I don’t have time to write the quality of post this topic deserves, but the topic can’t wait for me to write the high-quality edition. Hence this abbreviated post.
Many Mormons have suggested that the Mormon experience with polygamy makes them reluctant to oppose same-sex marriage. Some have gone so far as to accuse the church of hypocrisy for opposing gay marriage. The concerns expressed by these people, however, expose a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant issues facing the two debates about marriage.
Mormon polygamists, like my great-great-great-grandfather, John Johnson, were imprisoned by the US government on charges of co-habitation. John Johnson couldn’t have cared less about whether the government condoned his marriage. He was completely satisfied with the religious sealing his marriage received by the priesthood of God. He just wanted the state to leave him alone with his two wives and their children to whom he was faithfully committed.
Gay marriage advocates, on the other hand, aren’t being jailed for co-habitation. I don’t believe they’ve ever been jailed for co-habitation (though I confess ignorance on the historical question). In any event, it’s not illegal for gays to commit acts of sodomy, let alone live together. Instead, gays are asking society to condone their relationships on the same grounds it condones heterosexual marriages.
If gays were pleading for the government not jail them for living together, then analogies to Mormon polygamy would work.
But they’re not, and they don’t.
Matt,
You’re not quite up-to-date on your sodomy law history. The Supreme Court just recently overturned a Texas sodomy law that made it illegal for individuals to engage in private same-sex sexual relations. The law was enforced as recently as 1998. So while your point is a good one, you’re actually supporting the claim made by those who compare polygamists to same-sex cohabitants.
Now, believe me, I am quite satisfied in my monogamous relationship with my wife, but the real question perhaps you should pose is – should the government place restrictions on marriage at all? Perhaps, as some pundits have recently argued, the government should rid itself of the “sanctity of marriage problem” by simply leaving the governance of marriage institution up to religious organizations.
You can read more about the sodomy law here. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
Hi Brayden,
I’m familiar with Lawrence. In my post I spoke of the history of laws against gay co-habitation. Lawrence didn’t address co-habitation, only sodomy laws.
If there was a presumption of sexual activity when men lived together, then the sodomy laws could effectively be used as co-habitation laws, but I am not aware of such a presumption and doubt that any laws based on the presumption were ever used. (However, I again concede my ignorance on the historical question.)
And even if there were such laws at one time, they aren’t now, so the bases for these analogies between gay marriage and Mormon polygamy exist no longer, if they ever did.
Matt, proponents of victimless crimes always try that line and it doesn’t generate much sympathy. “Just leave us alone while we commit the crimes we feel like committing” is a pretty weak position to take.
But, as you note, the crime comparison is inappropos as it is civil union (Vermont) or provision of a legal status (Massachussetts) we are talking about here. More directly, it’s just a public policy question, not a moral one. One can be against homosexuality but for gay marriage, just like one can be against illegal drug use but for rehab programs or free needle distribution.
That being the case, it’s not clear why the Church is so involved in what is a public policy question rather than a moral question. Gay marriage initiatives are no more a moral question than is voting Democratic or Republican.
By its involvement (and by calling out the faithful to kick in funding and even do phone call lobbying to get out the anti-initiative vote), the Church has signalled to LDS members who take a different view on this public policy question that they are outside the ever-shrinking box of Mormon orthodoxy. What kind of message is that? Unless God told President Hinckley that one can’t be a Democrat and a Mormon at the same time, they should cut the rhetoric on this issue and just stay out of politics. Let the fundy Christians go down with the ship on this one; we don’t have to this time.
“Many Mormons have suggested that the Mormon experience with polygamy makes them reluctant to oppose same-sex marriage.”
Well Matt, since I’m the only one on this list who has, to my knowledge, made such a claim, I can’t help but feel that your comment is at least partly directed towards me. But if so, your criticism is off-point. I explained my “Mormon” objection to certains forms of opposition to same-sex marriage at length here: http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000073.html. As that post shows, however, my objection is grounded in a complaint with the sort of arguments which many Mormons (including apparently yourself, given your reliance on Maggie Gallagher) employ when expressing that opposition; specifically, leaving aside the historical experience of polygamy entirely (where I agree that the analogy is, at best, weak), it troubles me to see a church which was at one time theologically capable of promulgating highly non-traditional plural marriages as legitimate (“natural”?) forms of wedlock to now embrace the language of tradition and nature in attacking homosexual unions. Not that I can’t comprehend such a change towards “natural” theology; I discuss such a possibility in a follow-up post (here: http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000069.html). For the time being, however, the Mormon campaign against gay marriage is prompting a conceptual struggle on my part with the re-orientation of our political theology, if such is in fact taking place.
Hi Russell,
You aren’t the only one — Matt and I have discussed this issue (along with many others) on the LDS-law e-mail list.
Matt’s point about marriage versus co-habitation is a legitimate one. However, I don’t think it proves all that much, and think that LDS critics of gay marriage are still limited by LDS history at least in the following ways:
1. The popular formulation that “marriage is between a man and a woman” or between “one man and one woman” is difficult or impossible to make with a straight face.
2. Questions about whether gay marriage weakens or has an adverse effect on the traditional, nuclear family ring hollow, unless Mormons can show that polygamy did not have such effects.
3. The “live and let live” worldview of early polygamists (the idea that the government should leave them alone, they aren’t hurting anyone) is at odds with the current approach of legislating correct forms of marriage.
Dave,
How exactly can one be opposed to homosexuality and for gay marriage at the same time? That is logically impossible. Either you truly are not opposed to homosexuality or you are. It reminds me of a friend who claimed to be pro-life for “himself” but didn’t want the government to prohibit others who might not be pro-life from having abortions. That, I told him, is the pro-choice position. He wasn’t truly pro-life or anti-abortion unless he was willing to really oppose abortion. The same holds true to homosexuality. You can’t say that you are really “opposed to homosexuality” and then favor the government putting homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality.
As for the Church, it is not like the church is treading new ground. It has always upheld sexual morality or chastity as the appropriate standard. Of course this means sex only between lawfully married men and women. It is absolutely a moral issue as well as a matter of public policy question. It is only because the world has moved further and further from the Lord’s standard that has caused His chosen spokesman to take a more public stand. It is not as if the Church exists in a vaccuum or on an island and is left unaffected by the goings on of the world. What are some of the potential effects of same-sex marriage? Already hate crimes legislation has been introduced listing sexual orientation as a protected class. Policies exist in some school district to “educate” young people about homosexuality. Do you think these will be more or less prevalent if homosexual “marriage” is given the same public recognition as traditonal marriage? This issue is impacting and will impact society more than we know. This issue I think is making people truly test their testimonies. Do we believe we are led by a prophet and prophets, seers and revelators? If so, and they have issued a warnding to the world on these matters (e.g. Family Proclamation), what does that mean to me?
I don’t recall President Hinckley saying anything about being a Democrat. It is unfortunate that the Democratic party has taken public policy positions directly opposed to Church positions, but we each just have to ask ourselves, are we obligated to be be faithful Saints or faithful Democrats or Republicans or whatever one’s affiliation is?
Brent, it is not logically impossible by any stretch of the imagination. We do this all the time in Mormonism. We oppose drinking coffee, but do not support its illegality. We oppose pre-marital sex, but do not support its illegality (except Adam, who has made this claim). I am equally unshocked by your friend’s position on abortion. Many supporters of the right to abortions oppose abortion on moral grounds and seek to promote alternatives. Just because someone has moral objections to certain behaviors does not require that they support legal measures against them.
I am also disgusted by your apparently pro-hate crime stance. Are you suggesting that violence against homosexuals be legal?
Finally, the “Proclamation’s” stance on promoting laws that support the family does not include, in my opinion, an obligation to oppose gay marriage. The “Proclamation” says that we should support laws that strengthen the family, but I fail to see how if any of the gay couples I know got married would somehow damage my own marriage, or anyone’s marriage. More heterosexual divorces won’t happen if homosexuals get married.
Matt,
How exactly can one be opposed to homosexuality and for gay marriage at the same time? That is logically impossible. Either you truly are not opposed to homosexuality or you are.
I disagree. I’m opposed to drinking alcohol but I do not support the idea of Prohibition. There are many things I would not personally do and support, but I recognize the freedom of individuals to pursue their own desires, insofar as they do not infringe on my rights or hurt others.
As to your earlier point that cohabitation laws do not presume sexual activity – this is true, BUT that is sort of a niggling point because the entire issue of gay cohabitation/marriage is about sexuality. The Church wouldn’t get involved with same-sex marriage if it were not a sexuality issue. The real question is, do people have the right to engage in the kinds of sexual relations they desire insofar as those relations are conducted privately? Of course, I realize marriage is about much more than sex, at least mine is, but again, I don’t think most people would have a problem with two men raising a child together as long as they weren’t having sex.
It’s not the departure from the traditional family that enfuriates opponents of gay marriage (given there are so many examples of untraditional families that are deemed appropriate). The sexuality issue underlies all concerns with same-sex marriage, and this is also the basis for sodomy laws. Therefore, the two policy issues are more similar than dissimilar.
As to Taylor’s point – A well known family studies scholar, David Blankenhorn, has argued that opposing gay marriage is illogical for supporters of the traditional family. If we want to promote tight, nuclear families (which are good for children, he contends – go figure) we should support all individuals’ rights to have families. If we do not support gay marriage, we are de facto supporting cohabitation.
BTW, great site. I’ve added you to my blogroll.
FOLLOW UP
Brayden:
The article of Maggie Gallagher’s I posted in the previous T&S entry explains why government should encourage marriage. Her argument assumes the role of government is foster a healthy society. If you believe the purpose of government is to maximize its importance in people’s lives, then it _shouldn’t_ be endorsing its chief rival institution.
Dave:
It’s impossible to legalize drugs, alcohol, or gay marriage, but not legitimate drug use, alcohol use, or homosexual behavior.
Russell:
I believe your analysis shortchanges the polygamists’ reliance on tradition. They weren’t pioneering a new social experiment, they took great comfort in the knowledge that the patriarchs of three of the world’s religious traditions were polygamists. An important component of their views and arguments was their return to the purer roots of God’s tradition.
As for the concern about a possible double-standard, gay marriage isn’t nearly as pertinent as modern polygamy. How troubled should we be over the church’s treatment and reaction to polygamists over the past 20 years?
Kaimi:
1. With a straight face, I read from the book Mormons believe is the most correct book ever written, “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.” (Jacob 2:27)
2. The Mormon polygamists were much more likely to be faithful within their marriages, and less likely to divorce, than gays are/will be. More important than the strength of the average marriage post-SSM, however, is the certainty that the rationale for gay marriage will envelope so many other groups (those with familial and polyamorous sexual orientations, to name two) that marriage will eventually spread so thin as to have almost no cultural meaning. It’s cultural meaning is already so compromised, with 33% of white and 69% of black babies being born to women without husbands (and no, they’re not all lesbians).
3. Homosexuals aren’t asking to be left alone, they’re asking to have their relationships condoned by society. If they were asking not be jailed, apropos my grandfather, then I would be more sympathetic. The polygamists also relied heavily on a freedom of religion argument, and while I recognize the problematic nature of a robust 1st Amendment, my Mormon history has made me very sensitive to appeals stemming from bona fide religious belief.
Taylor, how does my opposition to hate crimes legislation even remotely imply that I (1) have a “pro-hate crime” stance and/or (2) suggest that violence against homosexuals be legal? I do not favor crimes of any kind be they hate induced or otherwise. Nor would I countenance violence against anyone whether hetero or homosexual. Violence itself is a crime, however. We do not need special categories of persons against whom violence is made out to be a greater crime. Violence against another is hate, and there are already laws against violence. We don’t need any additional laws against so called hate-crimes.
Whether the Church opposes same-sex marriage or not is not open for debate. It is only wishful thinking to claim that the Proclamation on the Family does not include a position opposing same-sex marriage. In fact, I have heard several visitng authorities and local leaders who have been to church training meeting note that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve issued the Proclamation principally because they were concerned about the issue of same-sex marriage. They could see the writing on the wall and wanted to make clear the Lord’s statement on matters relative to the family. Regardless, Church leaders have unambiguously voiced the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage.
You also state that “Just because someone has moral objections to certain behaviors does not require that they support legal measures against them.” We are not talking about supporting legal measures against something we find morally objectionable. We are arguing about conferring societal benefits upon something that is morally objectionable and which would detrimentally affect society. Drinking coffee or other similar items are not the same and the arguments would be different. Marriage has always been defined in this country as the union of man and woman. Some would like to see that definition changed, and the benefits of marriage conferred upon other relationships. Thus, if you say you are “opposed to homosexuality” yet then say that you are pro-same sex marriage” I still contend that you are not truly opposed to same-sex marriage. This is because the issue has now been placed before us in ways in which other issues (coffee, etc) are not. (Note that when Word of Wisdom related issues were before society, the Church did take a position in favor of prohibition and against repeal).
Sentence above should have read “Thus, if you say you are “opposed to homosexuality” yet then say that you are pro-same sex marriage” I still contend that you are not truly opposed to homosexuality.”
Matt,
Nice post and comments. Personally, I don’t think recognizing a form of gay marriage or, for that matter, decriminalizing related conduct a la Lawrence, legimates anything. You can’t legislate morality–do you know anyone who really thinks going over 65 mph on the freeway is a moral transgression?
More relevant is the psychological perspective of people who attach a moral claim to every political position they espouse. Mormons, both leaders and lowly members, have a real weakness for this. I think we’re all better off to keep the two separate. Not that one’s moral stance can’t inform and guide one’s thinking and dialogue on public policy–it almost always does and that is entirely proper.
Finally, note that most tough questions involve competing moral claims so there often several “moral” postions that can be taken. Tolerance is a moral claim that argues in favor of a form of gay marriage. Many Mormons seem blind to the degree to which the conservative Mormon position appears immoral (on the tolerance measure) to a wider audience, however much Mormons regard their own position as the moral one.
Dave,
It turns out that philosophically it is pretty hard to create a clean seperation between politics and morality. This was one of the central projects of the late John Rawls. I think it is probably fair to say that Rawls was the single most important English speaking philosopher in the twentieth century. I also think it is safe to say that he was ultimately not successful in his attempt to purge morality from politics. (Although his philosophical failure was incredibly productive and insightful.)
Thus, I think it is a little silly to suppose that Mormons — leaders and members — are making a mistake about a very easy distinction when they don’t seperate politics and morality. The distinction is anything but simple, if it even exists at all.
As it happens, I am much more philosophically liberal than someone like Matt or Russell, so I am inclined to say that certain aspects of public policy should be amoral. (To use philosophical language: I think that one can make distinctions between the right and the good and I am skeptical about attempts to use the state to coerce the good.) On the other hand, I am also skeptical about the philosophical coherence of my own position.
In short, these are hard issues, not easy ones. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change that fact.
First, the Church is not here to guide our policy positions or party affiliation. It exists to make us better, to bring us closer to Christ, to help us learn, love, and serve. The church’s, or its leaders’, positions should have little persuasive value — we’re taught to think and decide for ourselves.
That being said, gay “marriage” is completely a moral issue. And let’s get the vernacular right — I don’t support legal measures against homosexual behavior — I oppose legal measures promoting homosexual behavior. Also, a moral claim doesn’t make a moral truth. It’s right to be tolerant, but tolerance doesn’t necessitate absolution. Moral relativism might involve “competing moral claims”, but morality doesn’t.
Finally, Taylor’s contention that more divorces won’t happen as a result of gay “marriage” misses the point. The question isn’t what will gay “marriage” do to marriage — the question is what will gay “marriage” do to society, to our morality, to our righteousness.
Supporting gay “marriage” encourages, legally and socially, homosexual behavior. Drinking coffee is wrong for me because I have covenanted not to drink coffee. It isn’t wrong to drink coffee outside of this covenant. I therefore think drinking coffee is wrong, but I do not support legally prohibiting coffee. Homosexuality, though, is wrong regardless of any covenant made. Therefore supporting gay “marriage”, which encourages wrong behavior, supports that wrong behavior.
It is clear to me that as societies minimize or rationalize their values, societies degrade. Worse than calling evil good and good evil is calling everything nothing. What’s at issue here is our communal morality — as a people, what will we accept? As a nation, how good will we be? Our laws reflect our morality — because we make them. This nation has been blessed, according to its righteousness. The righteousness of a few won’t hold it for long.
Nice comment Nate. This topic tends to bring out the reductionist in all of us.
Matt, you say: “The Mormon polygamists were much more likely to be faithful within their marriages, and less likely to divorce, than gays are/will be.”
Laying aside what I’ll call the pro-SSM “argument from polygamy,” what is the basis of this statement of fact about gay fidelity? And even if were empirically true, I’m not convinced that it relevant to the issue. I won’t bore you with slippery slope arguments about this type of reasoning, but what about the possibility that the rate of gay infidelity (if it in fact is higher than straights) is an effect of government’s unwillingness to recognize their relationships?
I think the distinction that Matt makes between the gay marriage and the LDS polygamous marriage issues is fairly clear.
Right now, there are plenty of churches that will perform “marriages” for same-sex couples. Gay couples can say they are married, and the government won’t prosecute them for it. (A gay couple even won a national-TV reality show, which labeled them as “married” every chance it got.)
So, proponents of SSM are looking for something beyond the right to call themselves married, or to have a church marriage.
Nor is it merely about the legal trappings of marriage (inheritance rights, hospital visitation, etc.), since civil unions granting those legal rights are considered insufficient.
SSM proponents want the label “marriage” because it is society’s ultimate stamp of approval on their relationships.
This is not a question of “allowing” non-standard marriage, as was the case with LDS polygamy. It is a question of giving societal approval to such marriages.
Hi Greg,
Granted, my assertion was a presumption, but here’s why I think it’s almost certainly true.
If the refusal of government and society to recognize marriages is the cause of promiscuity, then the Mormon polygamists, whose marriages weren’t recognized and were ostracized too, would have been excessively promiscuous.
The reason for gay promiscuity is likely that the sociobiological forces that suppress female promiscuity (huge transaction costs to reproduce, increasing need for quality over quantity partners) are absent in gay sex.
This is evident in marriage, where men are much more likely than women to say they want more sex. It’s further evident in studies showing that twice as many men cheat than women.
I will try and find the links, but several studies have shown that homosexuals, even those in so-called committed relationships are much more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts. In fact, some reports are that oftentimes, being able to continue to “play the field from time to time” is a condition of the committment. For instance, I remember recently (last week or two) that a new study has found that “committed” homosexual men averaged 8 sexual encounters outside of their committed relationship annually.
Ms. Morality, you make some excellent points. Let me take issue with just one thing you wrote. You state that the church is not to guide us or our party affiliation and that “The church’s, or its leaders’, positions should have little persuasive value — we’re taught to think and decide for ourselves.” I agree, we are taught to think and decide for ourselves. But if the church and its leaders are what we believe them to be (i.e. the only true and living church upon the face of the earth, and prophets of God, His spokesman) then what they have stated should have more than a little persuasive value. It should at the very least guide in part our pursuit of the learning and education necessary to make a reasoned policy position of our own.
Note that studies purporting to show greater promiscuity among homosexuals have been criticized as statistically unreliable. See, e.g.,
http://volokh.com/2003_05_18_volokh_archive.html#200329250
and
http://volokh.blogspot.com/2003_05_11_volokh_archive.html#200301162
Matt:
Mormon polygamous marriages *were* sanctioned by the only authority that Mormons cared about: the Church. The Utah territory was tantamount to a theocracy, and the federal government was just a faraway oppressor.
In stark contrast, for contemporary homosexuals the state matters. The only institutional authority that *does* matter to most of secular society is the state. For that authority to refuse to sanction the way they want to live might conceivably have an impact on their life choices.
You say “This is evident in marriage, where men are much more likely than women to say they want more sex. It’s further evident in studies showing that twice as many men cheat than women.”
This ignores the fact many of the homosexual couples that want marriage are women. Your argument from “sociobiology” simply strengthens the argument that lesbian women should be allowed to marry — after all, they will be more faithful be they don’t want sex as much as men, no? Or is it *only* “transaction costs” that account for why men seem more interested in sex? I really doubt that.
Nate, I agree with you on both counts. By saying that morality invariably informs public policy positions, I was agreeing in advance with your point that it is difficult to disentangle the two. Of course, note the the “official Church position” is to avoid political questions and only participate in the public debate when there is a moral issue at stake. So Church leaders feel there are political issues that do not involve moral questions.
And I don’t believe I oversimplified anything. By pointing out there are moral claims on both (several?) sides of this or other questions, I am in fact agreeing with you that these are not simple black and white issues.
Actually polygamy was recognized by the laws of the territory of Utah. Here is how it worked:
The territorial legislature granted the Church a corporate charter by statute. The charter gave the Church the right to solemnize marriages. It also stated that marriages solemnized by the Church could not be questioned in any other legal forum. This created, in effect, an inrebuttable presumption in favor of the validity of Mormon marriages, which could not be attacked, for example, with the argument that the marriage was bigamous.
This had some real consequences. For example, it legitimized the children of polygamous unions, which as I understand it had important consequences in the 19th century of intestacy matters. Thus, the estate of a polygamist could not challenge the claim of a polygamous child to an inhereitance on the grounds that the child was a legal bastard.
