quote:Do Mormons support any sort of legislation that involves deterrent punishments to women who refuse to take a husband? or a man to take a wife? of couples who don't have children?
posted
Well, there are societal consequences that Mormons are as responsible for as anybody else of course. Then there are tax breaks for married couples, which I am assuming many Mormons do support. A deterent AGAINST non-marriage would be too strong a descriptor, but there are defintely society-sponsored benefits to being married.
In other ways, I think many people probably punish those who choose not to marry, if indirectly, by allowing them to be excluded from society, and margianalized, or stereotyped as anti-social.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that "single" doesn't inherently mean ANY of those things. Single, for whatever reason, is more and more becoming perfectly normal and acceptable in society. If you want to be a soccer mom that's fine, if you want to be a stay at home dad, that's cool too. While there are still gender stereotypes, people can pretty much do whatever they want and not be ostracized for it by the national community. Individual communities are totally different, but I'm talking about mainstream society.
mph -
If as lynn says, forsaking marriage for the sake of pursuing a professional single life is defiance of biological demands or what not is a sin, then why is the same sin committed by homosexual cause for action, but for single women and men, it's just frowned upon but let go?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Possibly because you can't tell who is "forsaking marriage" and who just hasn't found the right spouse yet, whereas if you catch homosexuals in the act, it's pretty clear cut. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmph. I'll say it again (I've said it before, but it generally goes uncommented on or responded to):
When I was young girl in Mia Maids, I was told pretty emphatically and repeatedly that my duty as a young woman was to learn how to support the menfolk in the priesthood. To wit: I needed to learn housekeeping skills, be prepared to raise a big family, etc.
College was an option for as long as as it took to get a 2-year degree in home economics.
Not marrying and having children meant I would never get to the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom.
My questioning and disputing of those principles got me a long talk with the Bishop.
So yes, I'd say there is certain amount of pressure on folks in the fold to comply with the biological imperative.
And, I'll say it again -- it's always a delight to get to meet other Mormons (current OR ex) and learn that there are as many variations on the basic tenets on Mormonism as there are variations of Christianity. *twinkle* It's that American insistence on "free thinking."
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Possibly because you can't tell who is "forsaking marriage" and who just hasn't found the right spouse yet, whereas if you catch homosexuals in the act, it's pretty clear cut.
Guess I should've been more clear, what I really want to know is what harm being a homosexual does to the world? to society? to families? And why they are treated as some sort of ultimate enemy, whereas the damage that heterosexuals have done to society and marriage/family is ultimately more destructive.
I really don't understand it, and my arguments might be missing the mark to the audience I'm trying to address because the idea is so foreign to me, I can't even imagine or conceive of what the perceived harm is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want gays to be able to marry because it means more potential income for me.
(Okay, I'm kidding, that's not really why.)
(But it *would* mean more potential income for me. So gays marrying doesn't hurt everybody in society.)
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
If as lynn says, forsaking marriage for the sake of pursuing a professional single life is defiance of biological demands or what not is a sin, then why is the same sin committed by homosexual cause for action, but for single women and men, it's just frowned upon but let go?
I'm really curious about this, too. And I'm not being snotty here or confrontational - I really do want to know whether there's a particular reason for this difference. I'd be interested to hear people weigh in on this specific topic. I am choosing not to have any children, so I do often wonder whether that is an action that others may perceive to negatively impact society (or perceive to be a sin, in other words), and how.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
When I was young girl in Mia Maids, I was told pretty emphatically and repeatedly that my duty as a young woman was to learn how to support the menfolk in the priesthood. To wit: I needed to learn housekeeping skills, be prepared to raise a big family, etc.
Oh, my goodness. I'll count myself lucky to have missed out on that experience. Actually, I'll count the poor Bishop and the teachers lucky for my having missed out on that. I don't even want to know what I woulda done!
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: To conservatives, people are resources. To the liberal (of today's perversion), they are net costs. The conservatives cite the Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich bet of the 1970s. More people = more opportunities and lower prices. So the idea that we should have two or fewer children is widely accepted in Main Stream Media, but not among Mormons and other conservatives.
That's why the long-term outlook for liberal democrats is so bleak. They are dying off.
Liberal democrats don't spring solely from the loins of other liberal democrats. Anarchists, socialists, communists, religious fanatics and even the odd conservative couple have been known to sire liberals. So the only bleakness is in your own POV, Lynn.
The "idea that we should have two or fewer children" is not some melodious mantra subliminally soothing people in an insidious Liberal Main Stream Media Plot brainwashing people into having 2.4 children and NO MORE. Declining birth rates have been happening throughout the 20th century in developed countries for many reasons, and liberalism is not a major one (a trivial one?).
posted
First, I'm new to the forum. Long time lurker though. 33 male married 4 children, mormon since 1993, etc... LOL, thought I'd get that out of the way first!
