LDS church chides Affirmation

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't get it. How does changing the meaning of a word alter anything about a "sacred sexual relationship?" Either it is sacred or it isn't. Surely the government doesn't have the power to alter the sacredness of something, do they? I also don't know why it is relevant that homosexuals definitely can't have children. Many married heterosexual couples can't have kids either. Should the elderly be prohibited from marrying? We don't even need to do any medical tests to know they won't have kids. What about sterile people? No marriage? People who don't like kids? Kids may be a desireable result from marriage, but they can hardly be a requirement for any marriage.

There are many reasons to promote marriage other than children. Stability and property and agency rights among them.

Uh...read again. I didn't say anything about losing the sacredness of a sexual relationship. I did say something about eliminating the sacred sexual relationship from marriage.

Here's the reasoning. As a member of the Church who believes in eternal union and the possibility of eternal increase, either in this life or the next, I would like my children's conception of marriage to include both of these aspects. Similarly, I should want a similar conception of marriage to be present in the minds of my fellow man, if I truly desire them to reach exaltation. I'm not sure how you can believe in the fairly central tenet of the church of eternal families and progress and disagree with this, unless you've "given up" on segments of our society.

This is why it's a means debate. Just because I desire that end doesn't mean that I think politics is the means to achieve it. Personally, I don't, and I therefore don't support Proposition 8 (which doesn't really matter because I'm not in CA). I think our support for this comes across as hateful and intolerant, and that message is more important to me than the possible benefit of Proposition 8 on the public conception of marriage. However, I completely understand those (like my wife) who feel politics is an appropriate means for the church to bring about its ends.

What's bugging me about this debate is the efforts of both sides to paint this as black-and-white--either you're an apostate who refuses to obey the prophet or you're a homophobe who blindly follows a bunch of old white guy's disdain for homosexuals.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Uh...read again. I didn't say anything about losing the sacredness of a sexual relationship. I did say something about eliminating the sacred sexual relationship from marriage.

Here's the reasoning. As a member of the Church who believes in eternal union and the possibility of eternal increase, either in this life or the next, I would like my children's conception of marriage to include both of these aspects. Similarly, I should want a similar conception of marriage to be present in the minds of my fellow man, if I truly desire them to reach exaltation. I'm not sure how you can believe in the fairly central tenet of the church of eternal families and progress and disagree with this, unless you've "given up" on segments of our society.

This is why it's a means debate. Just because I desire that end doesn't mean that I think politics is the means to achieve it. Personally, I don't, and I therefore don't support Proposition 8 (which doesn't really matter because I'm not in CA). I think our support for this comes across as hateful and intolerant, and that message is more important to me than the possible benefit of Proposition 8 on the public conception of marriage. However, I completely understand those (like my wife) who feel politics is an appropriate means for the church to bring about its ends.

What's bugging me about this debate is the efforts of both sides to paint this as black-and-white--either you're an apostate who refuses to obey the prophet or you're a homophobe who blindly follows a bunch of old white guy's disdain for homosexuals.

I still don't understand what you are arguing. Whether or not sex is permitted or a sin is in part due to whether or not the people are married. That being said, if marriage is extended to homosexuals and if their sexual relations can never be anything but a sin, of what difference is that to heterosexual married couples? I can't see any difference to them at all. They are still abiding by the law of the church- get married, and then sex is permissive. The couples did just that, so it is permissive (within other bounds set by the commandments as well). Are you concerned that there is now a marriage loophole that allows homosexuals to have sex that is sanctioned by the church? I don't see why that would matter (if the church decides it is ok, presumably you would be fine with it, if they decide it isn't ok, then you have nothing to worry about).

This debate isn't about whether or not we want people to get married in society (which is what you suggest). People will continue to get married. If they operate within certain boundaries (no abuse, etc.), then their sexual relations will not be sinful. This is true regardless of whether or not homosexuals marry. You are trying to connect the two issues and say that extending marriage to homosexuals somehow eliminates the characteristic of marriage which makes sex permissive. That appears totally false to me.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I still don't understand what you are arguing. Whether or not sex is permitted or a sin is in part due to whether or not the people are married. That being said, if marriage is extended to homosexuals and if their sexual relations can never be anything but a sin, of what difference is that to heterosexual married couples? I can't see any difference to them at all. They are still abiding by the law of the church- get married, and then sex is permissive. The couples did just that, so it is permissive (within other bounds set by the commandments as well). Are you concerned that there is now a marriage loophole that allows homosexuals to have sex that is sanctioned by the church? I don't see why that would matter (if the church decides it is ok, presumably you would be fine with it, if they decide it isn't ok, then you have nothing to worry about).

This debate isn't about whether or not we want people to get married in society (which is what you suggest). People will continue to get married. If they operate within certain boundaries (no abuse, etc.), then their sexual relations will not be sinful. This is true regardless of whether or not homosexuals marry. You are trying to connect the two issues and say that extending marriage to homosexuals somehow eliminates the characteristic of marriage which makes sex permissive. That appears totally false to me.

I'm apparently not explaining myself well.

I think that there's little doubt that with the official sanction of homosexual marriage, we will have more homosexual marriages, consequently leading to a further shift in what most people consider to be marriage. In other words, the common definition of marriage shifts from a vehicle for heterosexual union (which we consider to be a sacred act) and the creation of families to simply an agreement between two people to love each other. While there's a certain nobility to this agreement, it's missing these two other essential aspects. This shift is a step away from having the minid of God, IMO (and according to LDS theology). I'm not advocating that we prevent this shift through political means; I'm not even sure that's possible. I'm just making an observation of an effect on society that will result from legalization of homosexual marriage.

The prohibition analogy is somewhat adequate. There's little doubt that legalizing alcohol has created alcoholics out of people who might otherwise not have been exposed to alcohol. I can therefore understand why some people would say that Prohibition would be a good thing. On the whole, I disagree, but I can at least understand their opinion.