The federal government realized this, and explicitly revoked the Church’s charter. Subsequently, federal action was necessary to legitimize the children of polygamous marriages, most of whom were left in a condition of bastardy by the federal action.
In other words, it is not true that 19th century Mormon polygamy was a wholly private affair. It was written, in a round about way, into the laws of the territory of Utah.
I realize the reasoning of my last paragraph was a bit elliptical. My point is that if women are biologically wired to be more faithful or less interested in sex (about which I have some doubt), we should all be promoting lesbian marriage.
One response might be: No, only heterosexual women are more faithful because it is a function of the transaction costs of straight sex. Since lesbian women cannot get pregnant from sex, there are no transaction costs and lesbian women are therefore more promiscuous. My response to that is that I am very, very skeptical that women’s biological hardwiring is a result of the transaction costs of pregnancy.
Dave,
My problem was with your suggestion that we examine the pyschology of those who did not make the distinction that you were making. I took this to mean that you saw those who disagreed with you as suffering from some pyschological anomally that rendered them incapable of making the obvious distinction that you were invoking.
Rereading your post, I concede that you problematize the distinction that you made in the first portion of the post, which leads me to believe to ask why you invoked it with such vehemence in the first place.
It does seem that Church leaders make a distinction between moral and merely political issues. I am not quite sure what the distinction is, however…
Brent,
On violence- I gather that you are opposed to all hate-crime legislation, or is it just against homosexuals? Don’t you think that violenct crimes should have different degrees of punishment, such as crimes of passion, vs. premeditation? Why do you oppose the idea that hate-crimes are especially henious and deserve special punishment?
On social benefits for homosexual marriage- I somewhat agree that criminalizing behaviors such as coffee drinking and pre-marital sex is not exactly the same as granting legal priveleges to homosexual partners. But the “privelege, not a right” line is ultimately unpersausive. Consider the inequality of access to education that plagued our country prior to Brown, and which we are still trying to deal with. Education, long considered a privelege in US history, is no considered a right. Further, we grant lots of social priveleges to people with whom we may have moral disagreements, like single moms on welfare or methodone clinics. We give prisoners the privelege of health care, and we even allow convicted child-molesters to marry and have children. Finally, you can’t argue that withholding social benefits isn’t discriminatory.
Consider the results of your reasoning: We could decide that all Jews couldn’t get married because they followed an apostate religion. If they got married, they might raise Jewish babies!! Think of the children! Jewish marriage wouldn’t be “illegal”; Jews could get married in thier synagogues, but the social benefits to marriage would be reserved for Christians. Surely they could just convert to Christianity and then get married in terms of the law. In fact, by only allowing them to get married if they are Christian we would be promoting Christian marriage, and thus good morality, which is necessary for our society to survive. God has spoken that Christianity is the right religion and we have a duty to promote marriages that promote this ideal.
Ick.
I found this comment above very interesting:
“Drinking coffee is wrong for me because I have covenanted not to drink coffee. It isn’t wrong to drink coffee outside of this covenant. I therefore think drinking coffee is wrong, but I do not support legally prohibiting coffee. Homosexuality, though, is wrong regardless of any covenant made.”
Lawyers will recognize that this tracks the old “malum prohibitum” and “malum in se” distinction. But I wanted to focus on the religious aspect of it.
The only way I know that God does not approve of homosexuality is the scripture and teachings of the prophets. Which is the only way that I know that “hot drinks” are not for the body. Further, I have never understood that I covenanted to obey specific commandments, and I obey others just out of recognition of their intrinsic wrongness. As I understand it, my part of the covenant is to obey all of God’s commandments.
So what does it mean to say that homosexuality is “wrong regardless of any covenant made”?
Are there things that are morally “wrong” that do not violate any of God’s commandments?
Good question, Greg. If a prophet drank wine in Old Testament times, was he breaking a commandment? On the broader level, are all laws eternal, natural-law-like principles waiting to be discovered? Or are they positive, existing only after a prophet has stated them? Or are they a mix? And if so, how can we tell which are which?
Hi Greg,
I’m not committed to my proposition on the promiscuity of gays, and admit it may be based on assumptions that are untrue. And if it’s true that men are more likely to cheat than are women, then you are right that lesbian relationships should have less cheating than heterosexual relationships.
As for the claim about men wanting more sex, I’ve never met a man or woman who didn’t think this was true. When Jay Leno sends an attractive woman to walk up to a man and say, “Do you want to go make love right now?” the number of men who accept are really high. When an attractive man does the same thing, he gets much worse (and painful) results. I’m not convinced that the transaction costs of pregnancy are the reason women desire fewer casual sexual encounters than men do, but it is the accepted hypothesis-of-the-hour.
The basic hypothesis is that because women can only reproduce, at most, about once a year, whereas men can reproduce twice a day, they have different strategies to optimize the perpetuation of their genes. Women must ensure that her small number of offspring survive to reproduce, so she is more concerned about nurturing, and looks for a mate who will help her protect her children. Men, on the other hand, best spread their genes by producing as many children as possible.
Thanks to you and Nate for the information on the history of polygamous marriages. I concede that they are disanalogous to the situation of gays.
Is it your belief that gays are more promiscuous due to government’s failure to legitimate their relationships?
Finally, if you think the solution to the gay promiscuity problem is government-recognized gay marriage, how should government solve the teenage promiscuity epidemic?
Shame on Matt, Nate, et al. for creating a blog that is so darn interesting, it’s going to force me to waste even more time on the internet than I already do. :>
Does anyone really read the “comments” this far down?
Aaron B
Hurray! The great Aaron Brown has seen fit to grace our little corner of the internet with his presence.
I didn’t question the proposition that men want sex more than women — I was only mildly questioning the assumption that such a state of affairs is biologically determined.
I understand the transaction costs argument, I just think, like you seem to, it is not all that compelling.
It is not my position that gays are more promiscuous due to government’s failure to recognize their relationships. My two points are:
(1) I’m totally unconvinced that both gay men and gay women are provably more promiscuous that heterosexual men and women when factors other than sexual preference are controlled for. It doesn’t make sense to me as a matter or logic or experience, and Kaimi’s link shows that the statistics have not borne it out.
(2) Even if it were true that gays are more promiscuous, it is reasonable to question whether that promiscuity might be an effect of the government’s position before we use it as the justification for the government’s position. All of the anti-SSM people talk about the social meaning and importance of what the government recognizes or doesn’t recognize. If there is so much “meaning” at stake, how can we be so confident that the government saying that gay relationships are not valued does not hurt gay relationships?
It amazes me, on one level that we are even having this discussion. Can anyone imagine having to argue whether marriage should only be between men and women a hundred years ago or even fifty years ago? What is more, those who oppose SSM are being forced to provide justification for the what has been the building block of society since Adam and Eve left the garden. Although I certainly believe that many, many reasons exist which justify if not require that marriage be confined the heterosexual coupling, I am somewhat troubled that we even need to provide them.
Of course, this is not surprising given the current state of things where “rights” override responsibility, where selfishness and self-gratification drown out selflessness and self-restraint. I do not believe the culture war, including the battle over same-sex marriage, will be won without a return to a basic societal acceptance of basic morals and the existence of absolute truth. Those who favor SSM cannot be convinced. Regardless of the evidence presented, their cause will be pushed ever forward until society is forced to claim, no matter how false it is, that there are no differences between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. Even human physiology is meaningless to the ever growing need to promote doing whatever feels good whenever it feels good, however it feels good.
In Matt’s post on Marriage and Constitutional Protection, Gordon notes that the argument that homosexuality is immoral and/or deviant or unnatural behavior is no longer on the table. That is the primary reason why we are even really having a debate about SSM, because we are not “allowed” to discuss the heart of the matter, and I don’t just mean homosexuality, but the issue of sexual morality itself. Mentioning how society might be benefited if persons willingly confined their sexual relations to the married state is met with more than just mild rebuke and mockery. Teaching abstinence as the most effective means of preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs is ridiculed and criticized. Undoubtedly, this comment will be met with some negative reaction, but I think it is important to start at the base, what are our personal obligations to be sexually chaste and what should society expect of its citizens and promote as the ideal. I think that really is the heart of the matter.
Hurrah for Brent, who just diffused the rant I had coming on. I couldn’t agree more.
You say that people ought to confine their relationships to the married state. The gay “marriage” crowd will argue that’s just what they’re trying to do. And they’re wrong.
Relabeling one’s homosexual encounters as “marriage” no more removes the immorality than does declaring all teenagers to be “married” and at a stroke resolving a worrisome moral problem.
Hi Greg,
I just wanted to point out that Volokh’s posts on gay promiscuity were based on researchers using the mean or median to report the number of gays’ sexual partners. The reliable research still finds that almost all gays were more promiscuous than straights, and that 15% of gays report having more than 100 partners per year.
As for your second point, the personal story of the bisexual man who emailed Volokh (http://volokh.com/2003_05_18_volokh_archive.html,post titled “Testimony on Gay Partner Counts”) is enlightening. He had anonymous sex with a few hundred men every year, and several women, who he says are much harder to woo into bed.
Because this guy was bisexual (as were many of his male partners, apparently), he could have married, as he has since done, rather than have sex with 10 men per week. For some reason, he chose to lead a highly promiscuous life even when marriage was available to him. This makes it hard for me to believe his promiscuity, or that of the more than 200 nightly participants at the bathhouse he frequented, had anything to do with the government’s definition of marriage.
More damning to the theory that gay marriage would change the gay rates of promiscuity is the alarmingly large number of heterosexuals that are choosing multiple sexual partners over marriage.
I don’t know if this bears mentioning here or below as a comment to Adam’s post about the Christmas Devotional, but I was struck by President Hinkley’s comments about the traditional family during his devotional address. I wanted to verify that I heard him correctly. Although the transcript of the talk is not out, the Deseret News reports at this link on his comments:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,565037304,00.html
It is interesting that he took the occasion to decry the attack on the institution of the traditional family. He made clear scripural teachings on marriage too. He seemed to offer something of a warning too, stating that when Sodom and Gomorrah did “that which was evil and abominable in the sight of God . . . It was Jehovah, speaking through his prophets, who decried evil and pleaded for righteousness. When there was no repentance, it was his withering hand that destroyed them.”
Brent,
“It amazes me on one level that we are even having this discussion. Can anyone imagine having to argue whether marriage should only be between men and women a hundred years ago or even fifty years ago?”
(Satire switch clicked ON.)
Why yes, quite easily. In fact, I don’t have to imagine it; I can document it at great length. As far back as the 1860s, 70s, 80s and 90s, a great many serious, intelligent and pious people struggled to articulate the reasons why “marriage should only be between [one man] and [one woman].” And it was imperative that they do so: the Mormons, with their corrupt, barbaric, uncivilized, abusive, licentious harem-building practices, were challenging nothing less than “the building block of society” (namely, the Victorian model of marriage). Thank heavens for the Edmunds-Tucker Act, or else the very word “marriage” may have lost all meaning!
(Satire switch clicked OFF.)
Before you say it, let me say it (again!): I know this analogy is weak. Moreover, I cannot agree with you more that our society’s ability to talk about issues of morality has been corrupted (though I hope not fatally) by our disposition to think in terms of “rights” rather than collective and/or historical responsibilities. Truly the “heart of the matter,” as you put it, isn’t just homosexuality, “but the issue of sexual morality itself.” And I am very sympathetic to arguments against same-sex marriage which are grounded firmly on scriptural edicts which demonstrate that homosexuality is a sin which God hates. (In other words, I see no obvious reason why we shouldn’t take explicitly religious arguments to be politically meaningful on their own terms, contra Nate’s suspicion of what he somewhat dismissively calls “civic religion.”) In any case, that is one way to criticize same-sex marriages; but to speak, on the other hand, about the “natural” family and “traditional” gender roles and the foundation of “social relations” is NOT to make such arguments or criticisms. Rather, it is to reify God’s words into more conventional normative imperatives, ones grounded in “natural” goods. If that is the direction Mormon theology is going, so be it: it’s not like it’s necessarily a bad direction to go in. But given the highly non-traditional, “a-natural” arguments which many Mormons historically made in favor of plural marriage (which were, essentially, “Hey, God just commanded us to do this; why don’t you leave the Utah Territory alone?”), I wouldn’t expect that re-orientation in our theological direction to take place entirely smoothly.
Hi Matt,
I have seen no reliable research that indicates that when all other factors are controlled for (ie, gender, wealth, race, class, geography, education level, education of parents, one parent/two parent, sexual attractiveness) that “almost all gays are more promiscuous than straights” (admittedly, I haven’t aggressively sought it out). And this statement surely needs to be qualified as “than *most* straights.”
As for the bisexual anectode, have you read Wilt Chamberlain’s autobiography? If you do the math, you’ll see he was probably as active as that bisexual. More importantly, anecdotes don’t really do it for me. If that was my criteria, I would be MORE in favor of gay marriage, because almost all the gays I know are in long term, monogamous relationships, and simply want the same kind of employee benefits and estate protections that I have.
On your second point, I don’t really understand your argument. I said, “Maybe gays are more promiscuous (assuming they are) because they aren’t allowed to get married.” You said, “Not true, because look at this bisexual who could have been married that was very promiscuous” and “an alarming number of straights” are promiscuous. There is a logical fallacy in there somewhere. I was talking about a class of people that cannot get married and what effect that may have. In response, you argued that some people that *can* get married are very promiscuous. I’ll grant you that some heterosexuals, some homosexuals, and some bisexuals are very promiscuous (in fact, that’s close to what I’ve been arguing all along) but that does not counter my hypothesis.
Like Gordon, I am still awaiting a good argument against SSM. I don’t think the “argument from promiscuity” holds water.
Here’s a good argument: Homosexual and lesbian “marriage” is wrong. It offends God and delights the devil.
Here’s my question to those on this board who can tolerate same-sex “marriage:” What’s wrong with homosexuality itself?
Isn’t it true that many of the arguments turn out to parallel the arguments you reject against gay “marriage”? Do you think that the divine disgust with homosexual acts is just an arbitrary test of obedience? (Seriously, is that your position? If it is, let me know. I’m not going to throw up my hands in horror. Though I would be severely tempted. :) )
Another difference between polygamy and same-sex “marriage.”
Polygamy has survived and thrived in cultures world-wide. It has problems–I don’t know that I’m real eager to shoehorn it onto a culture that grown up without it–but it’s been tried.
Too my knowledge, no society anywhere has tried to make gay relationships into marriage. That should give us pause.
Adam:
“Gay marriage offends God” *is* the best argument I have heard. It is the only one I’ve struggled with.
Of course, this “argument” is really only the first premise of the argument. I assume your conclusion is “…therefore I should exert any political or other influence I have to prevent it from being allowed by my government.” If so, your missing premise is “If something offends God, I should exert any political or other influence I have to prevent it from being allowed by my government.”
Thus, even if my faith leads me to accept the first premise, the second, missing premise needs a little more support for me before the argument carries the day.
Adam:
“Polygamy has survived and thrived in cultures world-wide….Too my knowledge, no society anywhere has tried to make gay relationships into marriage.”
Homosexual relationships (even pedophiliac ones) were, according to the best evidence available, both quite public and quite durable in many ancient Greek states. (Another reason not to trust in “tradition”…)
I think part of the problem with looking to history for answers or precedents is that homosexuality was constructed differently up until recently. It was not an identity, but an act. I enjoy playing soccer, but “soccer-player” is not one of my identities. Similarly, Greeks and Romans (AFAIK) frequently engaged in homosexual acts, yet would probably not have considered themselves homosexual the way our culture defines it.
This is also why (regarding my previous post) we find no single word for “homosexual” or “gay” in the Bible- the concept didn’t exist for them. Hence the Hebrew “lying with a woman as with a man” and the Greek, which has two words, one for the active participant, and one for the passive participant.
Martha Nussbaum actually wrote a long article on the relevance of Greek homosexuality for current debates about homosexuality. Here conclusion was that it was irrelevant.
By no means do I mean to imply that you supporters of gay “marriage” are allied with the Prince of Darkness. I apologize if my penultimate post phrased things a little strong.
Greg:
The debate about what moral commandments are to be enforced is a long one. I don’t intend to reenact it here. I only reiterate my first point: when we try to give ‘social science’ arguments against gay “marriage,” you shut them down as unconvincing. But these are the same sorts of arguments that seem to make sense of being against homosexuality at all. I want to know why you don’t reject those arguments in the second context.
Homosexual relationships, while common, were not given legal status in Greece or Rome or wherever. They were certainly not considered “marriages.”
Who is Martha Nussbaum, that I should be mindful of her?
Martha Nussbaum is one of the campus gods at the University of Chicago (my school:), where she teaches in the Law school, Divinity School, and Philosophy department.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/nussbaum/
I haven’t read her paper, but what I was trying to say was that such appeals to history for the commonality of homosexuality are irrelevant to us.
Adam:
You said, “When we try to give ‘social science’ arguments against gay “marriage,” you shut them down as unconvincing. But these are the same sorts of arguments that seem to make sense of being against homosexuality at all. I want to know why you don’t reject those arguments in the second context.”
As I tried to make clear in an earlier post, the *only* reason I have for thinking homosexuality is immoral is God’s word (I said: “The only way I know that God does not approve of homosexuality is the scriptures and teachings of the prophets.”) I *do* reject “social science” arguments against homosexuality.
Hi Greg,
I’m not aware of any studies trying to figure out if the reason gays are more promiscuous is due to their sexual orientation, only studies that show gays are indeed more promiscuous than straights. Promiscuity and gay homosexuality are positively correlated but, as is always the case, proving causality would be much harder.
According the study Volokh relied on to disprove the myth of gay hyper-promiscuity, “only” 15% of gays report having more than 100 sexual partners. Regarding the median, Volokh writes: “the median American gay male does have somewhat more sexual partners than the median American straight male (likely 10-20 lifetime partners for gays as opposed to 5-10 for straights).”
Also, I think you dismiss the bisexual’s testimonial on Volokh prematurely. It isn’t just an anecdote, at least not in the sense of it being a single data point. Wilt Chamberlain’s claim that he slept with 15,000 women was a single data point. Volokh’s contributor, on the other hand, claims to have witnessed hundreds of men engaged in anonymous group sex every week, and to have had averaged “several partners” per visit and averaged three visits per week “in the 1970s and 80s.” I know of no parallel heterosexuals. And, judging from the conversations of my red-blooded heterosexual friends at my law firm, they don’t know of any such place either. They visited Hedonism Resort when they were in the Carribean, but said men outnumbered women and the women were unattractive.
Anyway, we got on this topic, remember, because I expressed doubt that gay promiscuity was attributable to our marriage laws. I still see no reason to think that the government’s failure to recognize gay marriage is the cause of the bathhouse culture or gay promiscuity.
As for your gay friends, I put little weight on their claims to be monogamous. It’s unusual for people in meaningful relationships to admit they’re cheating on their partner, for fear that it will upend their relationship. Of the several people I know who have cheated, I’m certain all of them would have claimed to be strong supporters of monogamy.
Further, your gay friends probably have the same employee benefits you do. All large law firms, and most large companies, have recognized same-sex partners for several years now. Your friends can also create whatever estate protections they’d like.
What your gay friends really want is for society to condone their behavior. This is something I’m unwilling to do, just as I refuse to endorse the sexual immorality of other persons with different sexual orientations, such as familial sexual orientation, polyamorous sexual orientation, pederastry, or pedophilia. In all cases I refuse to embrace the immoral behavior, despite knowing how difficult it must be to cope with the inevitable frustration for those born with strong sexual desires to engage in the immoral conduct.
Greg, the most frustrating thing about debating the issue of homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage is that those who are predisposed to favor SSM and/or other so-called homosexual “rights” always tend to reject any evidence or arguments, whether based in social science or otherwise, as unpersuasive or suspect. There is little hope of convincing someone who is unwilling to be convinced. And so I am curious why you would reject social science arguments and/or evidence against homosexuality? Are there any arguments or class of arguments that could persuade you, besides the doctrinal ones?
Russell, I don’t believe the polygamy issue is as big a problem as you seem to think it is. First, the teaching was, and always has been, marriage is to be between one man and one woman, EXCEPT, as Matt pointed out, when God ordains otherwise. Even when He has, polygamy has been more the exception than the rule. Besides, even polygamy involves the coupling of men and women, which is more closely related to the “natural” or “traditional” state of things (i.e. only men and women can actually engage in sexual intercourse). In fact, Maggie Gallagher has actually said that rather than be one of the slippery slope horrors of SSM, polygamy is actually preferable to SSM because it preserves the roles of mother and father. I understand the claims you are making and why, in some ways, it may be in fact philosophically “difficult” for Latter-day Saints to argue solely in favor of “traditional marriage” even if such difficulties do not arise in opposing SSM.
Hi Greg,
I thought Adam had a good point — Why do you think God forbids homosexuality? Simply put, is it an arbitrary test of obedience, or is homosexuality contrary to the law of happiness?
Also, do you reject social science arguments categorically (social science is incapable of providing reasons against SSM) or were you merely saying that from the research you’ve read, no harms have been demonstrated?
Adam:
You consistently talk about gay promiscuity, and then cite studies about the promiscuity of gay males. So would you be favor of lesbian marriage only? The argument just does not work.