Next, the below entry prompted me to de-lurk. I was very taken aback by such words.
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: To conservatives, people are resources. To the liberal (of today's perversion), they are net costs. The conservatives cite the Julian Simon and Paul Erhlich bet of the 1970s. More people = more opportunities and lower prices. So the idea that we should have two or fewer children is widely accepted in Main Stream Media, but not among Mormons and other conservatives.
That's why the long-term outlook for liberal democrats is so bleak. They are dying off. [/QB]
I'm in the minority here (speaking of my religion) but I consider myself a conservative democrat. Have been since I took an interest in politics and how they affected my life and family as a teen-ager. Republicans - aka Conservatives, and Mr. Card included - have become very condensending in my eyes over the last 5-6 years. They throw the word "liberal" around likes its a bad thing, a sin even. And while I don't agree with all things "democrat" (abortion, etc.) I consider myself much more in line with what Democrats uphold. Most conservative aspects come across to me as limiting, non-inclusive, etc... (we may be few, but Mormons aren't exclusively Republican!)
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread and make it political. But the above quote really didn't sit well with me. As for the original topic, homosexuality, I like other Mormons here believe it a sin. Is it a simple subject? Or course not. But with most things related to my adherence to my religion: God speaks through prophets, I consider said speakings, I apply them to my life where possible. Thats not blind following, its thoughtful and purposeful.
posted
Welcome to Hatrack, striplngrz! De-lurk more often.
You didn't hijack the thread, you were the third person to quote Lynn. Anyway, threads go off-topic frequently.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Um, considering that only something like 1/3 of the LDS population lives in the US, the rest lives in countries where Republican has no meaning... Yup. (I still don't know the difference between US Republican and US Conservative, or is that Liberal? No, wait, Democrats. Nor, as should be obvious, do I care. )
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: More than once I've tried to explain my views on that subject when I've been asked, only to be treated rudely for my troubles.
I doubt I'll ever bother to do so here again. At least, no time soon.
Can't force you to answer, though if someone else wants to take a shot at it, I'd appreciate it.
Though, could I ask you to link me to a thread where you have answered that question before?
I really want to know the details of the matter. The arguments are always so nebulous (not talking to you now mph, just musing in general), "they destroy families" or "it's wrong." That tells me nothing. HOW do they destroy families? Or marriages? Why is it wrong, except that it's a sin? If we come down to the fact that the only thing wrong with it is it's fundamental status as a sin, then it shouldn't be legislated, plain and simple.
And if it comes down to the fact that it being a sin is the only thing wrong with it, then again I must ask, why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?
You're assuming that all other sins are quietly ignored.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Um, considering that only something like 1/3 of the LDS population lives in the US, the rest lives in countries where Republican has no meaning...
For example, the political opinions of the majority of French Mormons I've met would place them squarely within the ranks of the Democratic party, if they were to move to the U.S.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
p.s. A gay marriage thread which has gone two pages without a major flame war! A hatrack record.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not marrying and having children meant I would never get to the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom.
Let me point out that the actual doctrine states that ALL people have to be married in order to get to the "highest part of the celestial kingdom."
I just don't want people to think that Mormons believe women only get to Heaven on by hanging on to men's coattails.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now would I like people to get the impression that Shan's Mia Maid class was representative of actual Church doctrine. It more closely resembles the folk doctrine that springs from Utah culture.
edit to add: And, unfortunately, many of the official Church manuals and materials are also influenced by the same folk doctrines, as are many American Mormons, so folk doctrine is often taught as real doctrine in Sunday School classes.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Brian. When I was of Mia Maid age, I was living in rural, southeastern Idaho (Rexburg! Hooray!), a culture that's so Utahan it might as well be in Utah. So I would not have been spared! Eeeek!
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holy cow Libbie...I grew up just outside Rexburg (Lyman). Lived there from '88 to '98. That's crazy, it's a small world.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it wrong, except that it's a sin? If we come down to the fact that the only thing wrong with it is it's fundamental status as a sin, then it shouldn't be legislated, plain and simple.
A good starting point for LDS views on why this is wrong- The Family: A Proclamation to the World This is not a direct condemnation of homosexuality. Rather it is an affirmation of what is correct according to LDS doctrine and homosexuality is excluded implicitely.
Please note that this does not explain how anything bad will happen. This is not in any way unique to homosexuality. I can't think of any example where LDS scriptures (which this proclamation now is a part of) specifically detail how the sin is harmful to society or an individual.
quote: And if it comes down to the fact that it being a sin is the only thing wrong with it, then again I must ask, why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?
I'll quote from the above link:
quote:We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.
