posted
Tempboss, I understand your point of view and applaude it, but you would be surprised by the number of church going people who would denounce two men holding hands in church, and would assume that two men living together were having sex together, and would never let them teach Sunday school based on ungrounded fears and suspicions.
Boris, two things:
You say that marriage is designed to produce families and better children. If the parents can not have children they can adopt.
Why must that still be Man and Wife? Why can not two women or two men marry, and adopt children to raise in their loving home?
The answer I get is that it will confuse the children by making them think that such a relationship is right, when it is wrong, but the only wrong thing about the relationship seems to be this. Very circular reasoning.
Others have argued that it is the foreknowledge that gay marriages will be sterile that makes them wrong. Yet no one suggests that a man or woman who are sterile should be not allowed to marry.
Do we need proof of fertility?
You also argue that you do not want people, possibly turning violent, to march on your church because it does not and will never recognize gay marriages.
Where does this fear come from?
I have never heard a liberal or gay rights person, organization, or leader suggest violence or protesting any church for its beliefs. I have heard conservative Christian leaders, who I doubt are truly very Christian, spread these fears in order to scare thier followers into supporting them.
But I understand it is a real fear with you.
Can you understand the fear that is in the hearts of gay couples that people from your church will take the illegalization of homosexuality as an opportunity to march on those couples. That those good church marchers may possibly turn violent, because of the insult thier "sin" is doing to your church's beliefs?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I think this thread is one of the most reasoned, civil, and productive threads we've had concerning homosexuality here at Hatrack. It makes me very happy.
Boris, I want to thank you personally for your posts. You have stated your beliefs in a clear and respectful manner. I think that if everyone (on and off Hatrack) were to follow your lead, then the violence and animosity you fear would not be an issue.
I want to address two of your concerns. First, that legal recognition of homosexual marriages would impinge on your beliefs and religious freedoms. Second, that such recognition would lead to an increase in violence against you, your church, and others in similar situations.
Legal marriage is already divorced (no pun intended) from the various religious practices of marriage in this country. A man and a woman can be married by a justice of the peace. They sign the marriage certificate, and they're married in the eyes of the law. No religious entities are involved. To date, this has not raised much of a fuss, except within some families, because the legal definition and application of marriage has not strayed far from the beliefs of the religious majority of this country.
In essence, legal marriage is a contract between two people and the government that accords certain rights, benefits and responsibilities. This is important because the government recognizes that family members do have certain rights and responsibilities that are different than those of non-family members. A classic example is visitation in a hospital.
If you were to get married in a temple, according to the practices of your religion, you would consider yourself married regardless of what the federal/state/local government said, wouldn't you? Yet you still would sign the marriage certificate and have the governement recognize your marriage because without it you would be unable to receive the legal benefits of marriage. The situation is analagous to homosexual marriages. There are men and women that have committed, lifelong relationships with people of the same sex. They don't need the government's permission. Yet without legal recognition, they are barred from having visitation rights, from recieving all the benefits that come with being legally married.
The crucial point here is that legally recognizing homosexual marriages would not in any way hinder your ability to marry according to your religious customs. Nor would it impinge on your belief that homosexual relationships are wrong. It is legal to lie, have premarital sex, to be a crude, vulgar, and mean-spirited asshole, despite Christianity, Judaism, and Islam teaching that those things are wrong and immoral. Judaism teaches that a person should not eat the flesh of an animal with split hooves. Islam teaches that women should be modest, and cover themselves with clothing. Yet millions of people eat bacon and millions of women go jogging wearing shorts and a sports bra.
The old cliche is that America is a place where we are "free to be you and me". Legal recognition of homosexual marriage would not restrict your ability be yourself, to believe in your religion, or live the way you think best. It would, however, extend that freedom to another group of people. Just because you disagree with the way they live their lives, does not mean that they do not deserve the choice, just as you do.
I don't know why increased acceptance of homosexual marriage would result in violence against LDS (or any other religion's) churches or temples. Even if it did, that would not be enough to dissuade me from advocating for legal recognition of homosexual marriage. Many people were hurt in the civil rights movement. Should it have been suppressed in the name of keeping the peace? If violence was perpetrated against Mormons because of their beliefs, I would demand that those who did it be treated the same as anyone else who commits a hate crime.
As for picketing and social stigma, that is beyond the scope of legislation. I would disagree with anyone who picketed a church or temple in a disruptive or hateful way. At the same time, I would support their legal right to do it, the same as pro-life pickets of abortion clinics, or the rights of any other group to express and advocate their beliefs.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris, you make a point that no one has offered to see things from your viewpoint, which is a bit strong on a very conservative, Christian and in many cases Mormon website. I think the anti-gay message is loud and strong. Thankfully, this discussion has remained civil which is both surprising and refreshing.