Just to clarify, we got on this topic because you made the claim “The Mormon polygamists were much more likely to be faithful within their marriages, and less likely to divorce, than gays are/will be.”
I responded that (1) I dubious of this general, unqualified statement of fact about gays; and (2) even if it were so, we may wish to explore cause and effect issues before we use it as justification for fighting SSM. Mine are fairly mild points.
Some gay couples might have many of the benefits of marriage, some don’t (gay couples working for Provo City?). That is irrelevant to the main point I was making when I mentioned gay friends –I can toss out anecdotes as well as you can.
Brent: You mention “arguments against homosexuality.” I do think homosexual acts are against God’s will, so I don’t need or care about any arguments on that.
If you are talking about arguments against gay marriage, I would be open to any argument at all, its just that all of those that I’ve heard so far have are weak. My posts above are an attempt to explain one reason why I think this argument is weak: “Gays are more likely to get divorced than straights, therefore they should not be allowed to marry.”
I am not “unwilling to be convinced,” but it will take a better argument than that.
Hi Greg,
I believe your previous comments were directed to me, not Adam.
To follow the chain of the promiscuity argument back further, my comment about promiscuity was offered as a one sentence explanation to Kaimi’s request for a likely adverse effect of SSM that didn’t exist with polygamy. Here’s my complete response:
“2. The Mormon polygamists were much more likely to be faithful within their marriages, and less likely to divorce, than gays are/will be. More important than the strength of the average marriage post-SSM, however, is the certainty that the rationale for gay marriage will envelope so many other groups (those with familial and polyamorous sexual orientations, to name two) that marriage will eventually spread so thin as to have almost no cultural meaning. It’s cultural meaning is already so compromised, with 33% of white and 69% of black babies being born to women without husbands (and no, they’re not all lesbians).”
Relating back to your last comment, are you expecting that organizations (i.e., Provo City) that don’t want to recognize gay marriages will be forced to do so?
Hi Matt (and sorry for misdirecting my earlier comments to Adam):
Thanks for putting the point back in it original context. I see that you thought the “diffusion of the meaning of marriage” was the better argument. Of course, I have my trouble with that one too, but I do agree that it is a better argument than the former.
I do not reject any arguments categorically, I just haven’t seen a strong argument yet. (And just to be clear, I don’t know that I have really read any primary “research” on the issue, just arguments based on the research.)
I don’t know what the outcome or effect of this cultural and legal battle will be. It will be a long time before federal or state law will require Provo City to give same sex partners the same benefits they give spouses, if it ever does happen. I may be wrong, but I think that California law already does require such, though there is no gay “marriage”.
Lastly, on your earlier question, about why homosexual acts are sinful. Are any commandments just random tests of obedience? I never thought so. Even if we don’t know the rationale for a particular commandment (i.e. don’t drink coffee) that doesn’t mean it’s a random test of obedience. So yes, I believe homosexual acts are “contrary to the laws of happiness.”
Hi Greg,
If homosexual acts are contrary to the law of happiness, then we can know that the social science research will eventually show that societies that encourage or condone homosexual behavior are worse off than those that do not.
Members of the church (and common sense) knew that divorce hurt children long before the studies came out showing genuine harm. And even now that there is a strong consensus, political concerns — especially the fear of giving someone cause to question their own judgment, there is still disagreement on the effects of divorce. Because I knew that divorce was contrary to the laws of happiness, I’ve always known that science would ultimately demonstrate tangible harms.
For this reason society should have a strong presumption against divorce (though divorce is of course necessary because it is sometimes the lesser of two evils — better to be alive in a divorced family than dead in an abusive one).
Same with alcohol and tobacco. It’s taken science a long time to figure out what Heber J. Grant preached 75 years ago, that they harm the user and others. Fortunately, society and government now has a strong presumption against tobacco, through smoking laws and sin taxes, and a less robust, though meaningful, presumption against alcohol.
One of the benefits of having God reveal truths to us is that we don’t have to rely on scientific studies to prove which behaviors and attitudes lead to happiness. People who know those truths have a duty to tell others where the road leads.
Those who knew that tobacco, alcohol, or divorce were harmful, yet refused to act on that knowledge, did their fellowmen no service.
Mormons should be at the forefront, warning society where a neutral or condoning response toward homosexual behavior leads. Society is completely unwilling to discourage homosexual acts, and societies refusal to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions is the last signal of homosexuality’s harm.
What gays really want is for those signals to go away. They mistakenly blame the messenger, not realizing that the laws of happiness are not contingent upon societal approval or the laws of men. Even if the whole world embraced homosexual acts, homosexual acts would not lead to happiness.
Matt,
I certainly feel your concern for the happiness and well-being of society at large. However, I am not sure that one can demonstrate that homosexuals are less happy than any one else. Don’t SLC Mormons have the highest prozac consumption per capita?
When you say, “societies that encourage or condone homosexual behavior are worse off than those that do not,” I wonder how exactly you would measure this? When I look at nations that have no tolerance for homosexuality, like Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc., I don’t see them as better off. Is there some empirical evidence that I am missing.
Recently this discussion has attempted to turn the tables by arguing that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore homosexual marriage is wrong (I am not convinced that the link is as obvious as you think it is). However, if homosexuality is wrong, shouldn’t it be illegal? Wouldn’t this be the best way of accomplishing your goals of a happier society?
Taylor,
I think the claim is that homosexuality makes things worse all other things being equal. Saddling us with Iraq, etc., is a debater’s trick no more reputable than saddling vegetarianism with Adolf Hitler.
The prozac argument is a red herring. I don’t know if it rises above the level of urban myth. Even if it does, there’s a problem with causation and with the assumption that living a life calculated to lead a person to infinite, eternal, and ever-increasing happiness will result in a current life that is relatively easeful and free from fret.
Finally, one battle at a time. We’ll worry about homosexual acts when and if it becomes politically feasible. Again, if the social science arguments against homosexual “marriage” are invalid, than why are the social science arguments against homosexual lifestyles not equally invalid? If they are equally invalid, then why does God care about homosexual acts?
You and Greg start with a presumption in favor of gay “marriage” and then ask for social science evidence persuasive enough to overcome the presumption.
Matt and I start with a presumption that divine command is rational and so are more willing to accept the social science evidence without making it pass every possible test.
Adam,
I don’t think Iraq is a “debater’s trick.” The claim as I understood it was an empirical claim that societies which do not have/discourage homosexuality are better. I find no evidence for this claim. If a vegitarian claimed that vegitarians were better people, more happy, raised better children, and societies that encouraged vegitarianism were better, then I would ask for empirical evidence of such a claim too. I don’t think Adolf Hitler proves that vegitarianism is bad, only that claims that vegitarians are necessarily better people is false.
The Prozac study was conducted in conducted in June of 2001 by Express Scripts, a pharmacy benefit management firm. There may be other explanations for it, but I think it is pretty good evidence that Mormons aren’t demonstrably happier than anyone else. The Gospel has brought a great deal of happiness to me in my life, and I beleive that it can do the same for others. However, I also beleive the Gospel is about suffering. When Christ said his disciples had to take up the cross, he wasn’t inviting them to a birthday party.
Regarding homosexual acts, the court decision that may them legal was very recent! Why isn’t there a lobby to make a constitutional ammendment? Why was there not a big rally in the LDS community then? I presume that it is because while many Mormons think that it is immoral, they don’t think it should be illegal. For me this demonstates the central thesis of what lies behind my own questions on this topic, wonderfully illustrated by Greg: even if God opposes it, it does not logically follow that it must be prohibited through legal and political means. This seems to be the heart of the assumptions that you are making. We have all agree that homosexuality is immoral, but I want to understand your assumption about why it should be illegal (even though you don’t think there is political motivation for this).
You ask about social science arguments. I dont’ recall ever asking for these arguments. I don’t think that they are a priori invalid, I just find that most of them are done poorly. However, I don’t think that they are relevant to the debate of what is moral or not. How exactly would social science arguments shed any light on morality? This seems to be outside of the scope of its abilities. God has revealed it. I take that to be authoritative for my own life.
Taylor, with all due respect, I don’t think that the appeals to Iraq, Syria, etc. are that good. If we are really interested in singling out the effect of a single practice on societal welfare we would need to control for all other factors. The question is, after controlling for those factors, what the effect of homosexuality is.
My sense is that as an emperical matter this is probably unknowable on a macro, societal scale. This would be a fair point. Suggesting that the argument is invalid because Syria is a rotten place, doesn’t seem that relevant.
Nate, you’re absolutely right that there is no possibility of knowing whether homosexuality has a negative effect on society at large. Matt’s argument wasn’t qualified to be “when all other variables are controlled for…” He claimed that “societies which condone homosexuality are worse off.” I asked how he could possibly measure such an unqualified statement, and argued that in its unqualified form it didn’t seem to be true.
Taylor,
You make a good point in your observation that while church members believe homosexuality is immoral, they likely don’t want it to be illegal. But your analogy is flawed. Under previous law, a person choosing to engage in homosexual acts could be criminalized, and put in jail. Applying that to gay “marriage” assumes that a gay couple who marries will be criminalized and thrown in jail. That is not the case, and your analogy fails. The laws prohibiting homosexuality seemed to infringe on a person’s right to choose their own behavior by criminalizing that behavior. Quite a harsh result in our society. Especially when we value moral agency as highly as we do. Prohibiting gay “marriage”, on the other hand, does not criminalize any behavior protected by moral agency.
Gay “marriage” should remain illegal because it is immoral AND because a super-majority of people support and want their government to encourage marriage between a man and a woman who will hopefully, but not necessarily, have children and raise them to be responsible citizens. The existence of alternative forms of family is irrelevant to the support of the people’s ideal.
Your problem seems to be with morality in government. But in a government run by the people, who are, hopefully, inherently moral, morality in government is expected, and in fact, necessary.
Hi Matt,
I take it the core of your argument for the “second proposition” is: “Mormons should be at the forefront, warning society where a neutral or condoning response toward homosexual behavior leads. Society is completely unwilling to discourage homosexual acts, and societies refusal to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions is the last signal of homosexuality’s harm.”
If we are mostly concerned with signals and “condoning,” are you amenable to “civil unions” that give same sex couples all of the rights that married couples have without calling them “married” (and thus preserving societies shaming of them)?
Adam: I do not start with a pro-SSM position and then ask for social science arguments to convince me otherwise. I am content to let this very difficult issue be fought out it in the public and legal arena. When anti-SSM people tell me that as a Mormon I ought to stand up and fight for my beliefs and try to prevent SSM from happening, I listen to the reasons (of any kind) that they give for why I should do so. So far, those reasons have not persuaded me to join the crusade against SSM.
Ms. Morality- I argued that criminalizing homosexual behavior is analogous only insofar as it relies on the same argument, namely, immoral acts should not be condoned or permitted in a good society. The illegality of homosexual acts is a consequence of what Matt argues, and what Adam implies as being desirable.
As it regards to homosexual marriage, I am not sure that I couldn’t apply the same logic: I think that it is immoral, but don’t think it should be prohibited by law. This is essentially the way the church handles abortion currently. It is legal, but members are not supposed to engage in it. Why not do the same for homosexual marriage?
I agree with you that the prohibition of homosexual marriage by law is not exactly the same as its criminilization. I agree that it is a social privelege, but I don’t think that we can withhold social priveleges from people on the basis of what we consider to be immoral (especially if their actions aren’t illegal!!). This is the root of my perhaps overly-agressive example above that prohibiting Jewish marriage on the basis of the immorality of the Jewish religion is analogous to the prohibition of homosexual marriage. Alternatively, why not withhold Medicare priveleges from homosexuals? What about public education? All of these are social priveleges too that we don’t think should be withheld from homosexuals. Why is marriage different?
You give three arguments for prohibiting such marriages-
1) homosexuality is immoral- but it does not follow that immoral people shouldn’t be able to get married, or enjoy other social benefits.
2) a “super-majority” of people want it. This may be true, but a super-majority of people once opposed women’s sufferage, abolition of slavery, etc. I don’t think that the majority is necessarily right. I am sympathetic to your concerns of judicial activism, but that is a critique of judicial activism, not the morality of what they are being active about.
3) government should encourage marriages that will hopefully have children. This is an interesting argument that often gets mentioned, but gets little play. Why should the government be concerned with this? Also, you add the caveat that they will hopefully, “but not necessarily” have children. Why make this concession for heterosexual couples only? You argue that it is government that should promote the ideal. But why not churches, etc.? The government allows people to divorce and marry as many times as they want. This isn’t the ideal! Shouldn’t they put limits on divorces and remarriages?
I agree that there is no separating morality from government. The debate is about what limitations we put on that relationship.
Oh yeah, one more thing- if governments permited homosexual marriages, how would that decrease the number of stable heterosexual families in the status quo? would homosexual marriage increase the number of homosexuals? Why?
Taylor,
I have two thoughts to your comments. First, in response to your hesitance to become involved in the anti-SSM issue. A general authority (whom I can only assume received his assignment from an apostle who in turn received his assignment from the prophet, who in turn received his assignment from God) had a conference call with several stake presidents from California (which is where I’m from). The purpose of this phone call was to take action in the anti-SSM cause. As we’re all aware there was a recent proposition passed in California to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Our stake President then went to the Bishops who then went to the congregation asking them to donate their time and money for the cause. Granted, in order to avoid any legal issues the Bishops went to the homes of the members, rather then do so at church. Do we really need another reason to engage in the anti-SSM cause?
Second, your comment:
I think that it is immoral, but don’t think it should be prohibited by law. This is essentially the way the church handles abortion currently. It is legal, but members are not supposed to engage in it. Why not do the same for homosexual marriage?
Maybe you could clarify this for me. Are you saying the church believes abortion should not be prohibited by law? If so, then that’s probably a conversation for another time.
As for the separation ya’ll make between morals and politics, well, I don’t understand it. I can’t argue against it because I just don’t see why you make it.
For me, politics and government only make sense as a stumbling attempt to achieve the good. Moral commandments also make sense that way. So when I recieve a moral commandment, I think that there must be a reason for it and I think the reasons for it will shed new light on how politics can achieve the same goals. Matt’s problem, and mine, is that you reject the reasons for the political measure without explaining what alternate reasons justify moral commandment. Until you can do so, I will continue to think that the reasons substantially overlap and will continue to oppose calling gay relationships marriage.
You seem willing to accept that gay “marriage” is wrong if it has bad effects.
If supporting it, or at the least being the America Firster isolationists of the culture wars, allows it to spread, America will reap an extra measure of divine condemnation. How is that not a bad effect?
Finally, if you purport to be neutral with respect to gay “marriage,” how hasn’t the Church’s action in both Hawaii and California tipped the scales for you?
I told myself I was done with this thread, but I couldn’t resist pointing out a statistic that undermines the “argument from promiscuity”:
“The available evidence from Vermont, where civil unions have been legal since July 1, 2000, seems to support [Dahlia] Lithwick’s point [about gay marriage not hurting the institution].
“The data is sketchy, since the state doesn’t track non-residents’ unions: of the 6,518 couples joined so far, only 925 are Vermonters. But of those, just 25 have dissolved their unions–or 2.7 percent. By comparison the divorce rate among heterosexuals after four years is 10 percent.”
(http://www.beliefnet.com/story/122/story_12259_1.html#esquire)
Like I’ve said, I don’t really care about statistics on this issue because I don’t think you can accurately control for everything, but this leads me to wonder — what if the statistics (which cannot measure eternal happiness) begin to show that gay marriage works fine for society? This may be a danger of relying on social science; I think the anti-SSM crowd is better off relying on religious or legal arguments.
Taylor, you ask “if governments permited homosexual marriages, how would that decrease the number of stable heterosexual families in the status quo? would homosexual marriage increase the number of homosexuals? Why?”
As to your first question, SSM would relegate traditional marriage to just another lifestyle choice instead of “the” primary structure for society. Furthermore, it cause homosexuality to be viewed as equal with heterosexuality. This view could then be, indeed would likely be required to be, the stated public position on things. What would become of concepts such as mother and father? These would likely be watered down or eliminated. As societal norms and expectations (e.g. marriage) shift, then people’s behavior will change. Just look at the impact no-fault divorce has had on reducing the number of stable traditional marriages and families. SSM would further weaken the marriage institution as it presently exists and ultimately would lead to fewer traditional families.
As to your second question, I think homosexual marriage would increase the number of homosexuals. I believe the larger number we hear about and see in society today is not merely the result of a more accepting society causing once closeted homosexuals to “out” themselves. I have read a sufficient number of studies and enough anecdotal evidence that show that many, indeed probably a high majority of homosexuals were initiated by an older person of the same-sex sometime in childhood or adolescence. There appears to be a large “recruitment” type mentality in the homosexual community. Elevating the stature of homsexuality in society by allowing SSM will likely result in further recruitment. To date not a single scientific study has shown that homosexuality is a genetic trait (i.e. no one is truly “born that way”). Even conceding the argument that some people may be born more predisposed than others to homosexual tendencies, SSM would create an environment where such tendencies, rather than be suppressed, instead would be promoted and celebrated. Is that what we want? Do we want to promote people being slaves to their appetites and predilictions?
Many people take their cues on what is right an wrong based on what the law allows. Society then needs to provide a proper set of rules, regulations and benefits based on good principles. A majority currently favors that. Opposition to SSM at this point is mostly just opposition to judicial tyranny.
Churches obviously should promote the ideal but even they are becoming corrupted (see the Gene Robinson/Episcopal Church scandal). Regardless, because we are talking about government benefits, we are left to debate why the government should promote heterosexual marriage as the ideal.
Greg, your statistics doesn’t undermine the argument for promiscuity. The statistic shows that 2.7 percent of Vermont civil unions dissolved such unions. It doesn’t show how many of those unions remained in exclusively monogamous relationships. Remember, one of the arguments against SSM is that the homosexual lifestyle being one that is more promiscuous brings a more open type of relationship that does not adhere to the traditional understanding that marriages are to be monogamous. Again, the studies that exist “prove” that “committed” homosexual couples stray more often than “committed” hetersexual couples. Indeed some studies have even shown that homosexual couples have, as a condition of their “committment” that each be allowed to engage in sexual activities outside of the primary relationship. This is what alarms people. Do we want to change the character of marriage beyond just the sex of those who may enter into it? There are many SSM advocates who actually write about their main goal as being the abolition of marriage as we know it.
Brent, If you are surprised that some homosexual couples agree to allow sexual activity outside of marriage, you should get out more. I have heterosexual friends who have the same “deal” with their spouses. It does alarm and sadden me, but it doesn’t make me want to prevent them from marrying in the first place.
Greg,
The moral failings of your friends don’t really answer the question. The real question isn’t whether some people have open marriages. It’s whether gay “marriages” are more likely to be open. I think they are. I think such openness may explain your lower disunion figures. That, and pressure from the gay community not to give their opponents some ammunition.
Also, in many ways gays themselves are less concerned with the gay “marriage” debate because they want to or feel any pressure to get married, but rather because they want the legitimation that it implies. (Which means that only a very committed subsection of the population will get married.) The analogy is the the pre-Civil War south, who couldn’t tolerate just being left alone as long as any laws anywhere in the country expressed moral disapproval for their behavior.
Taylor,
The government is concerned about procreation because a government run by the people without any people is really no government at all. And as I’ve said before, the effect of homosexual “marriage” on marriage isn’t the issue here.
The issue is, should gay “marriage”, which is currently illegal, be made legal. The presumption falls in favor of its illegality. It’s not my burden to justify the millenia-old morality that marriage is between a man and a woman. The burden falls on you to prove gay “marriage” should be legalized.
So, can you do that? The church encourages civil marriage becuase it has the potential to become an eternal covenant. That is the theological purpose of marriage. Gay “marriage” has no chance for the eternal progression a covenant promises. What is your purpose of marriage? Balancing the eternal purposes of marriage, are you really keen on giving up our reflection of sexual morality for theoretical sociological advantages? I hardly see how the trade off is worth it.
I just ran into this discussion, and it is fascinating. I am gay, have had a partner for 11 years, and have wondered about how members of LDS might view the discussion about gay marriage in light of LDS’ history with regards to polygamy.
I am not LDS (or Christian for that matter), but I respect its institutions and beliefs.
I would largely agree with those posters who state that there is no historical equivalent for modern gay and lesbian institutions in history. The ancient greeks had two words for homosexuality because it was, in essence, a way for younger boys/men to apprentice. It would be acceptable for a boy between age 12-21 years to have an older lover. The lover would generally be between 22-35. Both would be expected to marry women and bear children. A young man who continued the partnership beyond 21, or the older man who continued beyond 35, would be seen in Greek society as “pathetic.” Modern persons would undoubtedly view such ancient relationships as “child molestation.”
It is interesting how times do change.
Hi Robert,
I hope you have found the discussion helpful; it is my observation (borne out in part by the comments on this thread) that many church members are deeply conflicted over the propriety of gay marriage, given the church’s polygamous past.
Hi Kaimi,
I just found your comment to Robert.
If polygamy raises troubling issues for many church members about gay marriage, why doesn’t polygamy raise the same troubling issues for familial and group marriages?