Adultery, as well as spousal and child abuse, are specifically called out in this and told they will be accountable before God. Nowhere is such a statement mae about homosexuality in this proclaimation. Your assertation that this homosexuality is focused on to the exclusion of other sins is false. For example, adultery is more of a serious sin in LDS doctrine than homosexuality.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out that President Hinckley, the leader of the LDS church and someone whom we believe to be a prophet has instructed everyone, but even more specifically women, to get as much education as they can. Family and marriage are to be striven for and not put off for the sake of education, but we are encouraged not abandon education completely just because a marriage proposition comes along. While the teachings of the church are regulated as much as possible, one can't help but get the influence of the specific teacher giving a lesson at times. That's why we get a lot of different teachers. Our teachers are not trained clergy, merely people within the congregation who have been asked to teach certain classes. It is a time for them to grow in their calling as well. The only people in the church with whom you can take everything they say as pure doctrine are the general authorities. (President and other very high leaders) Everyone else does their best.
I think the big issue with homosexuality and "destroying families" as I've heard mentioned is that we believe marriage to be a very sacred ordinance, holy, and something that should be bringing us closer to God. A proclamation from the First Presidency of the church states that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." Children, where possible, are also an important part of that. Having offspring is a natural part of God's plan. For two people of the same gender to live together and call it marriage, it disrupts God's definition and his plan for families. LDS people feel very strongly about this because family is the most important and our primary focus.
That said, do we believe that someone who is gay is evil? NO! No more than I believe an alcoholic is evil. Every person on the planet is loved EQUALLY by God, and Christ himself has intsructed us to love every person. I also understand that there are a great many people out there who are attracted to people of their same gender who have not been taught the way that I have been taught. I am not self-righteous or naive enough to believe that they will not seek out life-partners of their own and try to live happily. And I, personally, do not have a huge problem with these people. I can't expect them to judge themselves by my standards.
But I DO stand up when it comes to "Gay Rights." I believe gay people have as much right as any other person all the civil rights of any other citizen. And when they choose a life partner I commend them at least for their feelings of fidelity. But it is not marriage.
I also know all the arguments against me. I know how some of you would perceive what I have said to be condescending or naive. Do I even know any gay people? Yes. I have some very good friends who are. I even have an LDS friend who is has a strong testimony who is struggling with it. She has the feelings, but she also believes that homosexuality is a sin. I don't shun her, but try to give her extra love and support for I know it is so difficult for her.
For anyone who could ever get to know me personally you would know that I'm not confrontational or argumentative and that I'm quite sensitive. I don't say any of this to offend. But I felt strongly about sharing these things, so if there are those who disagree, you are welcome to, but please don't make it a personal attack and please keep it respectful. I have made every effort to do so.
More long-winded than I had anticipated. This is all I will say more on the topic.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Holy cow Libbie...I grew up just outside Rexburg (Lyman). Lived there from '88 to '98. That's crazy, it's a small world.
No way! I feel for you. I also did some summer livin' in the Ririe/Archer area.
My maiden name was Ricks - yes, like Ricks College. Rexburg used to be called Ricksburg. So glad I escaped. It is so boring there.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
DaisyMae, I'm somebody who believes that homosexuals should have the right to marry, and I do not see your feelings as condescending or naive AT ALL. Rather, I see them being as loving and accepting as they can be, given your religious beliefs. I commend you for feeling that way - too many Christians forget that the story goes that God loves EVERYBODY equally, and that we're supposed to do the same, even the sinners. I'm glad you feel that way.
I believe that gay people should be able to marry because it is unfair to deny them the privileges that go with marriage in our society - tax breaks, decision-making powers for their loved ones, etc. If they choose to live in a committed relationship with their partner, caring for one another and cooperating, how is it any different from my marraige to my husband? I'm afraid I just can't see how it is any different.
That could be because I have a very long history in the dog-showing world, where homosexuals probably outnumber heterosexuals by about 3:1. Consequently, I have more gay friends than straight friends, and many of them live in committed relationships or "official" domestic partnerships. Many even are raising children as families. I understand that to many people here, particularly those with strong religious beliefs, that may seem repulsive or incredible - but they are some of the most loving, caring families I've ever met.
A good number of my friends who are my age grew up with same-sex parents, and none of them turned out screwed up. Nearly all of these kids from gay families are heterosexual (a common argument against gay marriage is that all the kids raised by these parents would end up gay, and that somehow we'd end up with no babies born...eventually), some are married, and all have had very successful relationships. Personally, I can't think of a single one who ended up hooking up with an abusive person, or a loser, or who has struggled more than usual with any aspect of his or her life. On the contrary, most of my friends from "traditional" families had serious relationship problems, ran into trouble with drugs and/or alcohol, are smokers or otherwise abuse their bodies, etc. Many of these friends of mine are from very religious families with parents who are still married.
Of course, that's not to say that there are no gay-family kids out there who have serious problems - of course not. Nor is it to say that kids raised in "traditional" families are more prone to problems. I guess I'm just trying to explain why I personally don't buy any arguments against gay marriage. I'm not saying that others' feelings aren't valid on the topic, either, unless they have actually *hateful* feelings. Hate doesn't seem terribly valid to me.
