't speak out on much of anything. It sounds as if you advocate the LDS Church should speak out on only feel-good, non-offensive issues. Wow what a wonderful organization it would become.

Should also ordain women as priests, allow gay ministers and sell indulgences?

You're so normative that the Church would be meaningless. Let's just run naked through streets, have sex with whores, take drugs, and become like unto everybody else; that way we won't offend anybody, won't infringe upon anybody's conscience and basically be neutered as an organization.

Thank goodness, our leaders, though generally pc, have a few more cajones than that. I don't want them standing for wilderness bills or making a stance on every tax bill, but one's which strike at the core of beliefs, should be something they advocate, whether they lose or win, if we don't stand for anything, then why exist. It's not a for profit organization which exist to make a product or to render a service. If we as an LDS people become too vain, worldly or inconsiderate, one would hope they speak out. I need a calling to repentance and sometimes if it affects the political arena whether I like it or not, I should be reminded of what they view as important.

[RockyBalboa]

I don't need many fancy words to state the obvious about this topic.

Simply put: Gay marriage is evil.

It's a direct slap in the face against The Plan of Salvation and the specific temple ordinances that are geared towards celestial glory.

Some might be afraid to speak out that harshly against it. I am not. It doesn't make me a homophobe or hate gays for believing this way, because that's the spin that liberals will put on the opinions of mine.

People insist on confusing the issue when there is and has been clarity on the rights and wrongs of it for well...pretty much forever.

It's not a grey issue.

It's one of the issues where things are about as black and white as they come.

The Declaration on the Family is something that those in the church who're for gay marriage should study a little closer. But yet, somehow, someway, some people manage to read it, and know THE TRUTH of things, and yet because they're more concerned about being politically correct, instead they fear man, instead of God and are more concerned about the social implications of an issue instead of the spiritual implications that have been set forth........but they will choose to twist it to fit into their own paradigm nevertheless because they fear it won't make them look or feel "progressive."



Some things are wrong and they'll always be wrong. Gay Marriage is one of those things.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

What do you think of the Family Proclamation? It seems to me that it is pretty evident where the Lord stands on marriage and family issues.

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I've argued this issue far too many times ... I lack the energy to discuss it further, all of my arguments ultimately lead to discussions of slippery slopes which according to so called rational persons is pure guess work. To hades with the notion of predicting consequences –it’s absurd to even try ;-)

I will contend with one of your points ... simply because the church was slow to change (or, as you put 'wrong') in regards to many political issues does not mean that it should stand idly by on this very issue for fear of repeating the behavior. Of course that’s assuming you are obviously more intelligent and knowledgeable about this particular subject than the men who indeed administrate the church.

I do not wish to disparage you or your thoughts but reality is the fallible men of church leadership are in fact smarter, more experienced, and quite frankly more capable than you, and have been ordained to discern and determine the church’s response to these particular social issues. I know, I know, they made mistakes (well not they specifically, they as in previous GA’s who have passed beyond the veil) so therefore they are going make another mistake … I’m sorry but such logic is woefully short sighted and erroneous.

You haven't made an argument based on the issues here, you have made an argument against a person bringing up the issues (a logical fallacy). I most certainly am not disputing that the church leaders are more intelligent and capable than I am. But if that is the end of the debate, then you have set them up as being infallible, despite your statement that they are fallible. We do not believe that they are infallible men, therefore their intelligence and ability to receive inspiration are not at issue here. Make an argument on the issue and I will get back to you.