What features do polygamous and gay marriage share that familial and group marriages don’t?
Again…I recommend the just published:
“Getting it Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality” by the Family Research Council
Just some words from the Evil Netherlands where Gay-marriage was first legalized. I believe and some members with me that if gay-marriage is accepted and for muslims polygamy is permitted (or at least not persecuted since there is no such thing as unlawful cohabitation over here), then why should formal polygamy stay forbidden?
Not that we want that, one mother-in-law is enough for me at least. Enough jest, The dutch government has in the last 10 years legalized: Gay-marriage, Prostitution (yes they pay taxes just like you and me, and if you visit them for business you can get a receipt to get the VAT back), Pot-smoking, XTC-use and euthanasia.
So in a few years we can expect Polygamy added to this list. Well-educated polygamous so-called “mormons” welcome to your new hide-out.
It makes me vomit……….Utah wish I was there.
Found this discussion while browsing for comparisons between polygamy and SSM. Also found this interesting link regarding the “tradition” of marriage.
http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html
And in a related vein – it surprised me that so many US States recently had antimiscegenation laws still on the books.
http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/3208-1.html
And I don’t think anyone has mentioned the 14th Amendment – it’s equal protection clause appears relevant to the Government extending SSM rights routinely given to heterosexual marriages.
As a gay man surrounded by Mormon family members, I have come to realize that often those same Mormons who profess love and spirituality are actually some of the most hate-filled people I have ever come across. It seems that a number of people who have posted to this archive certainly fall into that category – maybe it’s just me, but I don’t sense any love or compassion in many of these posts, only self-righteousness.
Is this really what Jesus taught and stood for? Or is it just the church that stands for so much hate?
Our only consolation in the face of all this hate is the certain knowledge that you are losing the battle. Fifty years ago, when a person was “outed”, he/she lost their job, faced criminal prosecution, and was pronounced mentally ill. Even after fifty years of resistance and hate from conservative Christians, most companies today offer pro-active programs like domestic partnership benefits to hire homosexual employees, instead of firing them. You lost that battle, just like you have lost every other battle in your war of hate against people you don’t like.
Even twenty years ago, no president even acknowledged gay/lesbian issues within the country. Today, these issues are an election-year focus.
Given your track record, do you really think you will win this battle on marriage? You can do everything you can to slow it down, but in the end goodness, mercy, and love will prevail.
As it should – because wasn’t this Christ’s message? Perhaps I haven’t studied scripture as much as many of you, but isn’t it true that Christ’s message included many admonitions to love, but not a single one against homosexuality? But Jesus was an outspoken man, not at all timid to speak out on social issues, so it follows that he did not think this was nearly the serious issue that the LDS church ascribes to it. It was the church leaders who followed Jesus who turned a message of love into one of hate.
Steve,
Thanks for your post. I think that we all here can agree that justice, love and mercy will prevail. I want you to know that I have several friends who are openly homosexual, and I have nothing but respect for them and their very Christian natures. However, I do think that reasonable, non-hateful folks can disagree on this issue. I am actively mobilizing the Mormon community to vote for a constitutional amendment. However, I would hope that my friends who choose a homosexual lifestyle, and you, would not take political disagreement as a sign of hate.
Lyle,
Sorry, I missed the love in your post.
Lyle,
Sorry, I missed the love in your post.
Steve, it was nice to hear your comments. I know how sensitive an issue this is – on both sides. Instead of The Passion being all about Christ’s suffering, I always thought it would be interesting to see a film that focussed on the ironic aspects of Christ coming down and dissing established religion. I am sure there could be lots to play with there, especially if you don’t assume his teachings after his ressurection were solely about how to establish his church. Of course like anyone, I think people tend to see what they want / don’t want from the scriptures.
Looking at the debates on gay marriage on TV, I must say most of the fundamental Christian arguments do embarass me. However on the other side of things, I think it is always harder to try and maintain a position than attack it. Hence I think the whole debate is slighly tilted in favour of change than against it. I think the bigger question you brought up though, is how can someone say no to something and still be interpreted as “full of love”? Like you I get frustrated by the fact that opposition in anyway to a norm is considered wrong. Of course that argument goes both ways. Personally I feel lots of frustration in the fact that this is considered a free country, and yet if I voice an opinion against a popular view, this opinion is inherently bigotted, immoral, and full of hate.
I do feel sorry that the people around you seem/are full of hate. The more people believe in the absolute correctness of their views, the more they come off as full of hate. Usually scriptural references are given to justify their position, and this seems to do nothing more than entrench both sides. Interestingly enough, a while ago I read that the worst thing that can be done in negotiations is bring two groups together than have no common ground. Unless there is a way to see the other’s point of view, all that happens is both sides think the other is whacko and end up re-enforcing previous stereotypes.
Just as many religions are prone to creating zealots, I think any institution that favors writing off another side wholesale has the same potential. So how do you find “love” in people’s comments, I just make sure to look long enough at a post to be able to see the individual letters – there are lots of words that have l’s, o’s , v’s and e’s. It is like scrabble, all I have to do is find a way to put the letters together and I can spell pretty much anything.
Lyle…
I don’t want to monopolize this forum, but I have a serious question for you. I assume you would characterize yourself as a Christian – a follower of Christ. During Christ’s time on earth, he laid out a great number of issues that were important to him. Why don’t you channel your focus and your energies into one of his issues, instead of “actively mobilizing the Mormon community to vote for a constitutional amendment”? Simply put, this was not one of Christ’s instructions to you – he said nothing against homosexuality in any of the scriptures. Aren’t you pre-empting Christ’s priorities with an issue that you are ascribing to him, but in reality is more important to you than it was to him?
The truth is that according to the scriptures, Christ repeatedly taught tolerance of alternative lifestyles. So wouldn’t a better use of your energies as a follower of Christ be to “actively mobilize Mormons” to be increasingly tolerant of individuals outside your religion (as Jesus in fact did)? Wouldn’t your actions along these lines be more of an emulation of Christ’s life?
Nowhere in the gospels did Christ promote or engage in any activity that could be construed as a negative action towards any individual or group of individuals. So why do you think it is important for you to do so, and then ascribe your actions to emulating Christ? Who taught you that this is Christianity?
Steve,
as Mormons we feel able to receive modern directives from Christ instead of relying on the surviving records of his earthly ministry. If I had to rely on the Bible alone I think my interpretation would be different than yours (Christ’s openness and tolerance towards the scribes and the pharisees was rather, ah, energetic), but luckily I don’t.
Have you considered the argument made here, http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000425.html?
Yes, Christ generally reserved any criticisms he made for members of his own religion, not for others.
But how is your interpretation of Christ’s message about homosexuality different from mine?
And you didn’t respond to my central question … which was why not focus your energies on Christ’s stated issues (of which you can take your choice of many), instead of the ones you want to replace those with? Aren’t you placing your priorities above those of Christ?
Adam…
It would follow from your example that you feel free to criticize your church officials, following Jesus’ example of criticizing his religion’s scribes. True?
Adam…
I should have said,
It would follow from your example that you feel free to question and/or criticize the actions of your church officials, following Jesus’ example of criticizing and questioning the actions of his religion’s scribes. True?
I doubt very much that Christ saw himself as a member of the Pharisee’s sect, or felt that they had authority over them. He himself was the authority.
Also, you must realize that I don’t see myself as replacing one of Christ’s objectives with my own. That’s your interpretation, not my own.
Adam…
OK, then, please tell me what Christ’s position was on homosexuality and compare that with your own. Thanks.
Christ commands us to use our sexuality only with our husband (if we are female), or our wife, if we are male. That is my position also.
Adam…
Perhaps I am not as well-versed in scripture as you are.
But I am not familiar with this command of Christ … can you tell me in which gospel it is located so that I can study it?
Thanks.
See above–http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000159.html#004731.
This link–http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1092-1,00.html–and this link more generally http://www.mormon.org/welcome/0,6929,-1,00.html, explain the Mormon belief that Christ is still alive and continues to guide his church through revelation. Here is a recent statement by the prophet and the apostles–http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html– that among other things states that “We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”
Adam…
I suspect that we just lost our common ground that Chris Goble mentioned about 10 posts ago.
I guess I can respect your belief that statements and actions coming from your church officials should regulate your conduct. IF … you can respect my belief that they should not regulate my conduct?
Because I don’t believe that Christ speaks through your prophets. And I think it would be the utmost arrogance to try to legislate laws (a constitutional amendment, for example) based on your beliefs, if that legislation affects a larger population that doesn’t share your beliefs.
However, if you can support your position with biblical references, I will continue to discuss it with you … otherwise we just lost our common ground.
Finally, I don’t believe that Christ ever made the command you just quoted.
Apparently this forum is only for individuals who accept the concept of revelation to Mormon church officials, as compared with individuals who accept Christ’s teachings in the gospels. So I’m sorry I intruded.
Steve,
You are more than welcome to post here. You will simply find that some of the people have wild and crazy beliefs. ;-) It is a bit much to be surprised to discover that in a Mormon forum people believe in continuing revelation. You needn’t believe in it yourself, but it a fact of life around here.
I am confused by your last post. Do you think that it WOULD be alright to pass a constitutional amendment on this issue if you could cite chapter and verse from the Gospels, rather than the Proclamation on the Family?
Nate…
I don’t think that’s what I wrote, and I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear.
I don’t believe that anyone should attempt to use a constitutional amendment to promote a religious issue. This is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid.
However, I think this issue can be discussed on many levels, one of which is in terms of what Christ said (or didn’t say about it). I am happy to discuss the issue on this level. But when a Mormon and a non-Mormon engage in such a discussion, and I am looking at what Christ was reported to have said in the gospels, and the Mormon is quoting revelation, there is no room for further discussion. Adam just effectively ended the discussion, because he believes that Christ commanded something, and I don’t believe that Christ did so. So where is there room for discussion?
I am afraid that I don’t know why a religious belief should be held to any different standard than a non-relgious belief. Isn’t doing so disrcimatory and fairly hypocritical to the whole idea of freedom of speech. It seems to me that anything labeled “religious” is immediately dissed as being untenable (just as many things considered immoral are done so from religious fundamentalists). I don’t know how fundametally different some religions are to some special interest groups. Perhaps many religions have just concretized their beliefs to such an extent that attacking them is fairly easy.
I don’t think it is at all fair to say that minorities can be activists, but majorities can’t. I think many people have gotten used to the idea that the majority should always have its hands tied behind its back. I don’t buy the arugment of inevitable oppression. Every law is oppressive to those who don’t agree with it. I think it is the very nature of laws. I think our society is coming out of the age of political correctness. I think we will start to see much more activisim on the part of main stream society. I think the focus on activism as a way to empower minorities made this inevitable.
Steve
“Adam just effectively ended the discussion, because he believes that Christ commanded something, and I don’t believe that Christ did so”
I thinnk this is where the idea of plausibles comes in handy. Since most people (at least on this forum) agree that the bible doesn’t have a direct answer to every possible life question, scriptures become more useful in discussing what is plausible. I think too often scriptures are used to try and prove something. This just leads to bible bashing. If we accept both sides of the argument as plausible, then there is some common ground. The issue then becomes more of a political one than religious one. In this case, I find that more appealing as it means everyone can be actively supporting what they consider proper without having to try and prove that Christ condemns the other side.
Thank you Chris …
I don’t think I was trying to prove that Christ condemns the other side, only that he was silent on the issue – a very different argument.
I do think that Adam was trying to prove that Christ condemns my side.
But if both sides are plausible, why are we discussing a constitutional amendment to legislate the Mormon side and disenfranchise my side?
Steve, you said that: if both sides are plausible, why are we discussing a constitutional amendment to legislate the Mormon side and disenfranchise my side?
I’m not Clark, but as for me, it is because some folks here are trying to figure out what their opinions on this particular political/moral issue are. So far, we’ve established that reasonable folks can differ…whether as to regards to:
modern revelation and living prophets and/or whether Jesus did/didn’t condemn homosexuality, did/didn’t override Old Testament prohibitions on homosexuality, whether those OT prohibitions themselves really are prohibitions, and finally…whether all this should lead to individuals support/not supporting a constitutional amendment…that would prevent 1 state from dictating to all other states and to allow some states, if they so choose, to decide for themselves if they would like to keep marriage and/or attendant legal benefits, solely between the union of a man and a woman.
As to common ground: I think we can all agree that:
1. we are all sinners
2. we are all saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ
3. we are all trying to follow Jesus Christ and repent of our sins
4. we would all like to be able to live a religious/non-religious life without “others” telling us what we can/can not do.
:)
lyle
I think it is because both sides can. From my perception on the way american democracy works, all sides have to present their arguments. Preventing people from doing so is the big no no. Hence I find it troubling that one side or the other is always trying to shut the other up. This is very different from tyring to promote legislation that you favor. However, It is just inherit in political debates that the winning side usually finds a way to shut the other up. You could say for the left this is preventing the religious right from any political influence. For the right it could be disenfranchising the other side legally.
Personally I think a lot of the contention is over an apparent co-opting of the term marriage. I think this is why there is so much variation in the stats depending on how the question of gay marriage is framed. The right feels that the left is trying to change the definition of the word marriage (much like how many sociologists favored doing so with other terms in the late 80′s and 90′s). I don’t think things would be so violent if an alternative definition of civil unions was promoted that had the exact same rights. I think the main stream just feels like they don’t want to give up the significance of the word or idea of “marriage”. I think the left also feels entitled to the connotations and legal protection of the concept of “marriage”. Now the question more becomes on what is the best way to go about meeting both sides.
I think taking over something of value to another is always a sure way to stoke the fire. Perhaps this is what some on both sides want – to prove that they are right. I think if people are truly after compromise, other methods – on both sides of the fence – may be more appropriate. I guess though it depends more on what you value, communication and compromise, or the absolute conviction of your ideals.
Chris…
You see, my side believes that the existing US constitution and various state constitutions give us the right to marry.
Apparently, the Mormon side also believes the same thing, with the difference being that you want to take that right away. If you didn’t believe that we now have the right under the constitution, what would be the reason for an amendment?
The reason that has been presented to me in this forum is based on Christ’s commandment through revelation. And at some length, it was presented to me that Christ (through revelation)has condemned my side.
My position is simply that Christ was silent on the issue (and doesn’t that say a lot in itself – he was certainly outspoken on issues he thought important), and that efforts to bring Christ into the current legislative process are misguided.
Chris…
Yes, there is a lot of talk about civil unions, especially after the Vermont experience.
But (1) do you really believe that rights granted under civil unions will equal rights granted to heterosexual couples, and (2) do you really believe that the LDS church would not fight equal rights for civil unions and marriages?
For example, if I am joined in “civil union” with a Mexican national, do you really think that Mormons will have no objection to that man having immigration rights into the US?
So all of a sudden the LDS church will decide to allow me to have all of the rights that married couples have?
If this were true, wouldn’t the state of Utah already be recognizing civil unions performed in Vermont?
Sorry, I think this is a hollow argument.
Those of us who are advocating an amendment do not think that the US and state constitutions currently grant legal recognition of gay relationships. Instead, we believe that (1) some judges are falsely willing to impose their own views under the cover of the Constitution or (2) some judges mistakenly believe that their constitutions enshrine gay marriage and, given the de facto judicial last word in our country, the only way to counter these mistaken or malicious views is through amendment.
As for ending the discussion, I’m leaving that up to you. Before you spent a lot of time and effort trying to persuade me from the Bible of the morality of homo-sexuality, I thought you should know that I have sources of belief other than the Bible, that, in other words, arguments from biblical silence (or, at least from the silence of the gospels) aren’t enough to persuade me.
Chris…
After having submitted a post questioning the workability of “civil union” legislation, I do agree with you that much of the problem does stem from the word “marriage”. But I don’t think conservative Christians would ever approve of equal rights for a different legally-defined class of homosexual relationships. So it seems to me that you have backed yourself into a corner on this one. Conservatives have forced us to call it marriage if we want equal rights.
I don’t think all Mormons are convinced that the constitution will legalize gay marriages, although clearly some state constitutions might. As for the special rights given to married people, that gets more complex. After all many might well think married people ought not have special rights. (I don’t)
So I certainly wouldn’t be opposed to a law that let me enter into contractual arrangements with anyone I wish to give them inheretance rights, rights over life support and funerals, etc. I also oppose differentiation under the tax code for married people.
But I’m quite opposed to homosexual marriages.
The problem, as I see it, is that the two issues are being conflated.
It also confuses, I think, the issue of special government programs. Can or should the government give some subgroup special treatment? I don’t think they should. But clearly they do and have for a long time. There then arises the inevitable question of whether people can enter into the group given special treatment. Ought there be some way that I can makemyself a member of a minority group to get a scholarship? I don’t think so. But I can at least understand this issue if state and federal governments are going to give special legal status or entitlements based upon some criteria.
Adam…
Did I understand you correctly … when judges exercise their constitutional obligations as they understand those to be, and interpet the constitution to protect all Americans under the wording of those very important documents, you are calling them malicious? Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t make them malicious.
Clark…
Your post is interesting … how would you propose such a solution? We both know that the LDS church funnels millions of dollars into efforts to stop equal rights by contract … just look at Vermont, for example.
In the interest of justice, would you be willing to “actively organize Mormons” (as one poster put it) to ensure equal rights by another name?
Would you be willing to speak out in your local ward?
When you make a suggestion like this, is it really a serious suggestion?
No, you didn’t understand me correctly. I wish I could feel that the misunderstanding was unintentional.
Clark…
Did you complain to the LDS church officials that they were using your money in Vermont for a cause with which you disagreed?
Steve,
There is in fact at least one group of Mormons that does exactly what you propose — actively organize other Mormons to ensure equal rights for others, including homosexuals. This group is known as Mormons for Equality and Social Justice. Their web site is http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/
Randy
Steve,
There is in fact at least one group of Mormons that does exactly what you propose — actively organize other Mormons to ensure equal rights for others, including homosexuals. This group is known as Mormons for Equality and Social Justice. Their web site is http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/ Check out their resolutions on gay marriage. http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/resolutions/resolutions-folder/gayrights.html
Randy
Steve,
There is in fact at least one group of Mormons that does exactly what you propose — actively organize other Mormons to ensure equal rights for others, including homosexuals. This group is known as Mormons for Equality and Social Justice. Their web site is http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/ Check out their resolution on gay marriage. http://www.gomakecontact.com/mesj/resolutions/resolutions-folder/gayrights.html
Randy
As I said, I don’t see it as equal rights (in the normal use of the term) but rather the government being involved with social manipulation. I’m opposed to social engineering by the government but don’t really see it as an equal rights issue. I suspect it could be framed that way though.
However I’m also a realist and recognize that the government will *never* given up social engineering. But I don’t find the equal rights issue as really being the issue. Rather the government wants to encourage heterosexual marriage and thus gives it special privilidges.
All of that is irrelevant though to what the underlying issue is of marriage. Now if you think marriage ought not get special priviledges I’d certainly respect your lobbying to get that removed. But instead the issue is framed on revising the meaning of marriage.
To draw an analogy it would be akin to someone who thought race based scholarships were unfair trying to get himself declared African-American rather than get rid of the scholarships. (I should add I’m in favor of targeted scholarships – but I think the analogy holds)
Randy,
Nice. I especially like the mesj choose the left tshirts. very funny.
actually, i think that everyone, and i mean everyone that posts at T&S support the MESJ resolution.
however, that doesn’t change the fact that the LDS Church does support legislative and constitutional attempts to ensure legal protections and incentives for heterosexual couples to raise children in, i.e. the family.
so…sure, let’s so all MESJ suggests, but when it comes time to vote…i would suggest there is only one answer.
BTW – I have brought up getting government out of all special treatment in church when this issue has come up. I just am not convinced that the homosexual community really *want* government out of social engineering. They just don’t like social engineering that favors marriage.
Steve,
Sorry for the delay from a number of posts ago.
Steve -”You see, my side believes that the existing US constitution and various state constitutions give us the right to marry. Apparently, the Mormon side also believes the same thing, with the difference being that you want to take that right away. If you didn’t believe that we now have the right under the constitution, what would be the reason for an amendment?”
The reason for an ammendment is to make obvious things that may have previously been assumed. Note I don’t necessarily agree with the ammendment idea though.
Steve – “But I don’t think conservative Christians would ever approve of equal rights for a different legally-defined class of homosexual relationships. So it seems to me that you have backed yourself into a corner on this one. Conservatives have forced us to call it marriage if we want equal rights.”
I think that was the whole point of my argument. The two sides will most likely never agree. That is not wrong. It does not mean one side should not voice their opinions. Instead it means a compromise needs to be reached instead of having a one side take all view. I think the left is much more likely to suceed by aiming for something achievable and less offensive to the other side. For instance I don’t think you would agree with the state forcibly arresting homosexuals. It is offensive. To many people so is limiting the legal rights of homosexuals. However the question remains, does one promote change that polarizes and antogonizes or something more “Christ like”. I think often those in favor of change bear the responsibility for the way it becomes perceived. I just think it is ironic that both sides of the debate seem equally convinced of the other side’s error. Fundamentally I think the way change is encouraged is more important that a quick win.