For somebody like me, who is not governed by any religious laws, the article linked above (from President Hinckley) simply doesn't hold water on this topic, as well-written as it is. Adulterers and abusers will stand accountable before God - but if you don't beleive in God...? Those who do believe may assert that God still exists whether I believe or not, but that still won't give me a reason to vote against gay marriage. All of the arguments I've seen against it have boiled down to "It's morally wrong," which *almost* always boils down further to "Because God says it's morally wrong." There's the rub. God is different for all who believe. I know many a Christian who does NOT believe that God has ever said anything against homosexuality.
In short, the idea that it's a sin because it's a sin just doesn't work for me. For obvious reasons, right?
It's such a tangle!
Anyway. I think it'll never be sorted out to the majority of society's satisfaction in my lifetime, unfortunately. I'd love to see my gay friends have the same tax cuts as I have, and as easy a time with raising a family as I could have. (I realize a lot of you don't agree with that particular sentiment, of course. That's just what *I* would like to see). But it won't happen in our time, I believe. All I can hope for is that there won't be amendments AGAINST the basic rights of gay people, which seems to be what has scarily been hinted at here and there (never on Hatrack, that I've ever seen).
Anyway, I got longer than I intended, too, DaisyMae! ha ha. Well, it's a topic worth discussing, I think. Thanks to all who've participated so far for sharing your views on it.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
edit:Good summation, Libbie. I agree with most of your above post.
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis:
quote:why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?
You're assuming that all other sins are quietly ignored.
I'm curious, for those pro- and anti gay marriage, how many think it is "the most important issue that we face today."
I'm straight and pro-gay marriage or at least civil union, and I think it's far from the most important issue of the day.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, I don't think it's the most important issue, either. It's probably not even in the top ten to me, as pro-gay-marriage as I am. It certainly COULD be the most important issue if Marilyn Musgrave and her cronies succeed in instituting a constitutional ban on two people entering into a contract together just because they're different from her.
I'm one of those who sees this as not being any different from having problems with interracial marriage. (I know that seems downright laughable to others here.) To me, Musgrave's activities are as repulsive as if she were sponsoring an amendment to ban blacks or Hispanics or Asians from entering into contracts. It's just weird.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: For somebody like me, who is not governed by any religious laws, the article linked above (from President Hinckley) simply doesn't hold water on this topic, as well-written as it is. Adulterers and abusers will stand accountable before God - but if you don't beleive in God...? Those who do believe may assert that God still exists whether I believe or not, but that still won't give me a reason to vote against gay marriage. All of the arguments I've seen against it have boiled down to "It's morally wrong," which *almost* always boils down further to "Because God says it's morally wrong." There's the rub. God is different for all who believe. I know many a Christian who does NOT believe that God has ever said anything against homosexuality.
Just to clarify, the link I posted was not intended to be a legal or objectively logical argument for banning homosexual marriage. It was in response to some inquiries and statements made about a religion. Obviously, to anyone outside that religion it has no meaning other than insight into the beliefs of others. I believe I addressed this when I stated that it does not answer the 'how is it harmful', only the 'why is considered a sin' question.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Just to clarify, the link I posted was not intended to be a legal or objectively logical argument for banning homosexual marriage. It was in response to some inquiries and statements made about a religion. Obviously, to anyone outside that religion it has no meaning other than insight into the beliefs of others. I believe I addressed this when I stated that it does not answer the 'how is it harmful', only the 'why is considered a sin' question.
Oh, I know. Sorry if I confused you. I was just sort of free-flow discussing my thoughts on the whole subject there.
However, the fact that it IS considered a sin is very often used as a reason to legislate against it. *That* I've never understood! Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty straighforward I think: sin=bad, and people generally want to make bad things illegal. That the people don't have a clear grasp of all the effects of bad thing is hardly unique to religion.
For example, here in Nevada there is a ballot issue involving eminent domain reform. The number of people that truly grasp the harms under the current system as opposed to the potential problems of the proposed changes is very very small. Yet many support or oppose it for a simplistic reason or two. They are unable to support their position logically.
It just kind of bothers me that religious people are often portrayed to have some sort of logical short circuit when it comes to their beliefs and voting. It seems to escape notice that people have similar issues when it comes to other topics of a non-religious nature.
Edit: Please note I'm not promoting voting and decision making in an uninformed manner.
I don't think that religious people have a logical short circuit - and I know that an awful lot of religious people don't support voting issues that are *purely* religious in context because they recognize that not everybody shares their religion. It only bothers me when *some* religious people disregard the fact that they share a country with people whose spiritual beliefs differ from theirs. That's an important facet of everybody's lives, and it shouldn't be disregarded, you know?