I see the issue of sexuality and homosexuality as having its lines drawn in the same battlefield as slavery and women's rights. In the latter cases, it was clearly the Haves and Have-nots at odds with one another. With slavery, those with Freedom were happy to have a world where others didn't have Freedom. Those without were assumed to be that way because of a variety of reasons, largely economical. But Biblical and Social reasons were found as well (they were heathens/pagans with little intelligence, etc.). Either way it is always much more comfortable to keep things the same when you Have something others do not.
Same with women's suffrage. I cannot possibly imagine a time when Women weren't in all legal ways, anyway, equal to Men. I can't imagine looking my wife in the eye as I headed off to vote, knowing she couldn't. I couldn't imagine seeing her as property, another asset along with my house and car. I couldn't imagine her as anyone other than my partner, my co-conspirator, my companion in life. Yet there we were, not that long ago when Men who had Rights were fine and dandy with living in a country where someone didn't Have those rights. Boggles the mind, really.
Then we have Homosexuality. Clearly another case of Have and Have Nots. Hererosexuals Have the ability to get married. As noted repeatedly, the Religious Right tends to frame this discussion around sexual acts, but you don't have to look far to find that the issue has absolutely nothing with the ability of one man to have sex with another. I mean, if they worried about what a particular church thought of sin then they wouldn't be involved with another guy in the first place. No, the real issue is that a Man and Wife can be there for each other in sickness and in health, both in action and, at times more importantly, in legality. It is this last issue that is more important than any other aspect but one that doesn't much discussion.
So, Boris, I guess I can see things from your perspective. It is easy, as I am one of those that Have what others Want. I am married, happily, to a woman. It is all legal and in times of need, the law won't get in my way (though, Terri Shiavo taught us otherwise, but that is another thread entirely). I have a child and shared custody with my wife. She shares my insurance along with my child, and so on. If nothing changes in the laws around Homosexuality, my life will not change in the least.
Yet with all that I have, I cannot take the next step as you have, which is to deny this same joy that I have. Sure, you have religious reasons to not engage in certain behaviors in your life and that is fine. My religious belief says that I must accept that there are other religious beliefs different from mine that see the world differently. And if those religions come under fire because of those beliefs, I would gladly stand to defend them. But sadly, religions rarely decide to sit comfortably in their own world.
This is the second issue I have with religious piety and dogma surrounding homosexuality. If religions that claim they believe and trust in the word of God, why don't they act like it? What does God care about Countries, Cities, nations, cults, sects, laws, etc.? If God is truly going to hold to task those that go against His will, what does it matter how other people live as long as you live the way you think He wants you to live? If the US had legal status for Gay marriage, does that mean they have found some sacred loophole that would not only allow them entrance into heaven but also condemn those that allowed it to come into being? Or, did I misunderstand your trust in God?
As an example, I am very pro-life. This means I do not want to see the loss of any life unnaturally as much as I can help it. Yet, in this country, there is a law that says I can shoot a man dead if he breaks into my home. Does this mean I want to go out and do just that? The law also states that I can sign a piece of paper and go off to serve my country by killing other people, ones that I don't even know (or may not even truly see). Just because it is a law that doesn't mean I have to do it. Just because there is a law that allows killing doesn't mean I break my contract with God to go ahead and do it. Same with homosexuality. Just because it is legally recognized in public courts doesn't mean that churches across the land will have to step to and start marrying Gay people. Trust me, your membership won't suddenly swell with gay couples looking for a pastor. Also, there are plenty of Christian denominations already doing marriage ceremonies to meet the demands of gay couples across this country.
So it boils down, to me, that those that Have clearly have the ability to lord over those that Have Not. Clearly, this is an unacceptable outcome in our nation, especially considering the hurdles we as a nation have had to jump in order to stay free.
And religiously, it is clear that many that claim trust in God truly do not trust Him at all to do what they think He will do to sinners. Thus, they find the need to punish those on earth in His name.
quote: And religiously, it is clear that many that claim trust in God truly do not trust Him at all to do what they think He will do to sinners. Thus, they find the need to punish those on earth in His name.
That people think this just makes me sad. Especially since I think that it is not so much God that punishes us as that we suffer the natural consequences of sin both in this life and in the next. Because God represents law and goodness and the innate structure of the universe, he represents punishment. But I honestly don't think it is an arbitrary thing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, did I just hear some homosexual bashing, or some promoting of waiting until marriage until sex?? Both are utterly rediculous.
Posts: 78 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, come on. What on Earth could possibly be the 'natural consequences' of sticking Tab A in Slot B instead of Slot C? Why is this a sin? I mean, if you were talking about killing, or hurting other people, or even abortion, I could see it. But natural consequences to sex? It won't wash. That's an arbitrary god imposing rules and punishing those who don't conform.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Maybe He does have a plan and homosexuality is indeed a sin that we are intended to struggle against in order to better ourselves.
I choose to believe not, but I cannot prove or disprove otherwise.
That said, I object to the notion of abusing or discriminating against people based on a highly subjective standard, in this case, theology as an institutional policy.
-Trevor
Edit: Or that we are capable of understanding His logic or the reasoning behind this seemingly arbitrary decree.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