As to leaving no other option besides pushing for gay marriage, I don’t think it is so black and white. This tends to be an idea related to an all or nothing position. I think many of the legal struggles would be difficult, and homosexuals would be fought on every step. Does that mean it shouldn’t be tried? I guess it all depends on how much you respect the other side. If there is no respect, go for the all or nothing approach, and get it over quick. It will create a natural backlash, but this seems easy to ignore if there is no real communication between the two sides. Personally I don’t like politics that are so decisive, it tends to create a lot more problems.
Clark, I think your last comment really sums up my point. The argument is more about what each side wants, most other arguments are fundamentally hypocritical.
Chris…
I have appreciated your comments.
“I think the left is much more likely to suceed by aiming for something achievable and less offensive to the other side.” But hasn’t the right (and the LDS church) been vehement in its opposition to civil unions in Vermont? What exactly would be “less offensive” to the right?
Would you have given the same arguments to interracial couples seeking marriage in the 50′s and 60′s, as many conservative Christians (and presumably Mormons) did? Because at that time, the Mormon church had similar theological objections to interracial marriage and was just as convinced that interracial marriage violated God’s commandments. Should proponents of interracial marriage have “aimed for something achievable and less offensive”?
Finally, both sides have fought this process for more than a decade (at least since Hawaii) … it will be anything but a “quick win”.
I agree also that for both sides the argument is ultimately about the final result, not the debate to get there.
Chris…
I think this is interesting.
There is an emerging stance from the right, which is exemplified by the comments of President Bush in his call for a consitutional amendment. The president now suggests that state legislatures could define “legal arrangements other than marriage” for same-sex couples. He made this suggestion even though he opposed such a definition while he was governor of Texas.
I don’t want to speak for you, but isn’t this the same thing you suggested when you said we are “much more likely to suceed by aiming for something achievable and less offensive to the other side”.
I guess my point is this: no matter what we aim for, the right is going to fight us every step of the way, and the Mormon church is going to throw millions of dollars into the effort to try to defeat us.
The left has in fact tried to advance lesser solutions and compromise solutions (such as civil unions). The right (and the LDS church) has fought every solution presented to it. Notwithstanding the president’s comments (as well as your intelligent views), I’m not sure there is any compromise solution that is not offensive to the right. The right has made it clear that it is not at all interested in compromise.
Steve, clearly the religious right (of which I include many Mormons) would prefer not to recognize homosexual relationships legally. However I think they recognize that they are likely *not* going to be able to do that. So given a choice between redefining marriage or giving civil unions, they’d go for civil unions. I think this is what Chris was going on about. Of course both sides would love to have their position implemented. But that’s just not going to happen. Just as the religious right will fight you all the way, many if not most on the homosexual left will fight the religious right all the way. Its just the way politics works. People try to get what they feel strongly about implemented and only when they realize they can’t get it do they work for compromise.
Steve: To my knowledge, the LDS Church has never opposed civil union statutes. Am I wrong about this? (I am genuinely curious.) I spoke once with the woman who coordinated the Mormon anti-gay marriage campaign in Hawa’ii and she told me that she simultaneously was advocating civil unions. Note also, that this was something like seven years ago.
Nate…
According to the Mormon News on March 17, 2000:
“On January 12th LDS Church representatives testified before the Vermont House Judiciary Committee and suggested that the state try to pass a constitutional amendment to thwart the Supreme Court’s decision. ”
The Hawaii Supreme Court decision that ordered the state to allow same-sex marriages was delivered in 1996, but the specific actions that led to the decision began in 1990.
Clark…
Thanks for your comments.
I would suggest that there is a difference in the approach taken by the left and the right on this issue. Perhaps both sides can be characterized by the word politics, but it seems very different to me.
For gay people in long-term relationships (like myself), this is a struggle for equal rights. Will I settle for a system that gives me more rights than I have now, but less than you have? No, but I certainly won’t fight legislation that does that. I would embrace that legislation as a compromise solution. The left has repeatedly advanced such compromise legislation.
But religious conservatives have defined their opposition in terms of “commandments from Christ”. In doing so, haven’t they removed any room for compromise? Will they really work for compromise when they realize they can’t get everything they want, as you suggested?
Judging by the political rhetoric this week I think they will and they have.
This is just another step down a slippery slope to a theocracy were reason and logic are thown out in favor of religious dogma. Don’t you people think that the mormon leadership have had their eyes on overthrowing the us government, the only agenda is the Christian/Mormon agenda which is very frighteningly real. And I will kill anyone who tries to take away my rights as a human being and give it up to a religious cult.
Dear Anonymous: A threat to kill can only act as an effective deterent if we know who you are. Anonymous threats — like silent ones — have no deterrent value. As it stands, we have no incentive when imposing the theocracy to single you out for special treatment so as not to be killed. Very distressing ;->
Steve
I appreciate your comments. Steve- “What exactly would be “less offensive” to the right?”
Personally I find the following things tend to be offensive to me (perhaps to other conservatives)
1. Something of fundamental value (marriage) to me is being redefined without my consent. Because of this, it is becoming exclusionary to my beliefs and ideas.
2. As exemplified by the Mayor of San Francisco, one side (probably both to be honest) seems willing to bend laws and procedures to enforce a view they see as obviously correct.
3. Religions, whether they have extremist leanings or not are becoming marginalized. As a result arguments from the right, whether valid or not, are being associated more and more with hate mongering. As a result freedom of speech is becoming defined more in terms of what is acceptable to the side gaining in power.
4. Because there is no real communication on either extreme, people are starting to worry less about offending the other side. There is a growing tendency on the left (it already exists on the far right) to de-humanize the opposition. As a result, unconscionable tactics will become more acceptable. “Why worry what they think anyway, they will be against us no matter what we do”.
There are more, but I think what would be less offensive is a strategy whereby something like a civil union gains the same rights as marriage. As this happens civil unions will become equivalent to marriage. The definition most people associate with marriage will come to apply to both, and linguistically they will be synonymous. Personally I doubt many people will ever say “are you civily united”, instead the word “married” will apply to both. This has the same end result, only one side becomes what they want (yes overcoming the natural opposition to change inherit in a democracy) thus changing society, rather than forcing society to change into what they want. I think Clark’s example of race scholarships is a perfect example.
Clark…
If you will permit me to read this into your post, I think you are suggesting that religious conservatives can now support civil union legislation. I hope you are right, although I am still extremely skeptical.
But why the change? The left has been promoting civil unions for years. If this is an option that is palatable to the conservative right, what was the long fight about?
Steve, sorry I have to post in blocks, it is tough to get some free time at work.
Steve – “I guess my point is this: no matter what we aim for, the right is going to fight us every step of the way, and the Mormon church is going to throw millions of dollars into the effort to try to defeat us.”
Yes, and I don’t know why so many people get upset about this. I don’t think any one expects the other side not to do the same. It seems like many arguments I hear from left feel that this is incompatible with change and acceptance. Just because one side disagrees with a position doesn’t mean it won’t accept what the majority chooses. I think mormons could use a bit more credit in this regard (look at polygamy as an example).
I wonder if part of this mis-communication comes from a trained belief that minority views are sacrosanct. In other words some extremists are so used to the majority holding back the gloves that when they are taken off, they feel like they are being treated unfairly, unjustly, and incorrectly. For example, the blood reserve I live next to is so used to getting special treatment (which is definitely needed to keep the reserve running), that when an issue arises where they have to play by standard provincial rules, it is taken as a slight, unduly harsh, and racist. From their perspective this perhaps is true. However BOTH sides need to get used to seeing things from another frame of reference. This is one thing I don’t think many of social policies towards minorities help create. Minorities are often just as racist, bigoted and narrow minded as the majority. If these views have been re-enforced rather than countered, even more so (just as what happens on the far right)
Chris…
Thanks for your post.
For the sake of a theoretical question (because it has no chance of reality), would you support a dual system where the secular relationship is defined as a civil union (whether heterosexual or homosexual) and the religious relationship is defined as a marriage?
Dehumanizing the opposition, or at least being paraniod (and thinking or expecting the worst) is deeply ingrained in the political traditions of this country. Look at Madison’s vision in Federalist number 10, or the writings of the Anti-Federalists for an opposing dark vision of America. The rhetoric in this debate is just a continuation of this tradtion, as much as I wish it to not be.
Chris …
Remember, your suggestion was to aim “for something achievable and less offensive to the other side”.
My response was: “no matter what we aim for, the right is going to fight us every step of the way”.
Sorry I made the last post before I your last comment came up. I can’t speak for others, I think the thing that has changed is the frame of reference. This is a natural occurance. Using your example of race relations, I don’t think everyone who was against de-segregation was a racist. I don’t think we can apply our standards on the frame of reference of another generation.
I think some of the right has been extremely leary of change because it is seen as a power grab more than anything else. From what little I studied of sociology in the early 90′s I can definitely see that as a fear.
I think the resistance that has been going on for generations is just part of the natural barries set up in democracy to resist non-essential change. Most people on the right, including myself, have seen homosexual issues as being an extremely minor. Not to say they aren’t important to some people, only that the small number of people that were perceived to support them weren’t viewed as being large enough for the significant amount of change that would occur. The large amount of publicity on the issue is changing that.
Steve- regarding your theoretical question. Yes I would support a segregation between civil unions and religious unions. I know that that is what the left sees that it is fighting for, however that is definitely not the way it is perceived. It is perceived as taking over an institution the right finds sacred. Basically it is a fight over who gets to define a word.
Personally I wouldn’t mind the state getting entirely out of marriage contracts. Unfortunately I think much of their original rationale is lost in today’s society.
Steve, I think that is a great idea! However, I don’t think that it really solves the problem for conservatives. Many homosexuals will desire a religious ceremony, which under your definitions would still be called a “marriage”.
Chris, do you really see yourself on the right? Just curious. (Although I must confess that many of your predictions of Bush were right and mine were wrong) I at best consider myself moderate right with several issues I’m clearly on the left.
Steve, regarding your question of “what has changed?” I think the right sees the way the majority is going. It seems undeniable that an amendment is very unlikely to even make it out of congress, let alone get ratified. Thus it seems some states will allow gay marriage. At this point I think they see themselves losing the culture battle on this issue and are trying to maintain as much as they can.
The fact is that the number of people who feel passionately on this aren’t that big, and probably will get smaller as homosexual relationships become more and more mainstream. The best stats I’ve seen for the amendment are only around 35% tops. That’s pretty low odds.
Steve, as I said I’d love to see a distinction between religious and civil unions. But, as I said, I don’t think that really is what either side wants. Probably the number who want that is very, very small – mainly academics who think about the more philosophical issues.
Coming in late to the debate, I don’t know that religious conservatives can or will or even should accept civil unions or domestic partnerships as an acceptable compromise, depending upon what you mean by civil unions and domestic partnerships. If civil unions and/or domestic partnerships confer the same rights, benefits and burdens of marriage on same-sex couples, then conservatives will object. In that case, you are authorizing same-sex marriage and simply giving it another name. In that case the sanctity of marriage and its purposes for society are not preserved and this simply would not be acceptable. I do believe that religious conservatives may be willing to accept some kind of compromise that gives limited rights to alternative couples, but not based on any sexual relationship (which would include longtime roomates, grandmother/child, other caregiver situations, and same-sex couples). I know it is not pleasant for the opposition and it subject religious conservatives to derision and contempt, but remember that religious conservatives view homosexual behavior as sinful. Additionally, by and large, depending on the congregation, they view marriage as an holy institution and the founation of society. This doesn’t give a whole lot of room for compromise.
I guess I must be more on the left than I think. Well perhaps it is better to say I am more on the left when trying to apply my morals to others.
As for Brent’s comments on civil unions. I definitely don’t think they should be defined on sex, or intamcy – doing so is discriminatory :)
I could see it as a contract that says some of the following
1. you inherit my stuff if I die
2. you have a right to make medical decisions if I can’t
3. any income spent together must get divided fairly
etc.
I suspect Chris, part of the problem is that even the “right” up in Canada would be considered at best moderates or even left wing down here. (With some exceptions — some of those MPs I hear about down here from the west have some hard right extremist positions)
I think the big issues that homosexuals see civil unions not providing are adoption rights, immigration rights, and then legal responsibilities on behalf of insurance companies. However I also think those are all rights that even those favoring civil unions might be more loath to give homosexual unions.
Yeah, I think the issues you mentioned are the ones that are the most important to both sides. Immigration is a tough one, mainly because it is so easy to abuse it. Legal responsibilities for companies are more an issue of companies wanting to minimize payouts. Adoption is the one I would always have trouble with. I don’t think I would ever support this (despite how valuable it may be to place many of the otherwise unwnated children) just because of my personal ethics. But then again I think it is easy to confuse what one supports and what one accepts.
I think there always be some who are not comfortable with, well, distinction. I find this ironic because some of the groups that appear so bent on diversity and openess are, well, some of the most controlling and narrow minded.
“Most people on the right, including myself, have seen homosexual issues as being an extremely minor. Not to say they aren’t important to some people, only that the small number of people that were perceived to support them weren’t viewed as being large enough for the significant amount of change that would occur. The large amount of publicity on the issue is changing that.”
Interesting …. so even though most posters to this forum are very critical of judges and officials who have taken positions that are pro-gay, you also seem to be acknowledging that those same actions (or more specifically, the publicity they have generated) have softened your attitude on the subject.
Chris…
I had previously done a private analysis of the US 2000 census data, and determined that approximately 1% of all two-adult households in the US identified themselves to the census takers as male-male or female-female households in the 2000 census.
105,480,101 Total households
(27,230,075) Less one-person households
(12,900,103) Less single females with children
65,349,923 Total two-adult households
332,645 Male-male households
326,066 Female-female households
1.01%
To put this figure in perspective, I found an LDS site that claims that 1.9% of the US population is Mormon.
One could also make a case that these numbers for gay households are understated. For example, this would mean that fully 1 in 200 gay households in the entire US were married in one week in San Francisco.
“Adoption is the one I would always have trouble with. I don’t think I would ever support this (despite how valuable it may be to place many of the otherwise unwnated children) just because of my personal ethics.”
Interesting. I am undecided on the question of endorsing same sex marriage, as I don’t think that as a society we have enough facts to make informed decisions about such things at this point.
But for me, the societal blessing of parental responsibility and the opportunity to place children awaiting adoption with a committed, stable couples of any gender mix seems one of the best arguments *for* same sex marriage. It seems to me nearly unquestionable that children would be better off in homes with loving parents than in orphanages, no matter what the beliefs or genders are of the parents.
Steve recently said “you also seem to be acknowledging that those same actions (or more specifically, the publicity they have generated) have softened your attitude on the subject.”
I think to say other wise would be dishonest. I also think this is why many people are so concerned about society’s influence. No matter what one thinks, shifts in societal norms have an effect. Hence the “don’t worry, it is not affecting anyone else” attitude is entirely misleading. Change of any kind has repercussions. Change also has a way of demanding more. Now this is good or bad depending on what goal is sought. Sometimes the information gained from change can make something initially seen as bad into something that can later be seen as beneficial. The way the left is equating ssm to racism in the 60’s I think they want the issue viewed as something that will become beneficial (or at least a lot less vilified). I don’t think the two issues are even in the same boat. Of course the discussion eventually just leads to dogmatic boxing – I’m right because I think so, no I’m right because I think God says so.
Things also depend on how susceptible we want society to be to the interests of minorities. For instance do you think the inordinate amount of power the Nationalist Socialist German Labour Party grabbed in the 20’s was a good thing? I don’t. I also don’t think 2% or 4% or 10% of the population should be able to make changes so distasteful to the majority. Yes, it is possible to make these changes through subtle means. It is possible to use rhetoric so that the other side seems out to lunch (especially if they are politically incompetent). It is also possible to influence society to such an extant that power grabs seem natural and the only way to affect change. As society changes, those who disagree either have to change with it to keep communication lines open, or move to a polar extreme where a lack of communication re-enforces entrenched positions. Using the statistics you mentioned it becomes more a game of how many people move in and how many people get kicked out. Of course these numbers will change depending on how nicely one plays, but I think many on the right feel a boot – in a religiously sensitive spot.
Greenfrog
Adoption is a very tough spot for me, mostly because of how I have constructed my views. All I can say are two things. First, positions against mimicry are hard to hold without having to give up some things that otherwise would be so nice. If only the wheat and the tares parable held and things were always more different at the end than at the beginning. There would then be no need to worry about things until they had fully developed. Second, I am glad I don’t have to make big decisions. Somehow the government up here in Canada tends to always make those without needing any input at all from its constituents.
Chris…
A couple of friendly responses to your comments that might seem a little bit “un-American” these days, which are probably excusable since you’re Canadian.
First, any present-day comparisons to Nazi Germany are usually not taken seriously, not because what the Nazis did is taken lightly, but exactly the opposite – it is difficult to make any meaningful reference to the Nazis that will be taken seriously.
Second, 215 years of constitutional culture in the US has continually reinforced the ideal that everyone in the US should have the same rights, even minority groups. Generally, this is not viewed as a power grab, because the rights of minorities cannot be subjugated by the distaste or the will of the majority. The debate can be carried on at other levels, but usually this argument is not put forth as a serious presentation. The concepts behind our constitutional bill of rights are not usually challenged by either liberals or conservatives.
Steve I agree with you on equal rights. However with respect to marriage that is a slightly more difficult issue since right now homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. It is just that homosexuals have no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex. So casting this as a rights issue is far more complex since some see that the right is *not* to marry someone of your own choosing regardless of society’s views but to marry given the historical meaning of marriage.
I recognize that that homosexual lobbyists don’t want to cast the issue in that fashion. But clearly casting this as a “rights” issue is somewhat more difficult since the issue is the meaning of marriage and not whether someone is being excluded from marriage.
Hey everybody, just thought you would find it interesting to know that there is gay marriage in Germany.
Chris, the government down here is very different than the parliamentary system up there. Minority voices have a much harder time getting their policies enacted. The American system is based upon the idea of making it hard to achieve radical change. So there are many checks and balances. Further the two party system means that the moderates tend to have the strongest voice. So having the kind of changes Chretein was able to accomplish is much harder.
There also is a very different perspective on government. Rights in the US are primarily viewed as rights to be protected *from* government. There have been very, very few amendments to the constitution not related to government structure that could be seen as anything but expanding rights. This is why even popular views like anti-flag burning laws or anti-homosexual marriage laws will have a very difficult time being passed as constitutional amendments.
Americans just have a radically different conception of rights, even in the left wing of the nation. In Canada the view of government is a hold over from colonial times and basically reflects the idea that the government is the aristocracy and “rights” are seen more in terms of the duty of the aristocrats to the general populace. Of course both the US and most parliamentary systems have long evolved since the 18th century. But there is a significant difference that I think gets lost on non-Americans. For instance most Americans have a general sense of the constitution and tend to treat them almost the way natural law theorists do (even if they reject natural law). In Canada I seriously doubt many know much about the Canadian constitution.
As I understand it, the Mormon definition of marriage (as presumably interpreted through scripture and revelation) is frequently at odds with the secular definition of marriage. For example, I think Mormons believe that marriage is eternal … legal marriage allows for the dissolution of marriage. Even marriage laws in the state of Utah are not consistent with Mormon theology.
Contary to what has been presented in this forum, it seems to me that Mormons don’t really have a serious problem with two sets of definitions for marriage, a Mormon definition and a secular definition.
What makes this particular issue different? Aren’t you being somewhat disingenious by insisting that the secular definition should be consistent with God’s commandments?
What tends to make it different Steve was the position I articulated. Back in the 1830′s Joseph Smith felt that the state had no right to limit marriages. Thus he and other elders married people independent of the state. (This was before polygamy) The state typically didn’t agree. When polygamy came out in the Utah period, the state *really* disagreed. With the state basically saying abandon your economic and marriage views and conform or be destroyed, the church conformed.
*If* the state is involved in marriage though, then I think the church sees it as necessitating some basic religiously conceived notion of marriage in tune with the public meaning of marriage.
I admit that it has ulterior motives regarding polygamy. I honestly think the church would prefer polygamy not be a topic and not provide validation for apostate sects in Utah. So there is some politics involved. But at this point the LDS church basically adopts a more traditional view of marriage. The eternal marriage bit is perhaps more out of the normal. But that relates to events after death and not events in mortality. So I don’t quite see how it applies via man’s law.
I think mormons are used to having principles that are at odds with the state. Mormon persucution against polygamy was a fair bit worse that what is currently happening. I don’t think it is disingenious to support what is felt to be important. Just because our history indicates that we have gotten used to accepting no as an answer doesn’t mean we are less willing to stand up for our beliefs. In other words I feel I should always try and make the best out of what society will let me.
Note also that marriage itself under either the religious or secular does not change, even if its parameters (e.g. for life, or for eternity) may change. In either case, marriage is the union of man and woman. Even in the case of polygamy, marriage was, and is the union of man and woman.
Oh, eternal marriages can be dissolved. We believe the priesthood power can both seal and lose.
Brent, I believe though that the constitutional amendment is phrase to make illegal polygamy as well. (I could be wrong – I understand that the text has been a moving target)
Clark wrote: “So I don’t quite see how it applies via man’s law.”
Bravo!
But then, what is the basis for your opposition to ssm? A previous poster was certain that his opposition was because ssm is contrary to god’s commandment. Are you opposed simply because it is non-traditional? because it is generally non-religious?