Not that I accuse you of doing that. I'm just hoping to explain my position on things, because it seems that I confused you a bit.
I understand the sin=bad thing, but justifying something's badness solely on the fact that it's a sin in your religion (any topic, not just gay marriage) is troublesome because of the whole "different religions" thing. But yes, it is a natural reaction to legislate against the "bad," no matter where one's idea of "bad" originates.
I just think that for ALL issues up for vote, we need to be sure that "bad" is clearly defined as having a negative impact on society, not solely as "it's sinful." Otherwise, it could be hard for a diverse group of voters to get behind the "badness" and see it as truly bad. I sure hope I'm making sense here.
I can see, logically, the arguments that many people have against gay marriage - those arguments that present ways in which it may be bad for society. I don't agree with them, but I can see the thought processes behind them, and while they may be religious in origin, they have enough non-religious context that I feel they are valid enough to be considered fairly in a vote. But I only feel that a valid point is made by "the other side" in this particular argument when they can present their ideas on it in a nonreligious (or mostly so) context - i.e., without saying, "It's wrong because God says so." Again, I hope that makes sense.
For the record, I think most Hatrackers do a really great job of presenting logical arguments for their side of this issue. If you guys weren't logical, though, I wouldn't stick around. Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Daisy, I don't think your standing is naive at all. However, my tack is to say that civil marriage isn't the religious marriage; I think Mormons, in particular, can sympathize with that statement, at some level. So allowing same-sex couplings of a sort to be registered as a civil marriage doesn't seem to be in any conflict of any religion. Civil marriage is rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's (and getting several hundred federal and state privileges and responsibilities as a result). The moment the government tried to force any religious group to marry people they don't believe can be properly married (with gay, interracial, whatever), in their sacred places, is the moment I petition the government to stop overstepping its bounds.
It only seems somewhat spiteful to hold the word hostage, when we aren't talking about every definition of the term, but one particular meaning. If we all just want civil unions, whether opposite or same-sex, that'd be fine too. I just don't want some sort of parallel legislation for the two types, when our existing set of laws can be tweaked relatively simply, as has happened without much further ado (except from anti-same-sex-marriage folks) up here in MA.
quote: I understand the sin=bad thing, but justifying something's badness solely on the fact that it's a sin in your religion (any topic, not just gay marriage) is troublesome because of the whole "different religions" thing. But yes, it is a natural reaction to legislate against the "bad," no matter where one's idea of "bad" originates.
I think it gets even more complicated because many or most of the things prohibited by religions (excluding rituals or commandments specifically regarding God) are demonstratably harmful on some level- not simply because its sinful. Those viewpoints are usually shared among different religions and the non-religious. So people used to supporting laws according to their moral code are suddenly told they shouldn't do that any more with respect to this issue. It often doesn't sit very well with them, which may be one reason why it can be such a hot-button issue. The reasons it's a hot-button issue for the other side are much more obvious. Of course I'm generalizing broadly here, so of course there are many exceptions.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:people generally want to make bad things illegal
See, that's the part that I really don't agree with. To me, thinking something is bad is enough for me to not do it myself and to try to convince other people that it is bad. I need more than a belief that something is bad before I expect to be taken seriously in saying "We should use force to prevent people from doing this." I think, absent an argument that doesn't rely on prejudice, people shouldn't expect to be taken seriously when talking about laws other people should follow.
Consider, for example, if the Baptists were able to make laws enforcing their ideas of good and bad. LDS are like second or third on their list of people they want to oppress. If you don't think they should get to treat you as second class citizens because of the religious prejudice against you, I don't see how you can claim that it is right to treat gay people as second class because you have a religious prejudice against them.
To me, a large part of living in a modern democracy is the realization that you don't have the right to force your ideas of right and wrong on others without any justification other than that they are your ideas of right and wrong.
edit: Incidentally, I love marriage. I think, when done right, it's of huge benefit not just to the people in it, but the entire surrounding community. That's why I support gay marriage, because I can't see any reason why they wouldn't accrue these benefits. I'd go gaga if there was a movement towards realistic fixing what's wrong with marriage that got a tenth of the attention, energy, and funding that the - often targetted towards bigots - "defense of marriage" movement gets.
Is an updated response from the LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks and a general authority Lance Wickham about LDS views and responses to homosexuality.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriages for homosexuals cannot be forced upon the church. You can't legislate it. I think that government should guarantee that the same legal rights be conferred upon whatever gendered couples that want them, but they can't force the churches to marry them.
If there's no real reason other than "sin!" then it shound't be a law. That's legislating doctrine, and even worse, it legislates doctrine at the cost of the rights of other Americans.
What is the objection from Mormons to Civil Unions?