But if your opposition is based on scriptures/revelation then why was this opposition not prevalent on other issues when legislation has conflicted with scriptures and revelation?
As I said, once you make marriage a state’s right (meaning the government and not necessarily States in sense of say North Dakota) then you merge religion and the state. Until the notion of marriage is expunged from the state they are mixed. That means that religious people have to deal with the state attempting to redefine what is primarily a religious concept. So they will reject those redefinitions they find immoral.
As I said, I don’t really see the connection to LDS history. After all the church’s position changed when the supreme court basically said that marriage was in the state. Until that changes we have to deal with marriage within the state. So same sex marriages are attempting to modify a religious concept in a manner contradictory to most Christian religions.
The way LDS tried to deal with polygamy *wasn’t* by redefining marriage for other religions but to make marriage an independent process from the state. As I said, were ssm practitioners to do this I’d have far less problem. Unfortunately I’ve seen no ssm proponent arguing for this. Thus clearly they are trying to redefine marriage not just for homosexuals but for devout Christians as well.
Clark…
If ssm practitioners were to make marriage an independent process from the state, how would that give us equal rights of inheritance, immigration, taxation, adoption, etc? As you know, we are arguing for equal rights.
I guess I wasn’t asking the basis of the objection from the LDS church, I meant to ask for more personal opinions. Hopefully your personal opinion is not necessarily the same as that dictated by the church.
Yes, and this is why both sides are largely talking past one an other. SSM proponents talk in terms of getting *rights* while opponents talk in terms of defining a religious act. In a sense the opponents are also speaking in terms of rights. Its just that they haven’t seen that the rights issue follows naturally into getting the state out of the marriage business.
But given the way the debate has been framed, there is very little room for compromise unless SSM proponents accept civil unions and try to get other rights they want added to the language of such unions.
My opinions are definitely my opinions. But I think my view of the church on this matter is fairly uncontroversial. As I said, I think most more conservative Christian groups truly are upset at what they see as the state redefining a religious concept for them.
Steve, are you suggesting that the only LDS personal opinions that count are those that don’t square with that of the LDS church? What is the point of religious faith, if one cannot take on faith what their religion “dictates”?
That said, I doubt anyone here who opposes SSM does so solely, or even primarily, on the grounds that the LDS church opposes SSM. I can only fully speak for myself, but I have read scores of comments from others here who oppose SSM on a variety of grounds. I myself believe it would be tremendously bad public policy to do away with marriage as we know it. Just think of the burden on social security, which is already set to collapse, if suddenly benefits were extended. Same could be said for other government programs currently limited to traditional family situations. As for other items you mention, some can be dealt with by proper planning (e.g. inheritance and other property rights), others should not be implemented (e.g. adoption), and I do not see them as matters of equal rights.
Clark…
I think there is a fundamental difference between the goals of fundamental Christians and the goals of ssm proponents.
I don’t think ssm proponents have any desire to redefine marriage for fundamental Christians, this simply isn’t a major part of the process for us. Fundamental Christians are free to define marriage however they like, and honestly, that is of no concern to us.
We don’t want to be sealed in an LDS temple – now that would be redefining marriage for Mormons.
What we want is access to the secular privileges and rights of marriage. We believe that everyone is entitled to their beliefs – and that the state is not entitled to anyone’s beliefs. Even though the state has endorsed only heterosexual marriage for 215 years, we don’t think that is a reason to continue such an endorsement, especially when opponents such as yourself are openly fighting change on “moral grounds” (read: religious grounds).
If the state needs to “redefine” marriage in order to guarantee equal rights to all of its citizens, then that is what it needs to do. If the state is asking you to “redefine” marriages that occur in your wards and temples, then that would be the wrong thing to do.
So the fundamental difference, as I see it, is this: We aren’t trying to redefine marriage for you … but you are trying to define it for us.
“Fundamental Christians are free to define marriage however they like, and honestly, that is of no concern to us.”
But of course you don’t mean this since marriage is a *public* state concern. If Christians define marriage as between man and woman then clearly that invalidates homosexual marriage and thus limits you. (We shouldn’t limit this to fundamentalist Christians since clearly many non-fundamentalist Christians feel the same way)
“We don’t want to be sealed in an LDS temple – now that would be redefining marriage for Mormons.”
But you are here confusing *rites* with *marriage*. They aren’t the same. This may underlie how you are thinking of the issue. The issue isn’t what rites can or can’t be performed to create a marriage. Rather the issue is the meaning of marriage itself.
“We believe that everyone is entitled to their beliefs – and that the state is not entitled to anyone’s beliefs.”
If the homosexual marriage proponents truly believed that then they’d be working to exclude marriage from state jurisdiction rather than simply trying to redefine it.
Clark…
I think it would be fairly easy to make a case that civil unions do not confer the same rights that are received by married couples. Perhaps this will change in the future. As a simple example, if my partner and I went to Vermont and were joined in civil union, and then returned to Missouri where we live, would my domestic parnership insurance benefits be non-taxable?
“SSM proponents talk in terms of getting *rights* while opponents talk in terms of defining a religious act.”
SSM proponents truly are talking in terms of secular rights, while opponents want to define secular marriage in terms of a religious act. We are not trying to redefine anyone’s religious concept of marriage.
The benefits the government and private companies have ascribed to marriage were initially set up because marriages used to produce children and a parent used to stay home and watch those children. Benefits were set up to to aid financially in raising those children.
Proponents of ssm would rightfully say that many marriages now do not produce children and many spouses do not stay home and watch the children when they exist. In fact, the number of children not born into any wedlock is skyrocketing. There seems to be no lack of possibility for anyone to get a child, be it through natural means or with the aid of donors and laboratories. So what I’m saying here is basically, families in the traditional sense have been stomped out and thrown to the fringe minorities. Nevermind if they were more stable. That is irrelevent.
Here’s my modest proposal – stop all the marriage benefits provided by the government or private companies. Then the ssm proponents have no grounds for claiming discrimination. If people want religious marriages, go for it. It will purely be recognized as a religious sacrament (which is what it should be anyway). If people want legal contracts with each other, go for it. Then whoever wants to inherit money, visit each other in the hospital, get visitation with children produced by whatever means can draw up legal contracts no matter they be M/F, F/F, M/M, M/F/F/F/F, M/M/M, etc.
Is this tongue in cheek? Maybe. But definitely probable.
Except that the history and legality of marriage already entails that the state and the religious conception are mixed. That’s why the government could persecute Mormons in the 19th century. Until you change that fact your desires *can’t* be implemented without affecting others rights. You may not desire to do this, but you are doing it via the method you are taking.
Steve, you also espouse the liberal view of the “state” as a separate and distinct entity from the people living in the state. Remember we have here a democratic republic. In fact, this is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. We thus have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That means I am the state, you are the state, each of us together comprise the “state.” Thus, we all have the right to help construct and shape public policy. Since the founding of this nation, religious and nonreligious persons alike have helped shape the laws that affect all of us. We live in a society together. How we as a society recognize certain relationships affects everyone else in society. Therefore, you cannot pretend that you are not trying to redefine marriage for “us”, because you are. You are suggesting that the societal definition be modified. Whether we must accept such a redefinition for our individual religious purposes is irrelevant. Because Mormons and other conservative religious groups are part of society, how society recognizes marriage is a matter that clearly affects us, and one upon which we are entitled opine.
Renee of the possibly tongue in cheek: Nevermind if they (1 mommie, 1 daddie) were more stable. That is irrelevent.
Lyle: Not to my tax book. Most and the worst social disasters that have created the welfare state can be attributed to the breakdown of the “stable” 1 mommiee, 1 daddie family that took care of its own (gparents + kids).
Renee, what you outline is largely what I favor: get the state out of the marriage business. If it wants to give tax breaks to special situations due to societal benefits, that’s one thing. But clearly state involvement in marriage goes beyond this.
The issue Steve brings up regarding insurance is more complex. Most jobs offer insurance to spouses. I don’t think this ought to be decided by the government myself. (i.e. I don’t think companies should be compelled to offer benefits to spouses) I personally don’t think that corporations should be guided by the state regarding what benefits they offer. Benefits are basically akin to pay and thus should be treated accordingly. If SSM are legally required to get benefits then I don’t see why a single person caring for their ailing mother shouldn’t also get benefits. The issue is more complex than I think it appears at first glance.
Once again I understand why ssm proponents want this to be equal. But I don’t really see it in terms of rights. As I mentioned to Chris regarding the constitution, rights typically are seen as protections from government and not benefits or entitlements. Of course not all courts agree. But I think that probably will depend upon the state. (And I’m no attorney – laws tend to have more to do with precedence and evolution as any kind of philosophical consistency)
Clark…
I think you misunderstood what I was referring to, regarding insurance benefits.
If your employer elects to provide health insurance for your spouse, you don’t pay income tax on the value of that insurance.
However, if my employer elects to provide health insurance for my partner, the value of that insurance is added to my W-2 amounts at the end of the year, and I am required to pay income taxes on that additional benefit that my employer provided to me.
I realize this is your forum, and you can use it however you wish.
However, the continual debate between a “redefinition of the word marriage” vs “equal rights” has actually diminished my respect for your position.
Is this really the best you can come up with, to rationalize your position that I should not be idealizing the same rights that you have?
Honestly, I don’t give a damn one way or the other about “redefining marriage”. I’m not trying to “redefine marriage”. I honestly don’t care whether you or your church validates my marriage, so it doesn’t matter to me at all how you choose to define marriage. You can continue to define it however you wish.
If you really believe that this argument against “redefining marriage” is so important to you that you want to use it to deny me and my partner secular rights and privileges that you enjoy, then you’ve just defined your religion.
This will be my last post.
Steve, I believe that if you think the government can offer tax incentives to behaviors it likes that you can’t consider the tax breaks given heterosexual marriage a right. They are a targeted incentive. So what you present is a much weaker position.
Steve, I agree that it is, in a certain sense, an irresolvable issue. As I said, that’s because the state already is involved in the marriage business. You are assuming there is a secular vs. religious marriage. But clearly there isn’t as our own religion found out the hard way. (There was rather extensive state persecution because we conceived there as being the divide that your position is taking for granted)
Hopefully you can understand why this assumption you are making is not an assumption for us given our history. (I don’t know how familiar you are with government action against Mormons in the 19th century. It may shock you to find out)
Steve, I take the implication from your last statement is that if we, as Mormons, support limiting rights to heterosexual married couples then we have defined our religion as bigoted, discriminatory and intolerant. You may not have said those things, but I have heard them many, many times, and you certainly imply something negative. I think Clark is right about this simply being an irresolvable issue. We believe there are clear moral standards for right and wrong, and that it is our prerogative to have such standards, where appropriate, reflected in the law, especially where such laws are for the benefit of society. There is no personal animus attached to such actions, nor have I seen anything or heard any comments that are intolerant or hateful to any group. We do support laws, however, that support and sustain traditional marriage and traditional families.
yeah!
Hi there,
It is great to read the posts on this site again. Lots of interesting discussion.
The reference to the federal government’s clamp-down (perhaps a better word would be “persecution”) of Mormon families in the 19th century is the closest parallel we have seen to the issue of allowing gay people to marry. In that instance, the price for Utah joining the Union was the upheaval of families that had developed around polygamist marriages. The human cost imposed by the U.S. government was terrible and need not be mentioned here.
Often times the discussion about extending the definition of gay marriage (in addition to the usual religious references) is that society will somehow disintegrate if we allow gay people to marry. The link to the disintegration is never made clear, but it is usually discussed that polygamists, bisexuals, and homosexuals will come out of the woodwork and take over the institution itself and that our country will sink into anarchy.
Back to Mormon history. Utah’s residents commonly practiced polygamy in the 19th Century and Utah did quite well. No lightning bolts. No disintegration of secular and religious society in any respect. The territory thrived.
Indeed some residents of Utah and the rest of the U.S. practice polygamy today even if it is illegal. No lighting bolts. No anarchy. No disintegration of society.
The same can be said of same sex couples. Polygamists are here. So are gay people and their partners. Both have been around for centuries, and neither group will ever overrun the country. Yet, in spite of their presence, our country has not fallen into the ocean. Neither has the Netherlands (although there was a history of flooding in that country before gay marriage was legalised recently).
My libertarian notions tell me that if people design their families differently than the norm, and nobody is being hurt by it, that the government should embrace their families without judgment. Churches can, and do, make their own decisions on the matter based upon their own criteria. However, what is happening in Massachusetts and California is a strictly secular matter.
Just my 2 cents.
In your original post you state:
Gay marriage advocates, on the other hand, aren’t being jailed for co-habitation. I don’t believe they’ve ever been jailed for co-habitation (though I confess ignorance on the historical question). In any event, it’s not illegal for gays to commit acts of sodomy, let alone live together. Instead, gays are asking society to condone their relationships on the same grounds it condones heterosexual marriages.
But it is not true. Sodomy is illegal in EVERY state. In some states (Oklahoma and Texas certainly) it is illegal for homosexuals ONLY to commit sodomy.
Personally, I am affected by this issue in both ways. I am live with two women, both of whom are bisexual and we all wish to be married to each other. But the law doesn’t allow it. I could marry either one of them, but not both. They can’t marry each other at all. This is clearly discriminatory and is what the 14th Ammendment is designed to prevent.
THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
134:9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
There are religions that sanctify SSMs. The government needs to either grant equal footing to all types of religious unions, or it needs to step away from the debate entirely, in the interest of preserving religious freedom, or at least religious equality, for all.
Are you ready to have polygamy back in the spotlight? Tom Hanks is. He’s planning on fictional series on HBO called “Big Love” about a Utah polygamist
Euphemism is the practice of giving a pleasant name to something unpleasant in order to make it more acceptable.
Those who use euphemism assist in making the euphemized topic more acceptable.
Those who would make the filthy perversion of homosexuality more acceptable have usurped a word meaning “happy or carefree” to describe their filthy perversion.
Those who use the term assist in making the perversion more acceptable.
The proper term for homosexual is HOMOSEXUAL.
If five syllables are too many, there is the word DEGENERATE.)
(for example, Ellen DeGenerate
If four syllables are too many, there is the word DEVIATE.
If three syllables are too many, there is the word PERVERT.
If two syllables are too many, there are at least two one-syllable words.
“In some states (Oklahoma and Texas certainly) it is illegal for homosexuals ONLY to commit sodomy. ”
Huh? So as long as they do something else other than sodomy, it is legal?
Actually, evidence suggests that contrary to popular belief, the word “gay” (from the French “gai”) came into use to mean “homosexual” before it meant “lively, happy, carefree,” etc. It is now believed the term was first used in the 19th century as a coded word that homosexuals could use in mixed company, and misunderstanding heterosexuals took the more general meaning in error, and thusly adopted it into their vocabulary. So you could say in this case that it was the heterosexuals who “preverted” the use of this word.
Being a Mormon
I joined the Church five years ago. It was a deep contemplated choice, theologically and not emotionally driven. It took my elders 2 months of daily meetings to get me in the water, and when I made my choice I really assigned to that act a sense of commitment which I still believe is the essence of the true baptism. After a few years of strong activity in the Church I begun to understand that sexuality sometimes is not as straight forward as it seems and I praid the Heavenly Father to help me in that moment of confusion. It came out that there was no confusion, the answer was and is that I am gay, I am a gay Mormon.
The last time I went to Church was two years ago.
There is no possibile way I can now sit down into a chapel to now that my sexuality would eventually define me and put me in contrast with all the members of the ward regardless the fact that I am willing to pay the tiding and respect the Sunday as they are. Sexuality is the main issue.
Where do I stand, it is not easy to tell.
I truly believe the Church is inspired and I do not feel like criticising the Presidency for not being as inclusive as other secular Christian would expect. Our, and I stress, our Church is not a Church of men, is a Church of God. But, how does God speak to us ? and, most importantly, are we willing to accept the idea that God may say something we are not fully prepared for ?
I am in a loving and committed relationship. I love my partner as much as I used to love my first girlfriend in the Church, the same feelings, the same true caring love. When I hug him I feel great, in peace with myself, and loved, by him and God. I keep on praying every day reading the Book of Mormon and I keep myself updated via the web on the events going on in the Church.
I don’t feel wrong and I would raise my voice to anyone that truly believes that sexuality is something that you can ‘correct’. I am a happy decent human being and I express love with my sexuality as any heterosexual person would. I have the same feelings, I have the same fears, I am a human being in love with another human being.
Since I felt in love with my partner I never felt dirty or wrong in any way.
I understand the Church has got a different position which could not change even if it was wanted.
Admitting an endowed gay marriage in a Temple is just fictional but why ?
For the reason thatm as we know it, gay people do not find a place in the Salvation Plan.
But how about poligamy ? How about the fact that God told us to stop it in a moment in which it was ment to be ? Why exclude the idea that in a future, near or far, God may disclose other details of his plan for human beings. I believe this will happen and would leave most of the church member unprepared, look at the revelation for the priesthood to black people.
I feel the spirit when I pray as I did when I was blessing the sacrament and, yes, I am in a gay relationship, a decent, loving, caring, gay relationship.
I do not expect the Church to change its values according to what society wants, that would not be the Church of Jesus Christ, but at the same time I don’t expect church members to believe that there is nothing left to learn about the Salvation Plan.
Regards,
Derren Young
Please do not publish lastname and email adress.
Do not publish email address at any stage. Rather do not post the msg please.
Many Thanks
Has everybody seen today’s First Presidency statement?
First Presidency Statement on Same-Gender Marriage
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-20336,00.html
“We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
“As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
“Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.”
Maria, do you think that is surprising ?
“This is what the 14th Ammendment is designed to prevent.”
One wonders.
I entered a post a few weeks ago telling my experience. I really would have liked to know what you guys have to say on that. It is a personal story but to see how you look at it it is still important for me.
Derren, I think it’s hard for Mormons to deal with an experience like yours–your personal sense of who you are and your confirmation that what you are doing is right directly contradicts what Mormons hear from prophets. Those of us (like me) who are inclined to believe you and sympathize with you are (rightly) charged with disbelieving the prophets. That is as serious a dilemma for Mormons as we could possibly face. I think if you read the many lengthy threads about homosexuality on this blog, you’ll discover that we haven’t arrived at anything like a satisfactory resolution. In any case, I’m glad that you are finding happiness and love–it’s hard for me to believe in a God that would not want that for all of his children. I hope that there is a way for gay people to eventually be welcome in our church.
“Admitting an endowed gay marriage in a Temple is just fictional but why ?”
Interesting question. We had a post on that as well. You might be interested in:
“The Real Issue”
I think that we should just leave them alone and let them do what they want. Becaus who are we to say who can and can’t get married everyone is entitled to happiness no matter who its with. If its not you dont worry about it and just leave them alone.
If I had to make Kristine HH’s choice–rejecting the prophets or rejecting an unidentifiable person’s internet account of their personal experience–then because of my own personal experience I would choose the prophets.
I don’t feel I have to make that choice. Anyone who believes at all in right or wrong (as I do) or who believes that in the long term right is what leads to happiness and satisfaction, including happiness and satisfaction in relationships, (as I do), is eventually going to run across somebody who does something wrong but testifies that it actually helped them along. A comparison from morality to health might be helpful: sometimes one runs across hale and hearty old people who smoke like crazy because it relaxes them. These people don’t believe that smoking is bad for one’s health.
So how in the health sphere does one respond to the smoker, or in the moral sphere respond to the person celebrating immorality?
Oftentimes I don’t think a response is necessary. One ought to avoid dialogues that tend towards personal confrontation where possible. But since you’ve pressed for an answer on how a believing Latter-day Saint handles your situation, I think you’re willing to listen to an answer without taking offense.
First, as KHH points out, you could either revise your notions of right and wrong or else disbelieve the person who said that what you thought was wrong was making him happy.
Second, you could decide that the person believed what he was saying but was fooling himself.
Third, you could decide that what the person was doing was making them happy now but that the happiness wouldn’t last.
Fourth, you could decide that the happiness was real but limited. You could decide, in other words, that in the long term or even in the short term the behaviour was wrong not because it led to unhappiness but because it led to less happiness.
(These next three explanations overlap some of the previous explanations to some extent)
Fifth, you could decide that the person really didn’t know what happiness was, that they were accepting glitter because they didn’t know gold.
Sixth, you could decide that the behavior led to happiness for the person but unhappiness for others.
Seventh, you could decide that the wrong behavior was statistically more likely to lead to unhappiness then the right behavior and therefore, pour encourager les autres, should always be treated as wrong though in some cases it wasn’t.
There you have it. Not all of these are applicable to your type of situation and certainly not to your specific situation.
My Response:
First of all thanks to all that did respond to my request.
Yes, I wanted to hear from you, mine was not a provocation and there is certainly no need for me to take any offence, Adam, be sure of that.
Thanks to Kristine, I understand how hard it would be for liberals to find a comfortable place in the Church, and thanks also to Anthony D. However, the point here is not about ”making me do whatever I want to do”, since I don’t feel like I am the bad son on whom the dad has to give up, neither I feel like the one who is not understood.
And I am not even going to touch the ‘theory of happiness’ kindly formulated by Adam.