And judging from the fact that I don't see any legislation in Congress to outlaw single females and males, or other "minor" sins, outside of the Mormon community, it appears that homosexuality is of the utmost importance.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: See, that's the part that I really don't agree with. To me, thinking something is bad is enough for me to not do it myself and to try to convince other people that it is bad. I need more than a belief that something is bad before I expect to be taken seriously in saying "We should use force to prevent people from doing this."
I understand that you are that way MrSquicky. However, I did say I was talking about people in general, and even added a note at the end reemphasizing that point. Take the abortion debate for example. Neither of the mainstream sides, IMO, has complete justification for their position. The arguments all hinge on the nature of the fetus. So much national energy is directed to a topic that right now we don’t have a sound basis on which to rest our logical arguments. Yet everybody has an opinion on the matter and wants the law to be one way or another.
quote: To me, a large part of living in a modern democracy is the realization that you don't have the right to force your ideas of right and wrong on others without any justification other than that they are your ideas of right and wrong.
Around the time the United States launched its offensive against Iraq, there was some guy posting videos on the Internet that seemed like he wanted to be a conservative Michael Moore. He interviewed people demanding that the war not happen that were protesting in the street. Several people stated they opposed the war because we were just going there for the oil. His follow-up question asked how we were going to get the oil from Iraq. Not one person could answer, usually dead silence. These people were out protesting and could not construct even a simple argument justifying their position. If they could vote on the matter, they most likely would have voted to not go to war.
To their credit, Hatrack members are much better at justifying things logically. I would venture to say that most Hatrackers that are against SSM actually have logical reasons for their opposition that don't include ‘homosexuals are teh bad.’ Many people may think they’re flawed reasons, but obviously the other side would think that otherwise they wouldn’t be on the other side.
I may have not made it clear MrSquicky, but my above posts have nothing to do with my own views on the SSM issue. I was simply hammering out some ideas about the nature of the controversy, and giving a religious reference to a religious question. The link that Quetzalcoatl the Burninator provided actually explains the religious aspect better than my link, although it doesn’t carry with it the same doctrinal weight. I’ve lurked on past threads, and with the discussion style here at Hatrack, I really have no desire to get involved in a gay marriage debate.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it would be right to force a church to perform marriages they don't approve of. Nobody's asking for that! Many churches now will refuse to marry a couple of they haven't had counseling or done other "requirements" first. The government has no problem with that. I think it's fine to leave churches plenty of decision room in this issue.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand wanting to preserve tradition. It is important that society be stable and can provide and take care of its members. But, I do not see how gay marriage will destabalize society when there are a lot of things that really cause society to break and shatter. I can see the civil rights parallells because there were many people who were against civil rights for entire groups of people based on the idea of society falling apart somehow if these people are allowed equality. i believe in equality for everyone and would fight for the religious to have their religious rights even though I do not always agree with the tenants of various faiths. But, it would be a disaster if our country became a theocracy, such a thing would not work. For society to thrive, it must be free and open without group based restrictions. Therefore I thing that gays in long term commited relationships should have the same rights as straights that are married. i do not think that gay relationships are any less valid. There are a lot of challenges gays and lesbians face that a lot of straight people do not have to face, a lot of obstacles. They should be allowed to have the tax benefits and all of those other benefits and churches that did not agree would not have to perform the weddings if they do not want to. But it frustrates me the way so many people think that the slightest shift means that their culture or way of life is being threatened. Nothing can threaten your marriage, your religious faith if you are strong behind it, if you concentrate on building the best relationship you can, in honouring your faith than nothing can destroy it. No outside pressure can really threaten it. So the hostility that sometimes comes out perplexes me, especially when many gays and lesbians historically have faced worse, but not a lot of people are willing to study the history and will instead insist on looking at it from one perspective...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?
You're assuming that all other sins are quietly ignored.
I'm curious, for those pro- and anti gay marriage, how many think it is "the most important issue that we face today."
I'm straight and pro-gay marriage or at least civil union, and I think it's far from the most important issue of the day. [/QB]
I don't think it's even close to being in the top ten.
I'd rate child abuse, child prostitution, child pornography, murder, sexual assault, physical assault at the top of the list of things that need serious attention. Since we're talking issues and not (necessarily) crimes, I'd also add teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, illiteracy and problems with the education system, racism and bigotry, adultery and a general lack of morality... Really, I could think of a lot more, but that's enough for now, I think.