Happiness in fact is something so personal that cannot be theorised at all: happiness lives inside you, the moment you try to understand it, to write about it, to legifer on it, happiness dies.
Let me put this straight (probably not the best word to use here :) , I do not expect the Church to sympathise with me at any level. That would make the Church just another institution.
It is right for the Church not to compromise at this stage, it will be a mistake though, not to listen to God when He will speak up on this. God has a time for everything.
I am just sitting by the side of the river waiting for the stream to bring me what I know it will: the biggest schock in Church History: the revelation on same-sex-unions.
It will come, it is just a question of time. Remember the blacks issue … the revelation came.
We have no doctrinal evidence that the Salvation Plan which is all revealed.
We do know that the plan was revealed but we have never been told that the plan was revealed fully. It makes a lot of sence to me.
Our society, believed or not, reflects that Plan and it is too hard to believe, being gay, that my situation is just the outcome of an error, that I am a deviance of the whole Plan.
Apologies for my ‘hyubris’ (the kind of pride that the Greek Gods hated in menkind and for which they used to strike calamities in order to punish people), but I don’t consider myself an error.
I feel blessed for my sexuality, for the guy I love, I feel a great part of this creation as you all should. I don’ t think I am an error every morning when I look at myself in the mirror, I don’t think I am a bad Christian when I think that I would give my life for the man I love and nor the Prophets can make me feel a doctrinal mistake.
And that’s why I am waiting by the river. I am not ready to walk into the Church. I have no rights to walk into a Chapel knowing what the members stay for and expect that they would accept my choices. For this deep sence of respect I would sometimes prefer that some people would discuss the issue with more humility, accepting that not all is given to be known at this time.
Maybe one day I might be proved right, maybe there are elements of the Salvation Plan that are not disclosed yet because society is not ready to understand them in full at this present days (come on, how many times has your Bishop used this line to talk about ‘Space Doctrines’).
We all know not all is given to be said in our days. I truly believe it and I keep considering myself a Mormon, because I believe and I want to believe. Please, don’t make the mistake of constraining God to any ‘white-straight-man-created category, it could be a big doctrinal error, and would eventually torn the Church a part, when this revelation will come.
Sincerely,
Derren
Derren,
I appreciate your willingness to admit that the prophets and the saints don’t agree with you, and permit us to have the beliefs we do without any rancor. I admire your civility and your continued belief.
While you are correct that in the future God may reveal to us things that we cannot now know or imagine, I always think its a mistake to set aside current revelation in the anticipation of speculative future revelation.
Finally, you state that “Happiness in fact is something so personal that cannot be theorised at all: happiness lives inside you, the moment you try to understand it, to write about it, to legi[slate] on it, happiness dies.” I and a great many (but not all) religious people would disagree with you. To me this has overtones of the radical personal autonomy that I cannot square with my belief in One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.
Hi Adam,
I don’t expect to have your sympathy, but I can read a touch of unecessary sarcasm in your words.Surely I don’t feel rancor if someone holds a different opinion than mine although it sounds like you do.
With my last post I was just expressing my point of view towards the Salvation Plan as a gay LDS.I understand that Prophets have already spoken on this matter but I also have to cope every day with a sexuality that is not the result of my choice and for this reason the only logical explanation I can find is that there must be a role for me in the Salvation Plan for the way I am and was made by God.
What you Adam tend to forget is that I did not choose to be gay; i know you and some other people within the Church believe in rehabilitation, a word that for me is more appropriate when used in discussiong topics such as addiction to drugs.
And that is the point, Adam, Sexuality is not a choice. I do have the choice to decide for myself whether I wanna make use of drugs or not, but when it comes to feelings and sexual attraction I cannot choose in any sort of way.
You seem to be blaming my ‘personal autonomy’, a word which doesn’t sound any horrible to me as it probably should in your original intentions. In fact my ‘personal autonomy’ does not imply any attempt to fight the extreme homophobic attitude that lives within the Church.
My autonomy hasn’t brought me here to expose the jokes and the ‘names’ that young LDS use to address people like me. I am not here to attack the Church to which I still believe to belong.
I am here to raise an issue that people like you refuse to see.
Your final line can work for a Sunday sermon not for a discussion over such a complicated issue. You surely can’t understand how it feels to know that you will never be able to receive your garments just beacuse you happen to love a human being that is not shaped as woman ?
I only wish you to be blessed with a gay son or daughter.
Probably that way you would truly face reality and understand that, yes, there is One Lord,
One Faith, One Baptism but not necessarily just One sexual Orientation.
Regards,
Derren
Darren: There is no need to read irony into Adam’s congratulations on the absence of rancor. I know Adam, and the odds are that he is being entirely sincere.
I would be interested in your response to the issue laid out in the post (“The Real Issue”) that I linked to above. I am perfectly willing to admit the possiblity of a revelation on same-sex unions. However, as I explained in that post, theologically things are more complicated than that, and those pinning their hopes on such a revelation ought in my opinion to at least engage the theological difficulties honestly.
Finally, I am extremely skeptical that happiness is so personal a concept that it cannot even be discussed or theorized about without destroying it. This seems like little more than a rhetorical ploy to shield one’s arguments from criticism. To be sure, this does not imply that any of Adam’s arguments about happiness are correct. It does, however, suggest that making the arguments is hardly illegitimate and their refutation wil require real counter arguments rather than the retreat to subjectivity. Indeed, to the extent that one uses the concept of happiness in ethical discussions (which you are clearly doing, e.g. happiness is good, my same-sex relationship brings me happiness, ergo my same-sex relationship is good) one must be able to discuss the contours of the concept or else the discussion will become utterly incoherent.
For the record:
I find Derren’s statement that he did not choose his sexuality entirely plausible. Like all character traits, though to a greater degree, choice is probably a factor for some people but for most I think environment and heredity have made them what they are.
And
I am not convinced that rehabilation is the answer. I would be surprised if some small minority weren’t able to undergo some changes in their sexual orientation over time, but it really looks like for the majority of people rehabilitation doesn’t work. I am willing to be persuaded differently by the evidence, but for now that’s my opinion.
Also, Derren, feel free to ignore Nate asking us to get deep and philosophical about the nature of happiness. If you take that request seriously, then of course I would have to too, and that sounds like too much work. ;)
Adam, I appreciate your point, Nate, I tried to access that link but I got lost in some other stuff. I will try again, I really want to have a look at this post. Thank you all for your posts.
Interesting, let’s us compare …
“We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters…
But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood [to black men] must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.”
–The First Presidency, 15 December 1969 (Source: Church News, 10 January 1970, p. 12).
“We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
“As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
“Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.”
The First Presidency, 19 October 2004.
That’s a very useful comparison, Derren. I think the most instructive difference is this:
Priesthood: “we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation.”
SSM: “we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the creator’s plan”
To use legal terminology, the first is using the language of ‘malum prohibitum,’ of things that are wrong only because they have been commanded. The second is using the language of ‘malum in se,’ of things that are wrong in their essence.
So, Adam, let me put this directly, you consider impossible a revelation that would welcome gay-union right ? I just want to understand if there is much space for an open-minded discussion.
It seems that you don’t consider possible such a future Revelation on the grounds that homosexual unions are a ‘malum in se’, am I right ?
I would be surprised. The quotes you cite point out the difference, as does I think Nate Oman’s thread on the ‘real issue.’ Procreative marriage and sex differences have deep roots in our beliefs that blacks and the priesthood does not. I have a hard time seeing them as merely the products of a divine diktat. But the argument is kinda moot, I guess. We know where we are now and ought not, I think, trim our sails to account for some improbable future wind.
The quotes that I provided point out a complete different scenario, if someone is willing to let his mind contamplate another point of view, even just for a few seconds.
What they point out, according to my ‘sinful’ point of view , is that issues that were always regarded as unchangeable in the History of the Church, such as poligamy and black people in the priesthood (sorry but I find the wording ‘blacks’ quite politically incorrect – no one refers to us as whites) , were indeed reconsidered.
At the time of poligamy members of the Church were ready to be jailed to defend their doctrine, they didn’t contemplate at all any possible space for another Revelation that could change the ‘status quo’ – since it seems that someone likes latin here…
I don’t want to discuss whether THAT specific Revelation came for politcial reasons.
A lot of members prefer not to discuss the topic since they find extremely evident that the Presidency was pushed by political inputs.
Not to mention the other case, priesthood for our black brothers, regarded at the time as something not ment to be changed. The tone of that statement that refes to the ‘Negro brothers’ is shameful – sorry but there is not really another adjective I can find to describe that commiserative tone.
And about the ‘ malum in se’ issue you referred to, homosexuality being a sin with no chance for revision because regarded as a deviance that threthen a core doctrinal element, the procreative marriage, which is the ‘Real Issue’ in the Salvation Plan, what about those other ‘deviances’ the Church has instead welcomed ?
Please explane me the role of the following categories of people within the Salvation Plan:
Women not able to conceive
Men not able to conceive
People affected by the Down sindrome
People affected by autism
Seriusly disabled people
People that are to be kept into life with the aid of machines
Brain damaged prople
Hermafrodites
If procreational Marriage is ‘the core’, what is the role of this people according to the Plan?
A lower level of exhaltation ? Why ? Why should God create a life assigning to it a lower level of exhaltation since the beginning ? If you embrace this vision you end up reinforcing the calvinistic view of ‘pre-destination’, which is not supported by any Mormon scripture and has been defined as wrong from past presidencies.
As per gay couples, they indeed are not able to conceive (as all the other categories mentioned above) but this should not lead into the conclusion that homosexuality is a ‘malum in se’.
If you accept this view then sickness is a ‘malum in se’ too.
Too easy to talk from a white-heterosexual point of view, too easy Adam, try harder.
Spend a bit more of your time with someone that doesn’t fit the ‘standard criteria’,
you might benefit for your own growth as a human being.
Sincerely
Derren
(malum in se).
Derren,
I completely agree with everything you have said, and I think it is entirely possible that one day a revelation will be given allowing homosexuals to marry as defined by Mormon doctrine. It probably won’t be in our lifetime, but I agree it will come.
However, there is a difference between African-Americans being able to receive the priesthood and homosexuals being allowed to marry.
I grew up in the church in the ’60s and ’70s (I am a non-believer and had my name removed in the ’80s). I was always taught that there would come a day when African-Americans (the term then was negroes or blacks) would receive the priesthood (though I think it happened sooner than many expected).
I was never taught that homosexuals will someday be allowed to marry as described by Mormon doctrine.
So while I see it as completely plausible a revelation stating such can happen, it has never been taught that it will happen.
Therefore, I think using the African-American/priesthood revelation is not relevant to SSM.
I agree completely with everything else you say.
Jaynee
I think the polygamy example is a better one, though I’m not aware of all the ins-and-outs. I’d only say that before the revelation ending polygamy came, it would have been appropriate for anyone to preach against it on the basis that a revelation was coming. I think revelation and prophecy is fairly worthless if we’re willing to ignore it because (1) it doesn’t fit our beliefs and therefore (2) a future revelation will come along and conform the Church to our beliefs.
We’re all malum in se when it comes down to it, Derren. Don’t feel singled out.
Inappropriate, that is.
The truth is, people spend far too much time judging others and their personal lives. There is a time and a place for public opinion to be the basis for making something “illegal”.
I’m a straight male, not a mormon, I live in Canada. My thoughts on whether or not homosexuality is “immoral” are a little different. If you read the “New testament” you will not find one word by Jesus on the subject of homosexuality. We are supposed to be living in the age where the old ways of the “Old Testament” have passed away. Jesus said love one another and “judge not”.
If we take this lesson literally, it is not our place to tell others how to live their lives. Who made it our business to say that this is wrong or that is wrong? From where I live in Canada, many in the US seem to make it a habit of pointing out the so-called evils of others, but not of themselves. Jesus said “before you pull the plank out of your own eye, take the log out of your own”.
When it comes to same-sex marriage, there could be plenty of benefits to society. It may indeed make them better citizens. They may become manogamous, reducing the spread of STD’s (which many of us so-called “better” heterosexuals do just as well.) It could also be an excellent way of creating tolerance and understanding in a world full of prejudice.
I’ve also heard the so-called “disintegration of marriage” argument, but not one person who has used this arguement has been able to provide any proof of how this is so. How could it possibly disintegrate marriage? There are people of the same sex getting married all the time…. my marriage isn’t any different than it was before… is yours? The truth is that your own marriage is what you make it! And no one can change that. And long before the gay community wanted same sex marriage, we straight folks have been pretty good at lousing up this institution. Divorces, broken families, sexual abuse, incest etc, etc, etc…. need I go on.
So before some of you get up on your hind legs and start shaking the bible like your holier than thou, just remember that you and I are not so squeaky clean.
And anyways, if there is one thing that should be abolished, it’s George W. Bush. He convinced the American Public that there were bombs in Iraq… there weren’t… Hussein was long past his hey day by the time he marched in. This is all about oil and Bush has made a lot of people around the world angy the he did not play by the international rule of law… now there is something to get angry about… it makes America look bad.
threerandot
Dear LDS Friends,
“If anyone loves Me, he shall keep my Word.”
Jesus Christ,
John 14:23
thought I’d chime in and as that as a devout Evangelical, I can say that members of my faith community and I are unequivocably dedicated to the promotion and preservation of the traditional family unit as this national Election and incredible Evangelical turn out for president Bush and traditional marriage conclusively demonstrates. We believe that homosexuality is a grevious sin against the Almighty (Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Cor. 6:9-10), marriage is a sacred union ordained by God and is exclusively reserved for heterosexual couples. This means we believe men and women can only wed the opposite sex and we reject homosexuality as being a viable lifestyle alternative to the traditional family.
We believe marriage is between one man and one woman exclusively and we seek to vigorously promote, defend and preserve the traditional marital covenant between men and women under God. This issue of homosexuality is a grave one and I would urge a strong rejection of threerandot’s pro-homosexual thesis and ask you to choose God’s way of sexuality. Choose the good that you might live.
threerandot wrote And anyways, if there is one thing that should be abolished, it’s George W. Bush. He convinced the American Public that there were bombs in Iraq… there weren’t… Hussein was long past his hey day by the time he marched in. This is all about oil and Bush has made a lot of people around the world angy the he did not play by the international rule of law… now there is something to get angry about… it makes America look bad.
I thought you said earlier in your same post that we should first pull the “log” from our own eye before we point out the “plank” in someone else’s eye. I guess that only works for homosexuality and not for foreign affairs/slash international politics? You statement there about American and Bush’s policies seemed pretty judgmental to me. . . .
You said, From where I live in Canada, many in the US seem to make it a habit of pointing out the so-called evils of others, but not of themselves. Funny, to many in America, it seems that much of the press in the rest of the world is dedicated to “pointing out the so-called evils” of the U.S. So if you are getting the impression in Canada that the U.S. is pointing out evils in others instead of themselves, take heart that America perceives the same from Canada and the rest of the world.
Geez, I just hopped on. Looks like you’ve been talking about this for about a year now. It seems that there are some pretty strong feelings on the subject to. I’d like to post my thoughts but I think everything that can be said has been said. Oh, and by the way John, President Bush was convinced by bad intelligence that he had recieved that Sadam Hussein was a potential threat and that if he had the capability to use chemical weapons he would. Remember, he used them on the Curds. Furthermore, I don’t think that anyone will argue the fact that there hasn’t been any other terrosist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Also John there are bombs (as you say) in Iraq. There are stockpiles full of them. And anyway how many UN resolutions did Saddam ignore? I think when a scumbag like SH plays dirty we need to pay him a visit.
I suppose my remarks were rather judgemental about Bush. Regarding homosexuality, the quote is from the latter part of the New Testament… written by men… not the words of Jesus. Besides, what possible harm can come of homosexuals marrying? What could it possibly do to marriage that hasn’t happened already? Is it your place to condemn the actions of two individuals? How will marraige be damaged? Is your marriage spoiled all of a sudden… “oh my… those two gay people just got married… well I guess our marriage is over… oh well, it’s their fault we have a bad marriage. And just what is a family? What is it more than a group of people who care for and love each other? And isnt’ that what Jesus asked us to do?
Look, to make a valid argument, don’t look at the bible, find a valid reason that relates to the world as it is today. Look inside yourself and ask “how” it changes your marriage, your life? Many things that were completely unacceptable at one time are now the norm and I’m not talking about things like divorce, but a woman raising a child on her own. Give a solid “reason”, not what someone wrote down 2,000 years ago.
Homosexuals understand a great deal more than we do. They understand prejudice and they know what it is like to be condemned. Isn’t this exactly what Jesus experienced? And anyways, there are plenty of bad parents who are straight. They beat their kids, molest them, etc, etc, do you really think homosexuals are gonna do worse than that?
I think the real problem here is that people are always scared to death of something new that threatens their conventional thinking. It’s a challenge to their ideas of what should or should not be. This isn’t just about judgement of someone because of a lifestyle, this is fear of the unkown, of a change that people may not be willing to accept. People are always saying that “my way is the best”. Truth is, we need to be more tolerant of others and their lifestyle choices. And isn’t this what Jesus taught?
As for Bush, my complaint is that he said to the world “either you are with us or against us”. How would you feel if you really disagreed with someone and then they told you that they’d become your enemy? Not a good feeling is it? Bush did this to Canada, since we did not want to join the war. Iraq never had weapons and Bush was simply looking to flash his big military muscles, afraid of showing weakness. It is just this beligerence that will create more political instability. Do you really think Bush would have invaded Iraq is there were WMD’s? You bet he wouldn’t have because Hussein would have been nutty enough to use them. Just remember it was Al Qaeda that bombed and killed all of those innocent people in the Twin Towers. They just couldn’t find Bin Ladden.
America is a country at war with itself. There is strong division throughout the nation. Canada also has divisions. We have the Quebec seperatists and that rears it’s ugly head every 10 years or so. As people of the world, our biggest stumbling blocks are our prejudices and our borders. We’re like children fighting in the schoolyard over that sandbox.
As a speicies, we are not evolving. We have scientific advancement, but we are still human with all of the imperfections and weaknesses that come with it. If we are to survive, we need to evolve our humanity where we can accept the other person’s point of view, without bullying, without expecting the worst from others. We need to share the wealth we have. If Bush was really a Christian, he wouldn’t be waging a holy war (for that is what it is, no different than the Hussein’s or Bin Laddens), he would love his enemies as the bible said. He would feed the poor of his own country and of other countries without invading them, dropping bombs and then saying “I’m your friend, let me help you rebuild”. This is truly a hypocrisy. Where is the peace movement when you really need it. My two cents.
threerandot
Mr. or Ms. Threerandot:
The cobloggers and most of the commenters on this board are Latter-day Saints. Latter-day Saints believe in modern prophets and modern revelation, so whether or not the New Testament addresses the sinfulness of homosexuality to your satisfaction isn’t really an issue.
And, really, there’s no reason to prefer the words of Jesus as filtered through the Four Evangelists to God’s word as filtered through Paul.
Finally, Don’t read too much into Jesus’ silence:
http://www.timesandseasons.org/archives/000425.html
I ran out of patience reading the thread, so if I repeat something here that was previously said, then my compliments to whoever said it and my apologies to the rest.
What is the proper role of government? I won’t research the link now, but Ezra Taft Benson (pre-president) gave a really good discourse on the subject.
What is the proper role of religion?
What is the problem with “gay marriage?”
First: Gays want “gay marriage” in order (so many of them say) to avail themselves of certain benefits that are granted by the government. These “benefits” in most cases should have nothing to do at all with the government. For example: Social security spouse benefits. I believe that if our constitution were strictly followed there would be no social security at all. Therefore there would be no need to “grant” benefits to some subset of society. How about the equal protection provisions? If our government were involved in only what the constitution (by a literal reading) allows, there would be no equal protection issues that would differentiate between “straights” and “gays.” Have some mental fun – try to find, in the light of a strict reading of the constitution – somewhere where government hasn’t created the issues that gays want solved. It is one of my axioms, by the way, that “the constitution exists to guarantee liberty, not to guarantee righteousness.”
Second: The church exists to promote “righteousness.” Why do I put that in quotes? “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own [understanding of righteousness], and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” (Intentional tampering.) Every church endorses its own view of righteousness. Joseph Smith tacitly acknowledges that in this article of faith. He seems to say (in the capacity of a prophet of God) whatever your view of righteousness is, we allow you to believe and follow it – but we claim that right for ourselves, as well.
It is appropriate for every church to openly endorse, teach, preach, expound and advocate those things that they view as significant to their pursuit of righteousness. It is even appropriate for them to encourage their members to vote for representatives (in a system that allows for representative government) according to these espoused principles. The LDS church disapproves of homosexuality (as well as infidelity and pre-marital sexual relations.) It is right for them to encourage their members (among which I number myself), when it becomes a matter of election or legislation, to make selections in accord with these views. The membership (of our church, at least) are then agents to choose for themselves how they will vote. They are not required to later state their vote, nor is their vote a factor in any of the official determinations of worthiness.