And honestly, in my mind, homosexual sex is grouped in with adultery/extra-marital/pre-marital sex in general - from the point of view of my religious beliefs, they are all equally wrong.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BaoQing, I think the abortion parallel makes MrSquicky's point far better than it makes you own. People on both sides can point to concrete reasons for legislating their point of view that go beyond what is or is not sinful. If a fetus is not deserving of the same protection as a human, then it is clearly wrong for the state to control a woman's right to make decisions with regard to her own body. If a fetus is a human being deserving of the same protections under the law, then it is clearly unconscionable to allow a human being to be killed for the mere convenience of the parents. Either way you cut it, both sides see a clear harm to society that goes beyond a religious definition. This is not the case, as far as I can see, with opposition to gay marriage. I have yet to hear a justification for not permitting it that doesn't rely on God or sinfulness. What I have heard is extremely vague notions of societal attitudes, without a clear explanation of just how the marriage of homosexuals will cheapen society's attitude toward marriage, particularly in light of actions by heterosexuals that seem to hurt this attitude at least as much as anything homosexuals could possibly do.
As far as I'm concerned, if you can't clearly show how an action interferes with somebody's rights, without any reference to God or religion, then you should not be able to proscribe it.
Personally, I favor getting the government out of the marriage debate altogether: call them all civil unions, and let the churches decide what they would like to call a marriage. Let all marriages be recognized as civil unions, and let all legal civil unions have the same rights.
As far as how important it is to me, while SSM, or civil unions, are not the most important issue to me, they are quite high on the list. I couldn't quantify exactly where, but quite likely in the top ten (of things I think need to be changed legislatively. Child pornography, for instance, is already illegal, and the issue is simply finding ways to enforce this law better.) I do happen to look at gay rights as analogous to civil rights, and so of course I rank it highly. If you view them as analogous, I'm not sure how you would not. My most important issue, though, is abortion. I am pro-life, and while this issue isn't quite enough to make me a single-issue voter, it weighs extremely heavily on my choices when I vote.
Incidentally, while I am presenting my views emphatically, I hope I am not doing so offensively. I don't believe that people who disagree with me are bigoted or prejudiced. I believe they simply have a different philosophy on legislation than I do. Personally, I favor smaller government. I don't like passing laws without extremely clear, concrete, and good reasons to do so. I believe that you cannot and should not attempt to legislate morality, but I know quite a few people I respect a great deal do not agree with that statement. (It pisses me off when they tell me that I don't really believe that, just as those of you who disagree with me no doubt get pissed of when people discount what you say you believe and tell you what you really are about, but that's neither here nor there, neh?) Anyway, my point in mentioning this is to commend the people who have posted their opinions in this thread before me, for making this the most respectful thread on SSM I have ever seen. Seriously; it isn't even close. Almost everyone is trying so hard not to be insulting, it's amazing. There have been a small number of unfortunate comments, but most people really are being very polite. Not that it's my place to commend you, but I felt like I needed to comment on it. I hope I have not been out of step with the tone you all have established here.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And if it comes down to the fact that it being a sin is the only thing wrong with it, then again I must ask, why is there so much antipathy towards THIS sin, but all the other sins of the world and society are loathed but quietly ignored for the sake of this singular super-sin?
I took an American modern/postmodern literature course on Scapegoating and the theme of the metaphorical "live burial" last year. There are some frankly fascinating observations in our literature of these two phenomena.
One similarity I see now, since I've taken classes on realist-modern American lit, that is, literature that came before 1945, I see a common theme emerging.
Isolation and the societal double-bind and the "live burial" of individuals who don't fit into traditional roles exists in American lit from the beginning, but in the 1880s-1930, the preserved literature deals with the isolation and double bind of the woman's role in society. Ingram, Howells, et all.
During the early 20th century, up to the 60s, the stultifying energy of the same postion in life is found in African American writing- Du Bois, Hughs, and James Baldwin are good examples. The literature describing racial experiences is written from the perspective of the buried alive- the speaker who has no name, and is a part of the "outside" of society. Though its a common theme in modern literature in general, its more specific in African American works specifically dealing with places in society. Today, I think that part, once played by the disenfranchised, the religiously persecuted, the woman, the African American who is accepted as an incomplete entity in society, is played by the homosexual.
Its a similar experience in all cases: a person's status in society is at once acceptable, and unacceptable. In this case, the law and societal standards are in transition, just as they were for African Americans ina huge way in the 1960s, and for women in a huge way in the early 1900s. The law and societal standards today, (at least those deemed acceptable for a politician to express) are against racial bigotry in society and in law. The standards are also now generally disposed towards equality of the sexes. Still, it remains acceptable to argue against the rights of homosexuals, but this is an argument that would not have been entertained a century ago. The fact that these other struggles have come to pass (and we feel their effects still) makes me believe that the mere idea that issues of sexuality are being enterainted is a sign that things are changing.
A small anecdote: When I was growing up, I remember asking my mom about "what gay people are." we lived in San Francisco, and we knew gay people, so it was an obvious question for a kid. My mother told me, at the time (maybe 15 years ago) that homosexuality was a choice. Today, she doesn't feel that way- and doesn't remember telling me that. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always thought the whole choice or not issue was irrelevant and overblown. I really don't see either being true as evidence for either camp. But then, I suppose that's an artifact of the angle I come at this from.
-o-
What do you mean by "stultifying energy"? That almost seems oxymoronic. (Intentionally?)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
it is oxymoronic, and it is an intentional juxtaposition.
Alot of stories dealing with scapegoating and live burial concepts have the narrator steeped in the energy surrounding their plight. If you've read James Baldwin's "Sonny's Blues" for instance, there is alot of reference to oblique movement inside of a hurricane of forces, as well as a consumption of the speaker in those forces. Sonny's brother, the narrator, imagines the icy dread filling his veins is like the heroin that his brother is addicted to; this observation while the brother is standing alone in a moving subway car. There are alot of references to contained energy- the brother says the ice in himself is going to explode if it expands too much, and his brother comments that there is enough electricity in the air in Harlem to blow apart the sidewalk.
That's stultifying energy- a person containing so much of the feeling or the identity that it strangles him and paralyses him. I remember reading a story by a gay latino author about his childhood, in which he uses an extended metaphor of race to describe the "darkness" of homosexuality in himself. He tries to shave his arms, covered in dark hair, to cut out the darkness, but it doesn't go away.
-this looks like I just went to a lecture and repeated everything some proff said, but this hasn't ever been the topic of a lecture I've heard. Its just something I got from reading a certain selection of works, plus considering this issue.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I've always thought the whole choice or not issue was irrelevant and overblown. I really don't see either being true as evidence for either camp. But then, I suppose that's an artifact of the angle I come at this from.
I suppose it depends on what you're arguing about. In some things, if you have one person saying "its evil" and another say, "nu-uh," then the question of choice are not would seem not to matter. The person who thinks homosexuals are evil had better got to admit that he then believes that people can be born evil, or else he has to argue that homosexuality IS a choice. I've always thought that this would be the broken back of bigotry against gays- that phycologists and scientists would convincingly show, (and I don't know my facts on this), that it was not a choice, but something you were born with and could not change about yourself.
This ignores the argument that despite a person being born homosexual, the ACT is still a sin. According to my religion teachers in Catholic highschool, this is the Catholic church's strong belief- that science can show that people are born gay, but that will not make homosexual acts moral. I don't particularly worry about THIS part of the argument, because it begins at a position which is appropriate for a religious institution to have.
The Catholic church is making a judgement based on faith, and not pretending, as it used to, that it knows something more about people than they do about themselves. If a religion doesn't presume to substitute its will for the obvious scientific facts, then the argument for homosexuality being a sin is cast in the appropriate venue, one between the church and the members of the church- and the church is not longer trying to affect change in our lives by changing the law of the land. The church also does not claim, (for the most part), that things must be so, simply for the convenience of the religion- it is willing to accept ambiguity now; the homosexual is not evil for being born. The idea that homosexual acts are evil acts is then a question for the faithful, and shouldn't, imo, affect those who are of a different faith, or have different beliefs. At any rate, it will, but not nearly as much as it used to when the churches were activists in favor of legislating morality. I know churches still DO try to legislate their very specific ideas of morality, but I think those efforts are largely obvious and therefore not dangerous to freedom, or religion.
edit: And here's the thing if certain scientific and societal theories are right: homosexuals will NEVER go away. If its not a genetic defect, if it isn't a choice, if its a process built into human populations (if accidentally) by evolution, then its not something that can be "fixed." This seems to be something we've now realized. I once asked a science teacher: if homosexuality is genetic, then what would happen if homosexuals never married or had children? What if society became so accustomed to it, that they never had to lie or hide, or even be confused about their sexuality? Would the trait dissappear from our genes over centuries? The teacher had no answer, because we don't exactly know if such a scenario is even possible, but the fact that the gay population levels out at a predictable number in every population, never rising and never really diminishing over the very long term, it leads one to wonder what religious institutions would have people do. Even if the gay population never had sex at all, with anyone, there is no proof that exactly the same number of homosexuals wouldn't be born to replace them- so the moral "battle" if you will, could be eternal and unwinnable. That string of suppositions, as iffy as it is, gives me some pause.
quote:I think it's pretty presumptuous for any outsider to say the proper way to be X.
Quick sidetrack back to the mini ex-LDS/vegetarian/scriptural interpretation controversy....
I just want to say that I was very surprised that my comments raised anyone's hackles. I was merely repeating what I had read in the D&C. It's very clearly there. Whether or not I am an "outsider" (what a way to view the world, btw) has nothing to do with whether or not the scriptures are there. They're there.
quote:I wouldn't have said "boo" if TL had said "That's the way I interpret that scripture", "That is what I think is true", or "That's what I believed back when I did belive".
But no, TL said "That is what those people should be doing".
And by the way, that ISN'T what I said. I very clearly said: "this is what I think those people should be doing, according to scripture," and then I said, "or they could be doing this, or at least this," giving room for a couple of different interpretations.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
do I care. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