Third: It seems clear that there are a great many views on what “gays” want. Certainly some want to be left alone. Some want to be accorded certain legal standing. Some want to legitimize their sinful relationships and some even want to promulgate their practices. At some point in time our culture compelled the government to declare what constituted “legal marriage.” This had been, prior to that, a province of the churches, since before that no one much cared who had sexual relations with whom (or what), and subsequentially, who would be responsible for the issue resulting from such unions. It was a teaching of religion. It became a policy of government. But, in my view, this was not a legitimate interest of government (hostile as that may sound) because it was not government’s role to care for the issue in the event that a father or mother wouldn’t. It was compelled by the moralists. It was imposed on the entirety of society and, for the most part, it made things better. And it set the stage for the chaos that we have now.
If we had simply left the matter in the hands of the churches, that a man who was an infidel (not caring for his own) would be judged by the church and by God, but not by government, we wouldn’t have this issue right now. (And some argue that we wouldn’t have a lot of other good and useful things either – more on that in a minute.) Government only has an interest because we have allowed it to stray into areas where it doesn’t belong. The people are capable of setting up benevolent societies and making their rules of operation without making them part of government. For “many” to decide that “all” should have to foot the bill is not righteousness, it is theft by coersion.
But we are where we are. So where do we go? According to our current legal system (in the US and some other countries) we vote. Majority rule. Every man and woman for themselves. But the best vote would come from men and women who have thought the thing through carefully and fully, and not those who just mirror what they THINK their religions are trying to tell them. Therein, a person could hate a thing in practice, and refrain from it, without embedding it into the legal franchise of government. Homosexuality, abortion, alcohol, sufferage, welfare, and on and on; all could be resolved in this way. And the losers, subject to the vote (and in the light of “equal protection” could exercise their liberty to comply with the outcome, or leave, or just quitely disobey. And yes, to try according to their desires, again and again, to get the law changed according to their wishes.
A last thought (you’re all glad of that, I’ll bet) Much of what we think are benefits of government are actually intrusions, however useful they have seemed to be. I mentioned social security. We are in a great debate about this right now. Many lives have been “blessed” by this program. Religions could have done a better job. If they could have and didn’t, how is that government’s problem? The government has taxed us all, and some of that money has gone to great medical advances. But why was that government’s problem? (Would God reveal his secrets only to federally funded programs?) At best we should have a strict enforcement that all that is discovered in publicly funded research becomes public property. It is so written, but it is not so practiced.
The problem is not gays, nor abortionists, nor polygamists. The problem is government. If marriage between a man and a woman needs protecting, it is more likely that it needs protection FROM the government than BY it.
“At some point in time our culture compelled the government to declare what constituted legal marriage. This had been, prior to that, a province of the churches, since before that no one much cared who had sexual relations with whom (or what), and subsequentially, who would be responsible for the issue resulting from such unions.”
I understand your point (though I think it’s wrong), but this is shockingly bad history. The law has always given legal effect to marriage and cared very much about the issue resulting from various unions. Churches decided who could and could not get married according to their moral rules. Same sex marriages were not practiced. Only later, when the monopoly of Christian churches broke down, did the state step in and start performing marriages itself. Even then, the state generally applied the same rules to marriage that the churches had (and still did). There never has been the sort of marriage and sex free for all that you’re talking about.
I suppose that I should have been more precise about my time period.
I accept that in Eden (as in Adam and Eve) marriage was a “church” issue, but it also seems clear to me that for the next several ensuing generations, especially approaching the flood, the regulation of marriage broke down, both as a church issue and as a civic issue.
During the time of Moses (the great lawgiver) marriage was defined for the family of Jacob, but evidence suggests that in other governmental dominions there was little official marriage, and that being mostly documented among the wealthy class. Among the populace generally a man and a woman would simply pair off with little sanction from other than family and neighbors and less documentation or registration, and simply be “married.” It is an interesting sidenote that even in Hebrew law (Leviticus) if a man laid with a maid, and she was not betrothed or wed to another, then she became his wife automatically – even if he already had one! And he was not allowed to divorce her!
Coming out of the dark ages in Europe marriage was almost all of the common-law variety. A man lived with a woman and they had children. As recently as the early 1900s in Europe an entire family would, after many years as man and wife, get around to going to the local parish and having their marriage recorded and their children baptized – with many children being common. Only among those of high birth was marriage as a formality or ceremony practiced prior to cohabitation.
Under Brittish Common Law marriage was documented, but many citizens never documented it. Most people who have done genealogy back into the 1700s have discovered this to be fact. Even the process of census documented that as fact.
As far as the law was concerned, for most of that history if a man and a woman said they were married, then the law treated them as married. No proof of solemnization was required. Laws of consanguinity were rarely enforced unless other larger issues were related. The enforcers of the law simply didn’t care!
Coming into the present century your statement becomes more accurate, although there are still vast areas of essentially “uncivilized” persons for whom marriage is little more than tribal recognition and laws regarding the same are virtually non-existant.
I wasn’t near a copy of my scriptures when I posted that. Here are a couple of references:
Leviticus 18. Israelites NOT to do as surrounding nations did, then told what the law WOULD be.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14. Rules for “trying out” a prisoner of war.
Deuteronomy 22:29. Declaring that having sex with an unwed, unbetrothed woman makes her a non-divorcable wife. (I mis-recalled the reference as being in Leviticus – I correct myself.)
From “Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs”, by Jim West, ThD. “The marriage was official when the betrothal took place. “There was no religious rite that was performed with the concluding of the marriage, although there was a feast at the conclusion of the festivities (Gen 29:27, Judg 14:10)”(Preuss, p. 104). A betrothed woman was, in the eyes of the people, legally married. When the marriage itself was consumated the husband received the wife and the family of the wife received a “dowry” (Pedersen, p. 68). This payment was made because, as the wife’s family had given their flesh and blood the husband’s family was bound to gives order to maintain balance between the families. The payment of the rhm (mohar, or “dowry”) was simply compensation for the loss of the daughter’s labor and should not be considered as a wedding gift (Preuss, p. 104). ”
from http://www.ct-divorce.com/Commlaw.htm. “Prior the advent of modern domestic relations statutes, parties became married by a variety of means that developed from ancient custom. These became the elements of a “common-law marriage,” or one that arose by operation of law through the parties’ conduct, rather than pursuant to a ceremony. In many ways, the theory of common-law marriage is one of estoppel – that parties who have themselves told the world they are married should not be heard to claim that they are not married in a dispute between the parties themselves.
Common-law marriage is generally a non-ceremonial relationship that requires “a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations.” Black’s Law Dictionary 277 (6th ed. 1990). Common-law marriages were recognized in some of the colonies prior to independence, and in many states after independence.”
And finally from http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/09693A.TXT, supporting the idea that formal unions were not so formal after all:
“About the only direct testimony in its favour is found in the fragmentary statements of some ancient writers, such as Herodotus and Strabo, concerning a few unimportant peoples, and in the
accounts of some modern travellers regarding some uncivilized tribes of the present day. Neither of these classes of testimony clearly shows that the peoples to which they refer practised
promiscuity, and both are entirely too few to justify the generalization that all peoples lived originally in the conditions which they describe. As for the indirect evidence in favour of the
theory, consisting of inferences from such social customs as the tracing of kinship through the mother, religious prostitution, unrestrained sexual intercourse previous to marriage among some
savage peoples, and primitive community of goods, (none of these conditions can be proved to have been universal at any stage of human development, and every one of them can be explained more easily and more naturally on other grounds than on the assumption of promiscuity. We may say that the positive arguments in favour of the theory of primitive promiscuity seem insufficient to give it any degree of probability, while the biological, economic, psychological, and historical arguments brought against it by many recent writers, e.g. Westermarck (op. cit., iv-vi) seem to render it unworthy of serious consideration. The attitude of contemporary scholars is thus described by Howard: “The researches of several recent writers, notably those of Starcke and Westermarck, confirming in part and further developing the earlier conclusions of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race” (History of Matrimonial Institutions, I, pp. 90, 91).
The last sentence being most significant.
The mistake you’re making is thinking that, because marriages weren’t legally solemnized with pieces of paper and what not, that no legal consequences attached to their status. Not so. Both the formal legal system (and informal, local controls that included kinds of coercion we’re only used to seeing the legal system use) helped police the definition of marriage and give it legal benefits. You’re taking the ‘law’ out of ‘common law marriage.’
You and I have all but abandoned the issue I have raised – that Government, by adding artificial benefits to “marriage” (whether common law or fomalized) created the situation where those who cannot now avail themselves of legally recognized marriages have to sue to get “equal benefits.”
But, to continue our private thread, where there is no enforcement, or worse yet, no legal definitions, then penalties or benefits are meaningless. And there were many cases, prior to rigid laws regarding marriage, where women, for example, would just leave their “husband” and go be joined with another (even against the first’s wishes.) Heck, there were women married to the Prophets Joseph and Brigham that fit into that category. There was no law, there was no enforcement, and there was no benefit or penalty.
There were other cases of serious infidelity that were never prosecuted because there was no law. Prostitution, even by women who were married, was not against the law before there was a law. Truely, several religions defined such behavior as sinful, but churches could not define it as illegal. For those who belonged to no church, they were under no church sanction. They lived without any law at all, except what was understood between partners (contract law?). This was not only true in the “wild west” but true of “civilizations” throughout history and around the world.
In these lawless situations if two men decided to cohabit it would still have been against God’s law, which has always been clear on the subject. But inasmuch as they wouldn’t know of that law, and in the absense of any other, they wouldn’t be under any condemnation. Nor would they be concerned with “equal rights” because there would be no rights even defined – there being no law.
As soon as a government enters the picture, whether sectarian legal or denominational religious, then benefits and penalties attach, and those who desire to avail themselves of the benefits and escape the penalties without living the law make various efforts to change that law.
It is my position that matters religious should be left to religions to arbitrate and matters “legal” (and there will necessarily be some overlap, since much “legal” law is predicated on religious pronouncement) should be left to the lawyers and law enforcers. Thence, it is possible to accept and practice a doctrine from a religious perspective, and not necessarily make it a matter of law, especially where there is not compelling governmental interest (other than ill-defined “morality.”)
Similar arguments favoring or discouraging the practice of polygamy have been raised. To most outside the church (and even many currently in it) that practice is reprehensible, and should be against the law. Many feel it is also against God’s law. Some understand God’s law differently. In the event where different religious sentiments exist I feel that there should be tolerance (“…worship how, where or what they may.”) and no definition in civil or criminal law, unless, of course, there is a compelling governmental interest, and even then there is likely to be disagreement on the matter.
And the same could be said of intermarriage between races, and a host of other “legal” or “moral” practices.
And now, after your certain rebuttal, I will let it rest. I have said my piece on the matter.
What I find hypocritical is the some people’s assertation that we have to protect the “sanctity of marraige”. PUH-LEASE! Hmmm, to me it would seem that “shot-gun” marraiges, Las Vegas style “quickie” marraiges, “Moonie” mass marraiges, trophy wife/gold-digger type marraiges… etc, etc. have all done far enough to destroy the sanctity of marraige than same-sex marraiges would.
Also, it seems to me that same-sex marraige might encourage committment instead of promiscuity. Further, are we not discriminating when we don’t allow these rights to all individuals under the law? Our constitution does provide for this, does it not? Regardless of what we believe…
So perhaps marraige is what YOU make of it. Matt Evans says in the first post that his grandfather couldn’t have cared if the government condoned his marraige. Maybe that’s the key… a spiritual marraige and a secular one… separate from the other… which one is more important to you anyway?
Glad to know the topic is back into fashion.
I am back in the forum since it became again somehting more than a pure dialogue between me and Adam. A not very constructive dialogue anymore.
I see that the discussion now is more centered around the relationship between Church and State.
As a gay mormon I can only say that I wish there was more space between the Church to discuss the issue of homosexuality more openly. I am in a relationship with a lovely guy, this Xmas I got him a copy of the Book of Mormon. My dream is that we would be baptised so that we could build a mormon relationship, going to Church together as a couple.
I know that for many my wish seems to be a contradiction. It is as a matter of fact, but that shows you how strong is the desire within the gay comunity that IS present within the Church to live a normal life as the straight members of the Church.
I have been thinking about going to the Temple.
I have been chaste, expressing my feelings with dignity and faithfulness only to my parter.
I do stick to all the commandments I have been neglecting myself the opportunity of praying into the Temple for so long now.
I am fed up with this. I jumped to the conclusion that in order to survive I have to find my own space within the Church.
I ask other members of the Church in my same situation to share their personal stories in this forum about abuse of gay members within the Church and to come forward.
Derren
Walt Nicholes,
I don’t think there really ever was a time when there weren’t laws about divorce, prostitution, and infidelity. Enforcement was difficult if people were willing to pick up and move on, true. But marriage has always had status in the law.
I’m have not brushed up on my con law, but these are some preliminary thoughts:
Mormons should actually have special standing to comment on this topic because of the mormon experience with the definition of marriage. Historically, three groups qualify as suspect classes protected against discrimination: race, gender, and religion. The LDS polygamy experience–and the many laws against polygamy–show that even religion does not qualify as a suspect classification when it comes to the definition of marriage. Proponents of same-sex marriage have not yet shown two things: first, that they are in fact a suspect class, such as a minority; secondly and even further, they are a suspect class that deserves a greater share of protection than does religion when it comes to the definition of marriage.
By the way, I have never been convinced that any person is born homosexual or perhaps even heterosexual for that matter. If a reason does exist anywhere for a particular group of people to have a propensity toward homosexuality, we must accurately qualify it as a propensity to be confused and to inadequately assimilate social roles. All the more reason for family…
Steve
Steve, appreciate your comment. However, having to qualify that a specific group of people have a propensity to be confused is just rethoric. It is also bad rethoric. I am gay and I am not confused. I love a man.
The Prophet
The President of the Church was invited for the 4th time as a guest for Larry King Live on Cnn.
I was delighted to see him talking outside a Mormon environment. He appeared powerful as always. However it was another big disappointment for me to hear him saying that he believes I ”have a problem” since I am gay. It was a disappointment for me also to hear the Prophet enodorsing such openly a Neo-Con agenda, whith social consequences that I prefer not to mention in this post.
I understand the theological point of view of the Church (I still belong to), but at the same time I found inappropriate the use of the word ”problem” to describe someone’s sexuality.
However I found extremely interesting the statement made by the Prophet himself when he claims he is ” not expert on these things – whether someone is born gay or whether he lately becomes gay”. This statement has potential revolutionary implications that no-one has yet spotted.
When the Prophet is inspired by God via a revelation he does not express any theological hesitation. Taling at Larry King Live he did.
It happened when he claimed ”not to be an expert on these things” – question being whether he belived someone borns gay or actually becomes homosexual later.
Hinckley did not have an answer for that and the consequences for that, in my view, are tremendous. Not knowing theologically if someone is or is not BORN gay means that there is NOT an official position over the issue. And claiming that someone is eventually BORN gay requires the need for a space for gay people in the Salvation Plan. Very often I mentioned my belief about the possibility than in the next decades the Church would eventually endorse a same-sex-marriage policy, not because of the changes that it would be challanged to face within society, but because a Revelation would come.
I believe in fact that the Salvation Plan as it is know today is incomplete. The Church is in fact not ready for such a revolutionary concept. However I do believe that this Revelation would eventually come, and the Prophet’s words made my belief even more stronger.
A black Prophet ? – King asked – ”there could be” – Hinckley said.
A gay Prophet ? – I ask – ”there will be” – I hope.
“However I found extremely interesting the statement made by the Prophet himself when he claims he is ‘’ not expert on these things – whether someone is born gay or whether he lately becomes gay’’. This statement has potential revolutionary implications that no-one has yet spotted.”
Well, no. In a fallen world, people can be born with all sorts of things that aren’t necessarily part of their eternal destiny. My sister was born crippled. In the resurrection she’ll be whole. People with Tourette’s can’t help cussing. Doesn’t mean cussing is part of what goes on in the Celestial Kingdom. Some people have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Doesn’t mean we’ll have a drunk prophet someday.
Adam, thanks again for considering me ill, affected of a desease or some ”sort of things that is not necessarily part of my eternal destiny”. Again your statement is arrogant and leaves no space for discussion. As usual you miss my point. For the record, your sense of humour needs a serious boost man, you don’t wanna live your eternity unable to dialogue with all the gay people that will be around you…
Ah, Derren, you know my eternal destination all too well. ;)
For the record, I believe I will be having those dialogues, with people that Derren would now label as gay.
No matter what your moral or religious stand may be (yes, there is a difference), the issue of Gay Marriage is an issue that must be looked at from outside the box. The first thing one must realize is that Gay Marriage is legal in the United States of America. All states MUST honor a union established in the State of Massachusetts, Full Faith and Credit. The issue of States’ Rights is null and void here due to the wording of the Federal Constitution. Now, if you choose to take the moral or religious position that the Civil Union or Marriage of homosexuals is immoral, go right ahead. Your moral or religious beliefs shall not impede on another’s moral or religious beliefs, nor will someone else’s personal moral or religious beliefs impede on your moral or religious beliefs. The Civil Union or Marriage of other people has NO DIRECT digression of your moral or religious beliefs. The difference between a legal Civil Union or Marriage, as designated by Federal, State, or Local Law, and that of a moral or religious marriage is that the preceding is based in Law, not theology. To incorporate language in Federal, State, or Local Law, that states marriage is only between one man and one woman is clearly a violation of personal rights by being an overt case of sexual discrimination. In the specific case of those who believe in the viability of and the moral or religious accessibility of Polygamy, it is then religious discrimination. The discrimination of a person because of their sexual orientation is the same as the discrimination of a person because of the color of their skin, the creed they profess, or their gender.
If you choose to take the position that Gay Marriage somehow erodes the moral tradition of the United States of America, I challenge you to look back over the history of marriage in this nation. A family consisting of one father and one mother and their children is not the traditional American family. This nation has never had a specific “traditional� family structure; to have had one would have been a slap in the face to our multi-cultural, multi-religious, and multi-ethnic background. We live in a republic, and therefore, we live in a nation that is able to be molded and altered as needed to promote a political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. Ask every citizen of this great country what they consider a traditional family, and you will receive a myriad of responses. An African American male would most likely explain how a traditional family is a single working mother with a couple of children. At the same time a Mexican American would most likely explain that a traditional family is composed of several grandparents, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, a mother and father, and several siblings. Most Caucasian Americans would explain the traditional family in the eyes of the oppressive Anglo-Saxon Protestant majority; a dominant father and submissive mother with a couple children. To accept that view as the only valid and moral option is to succumb to the oppression that has not only restricted the economic, political, and creative growth of the United States of America, but also the spiritual growth of our great nation.
“…the issue of Gay Marriage is an issue that must be looked at from outside the box.”
I wonder if we’re willing to look far enough outside of our own little mortal box to find out what Deity has to say about gay marraige.
An African American male would most likely explain how a traditional family is a single working mother with a couple of children? Wow Nick…the presumptuousness of that statement is staggering.
Nick, your stereotypes re African Americans, Latinos, etc., are still universes removed from gay marriage. A broken home or one with lots of aunts and uncles and grandmas and cousins running around are hardly spot-on analogies!
Meaning that in each of your examples, the husband-wife relationship and the culture it entails are the central premise of the arrangement.
Don’t feed the trolls.
“And claiming that someone is eventually BORN gay requires the need for a space for gay people in the Salvation Plan.”
Of course it doesn’t. People are born with all sorts of conditions that we don’t expect will persist in the eternities. That’s part of the beauty of the resurrection.
There have been many definitions of marriage. Two elements are common to all of them: (1) a union of man and woman (2) for life.
In modern Western Cultures, we’ve added elements (3) severable (meaning you can break the contract for life, in divorce) and (4) EXCLUSIVE, meaning that you can’t form more than one marriage at the same time. Thus Polygamy doesn’t even create a wrinkle in either of the two main elements. A plig man had two marriages. The wives were not married to each other; it was not all one marriage.
I have a hard time crediting the good faith of Mormons who claim to honor our ancestors by supporting ssm. Our ancestors were persecuted and jailed for their temple marriages, many of which were effected before the law was even passed to make them illegal. They were systematically persecuted. Wives went to jail for refusing to testify against their husbands. They did not ask or want the government to recognize their socially deviant relationships. They simply wanted to be left alone.
I don’t consider a mormon’s support for ssm treason against the church leadership. They’ve made a suggestion; you can follow or ignore it. But support for ssm is certainly a betrayal of the community. We all know very well that passage of ssm laws will bring upon us the same sorts of forces that our polygamous ancestors faced, to coerce us to sollemnize ssm in the temples. The antionwide ssm movement is based on the premise that those who refuse to recognize ssm are the moral equivalent of the White Supremacists in Loving v. Virginia. And the Bob Jones case makes clear that the Supreme Court will wink at “whatever it takes” to pressure White Supremacists into changing their doctrines.
If you don’t like the doctrine of the church, then take it up directly with God and the brethren. Don’t walz behind our backs and promote government measures to coerce the church into making the doctrinal changes you desire.
Obviously, agreement with the Lawrence decision is a different matter entirely. I don’t understand how we managed to get centuries of constitutional law under our belt without taking the 4rth amendment seriously. Obviously, arresting unmarried adults for a consensual sexual nonreproductive act in the privacy of their own home, is an “unreasonable search and seizure” under the 4th amendment. We didn’t need Lawrence’s umpteen pages of moaning about the plight of gays to say enough is enough to that sort of intrusive criminal law!