posted
I do think the protests in LA and elsewhere are a little tacky. When there are insulting protests staged against homosexuals, the Mormons aren't there. Mormons tend to work through orderly, respectful democratic processes. We don't carry "God hates ..." signs, and we don't promote derision of any kind. Our church promotes the idea that all of society benefits from the traditional structure of marriage, and that it is worth some difficult sacrifices to keep that structure strong. But we never teach that those who disagree with us are worthy of spite.
Personally, I would not have voted for Prop 8, so having a lot of vitriol directed at me because I'm part of a minority religious group doesn't feel that great. Mormons weren't the only supporters of Prop 8 by a long shot, and the fact that we're being singled out this way simply shows that the opponents of Prop 8 know how to scapegoat a minority as well as anyone.
The one protest sign that I thought was amusing said, "You have eight wives; why can't I have one?" When a more accurate assertion would be, "You gave up your eight wives to live under the same social order as everyone else. Don't ask me to do the same thing!"
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dang. And I thought that the stereotype of straight women being attracted to gay men was just well, a stereotype.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The one protest sign that I thought was amusing said, "You have eight wives; why can't I have one?" When a more accurate assertion would be, "You gave up your eight wives to live under the same social order as everyone else. Don't ask me to do the same thing!"
No kidding.
There was a good editorial the other day about how encouraging raging religious persecution based on lies is perhaps not the best way to try and prove your moral superiority.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The one protest sign that I thought was amusing said, "You have eight wives; why can't I have one?" When a more accurate assertion would be, "You gave up your eight wives to live under the same social order as everyone else. Don't ask me to do the same thing!"
Ha! Perhaps it's because I didn't grow up in the culture but came to it later, but I never thought of it that way before.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, while understanding thread drift means not all posts can be addressed, I just wanted to ask those who asked to hear my arguments opposing redefining marriage to include same-sex couples whether they had any response.
Specifically my assertion that only extending the legal privileges currently associated with "marriage" <edit>to homosexual couples</edit> is still insufficient. There are people living in loving, commited, long term, socially stable relationships who should be able to receive those benefits, regardless of the specific sexuality (or lack there of) of their relationships. To adequately bestow those legal privileges on those not in a sexual relationship it seems necessary to refer to that social contract as something other than "marriage."
If the argument is that we need to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships in order to "prevent prejudice," then I think the intent is tantamount to using the force of law to enforce a specific morality, which is counter to the proper uses of government.
To Squicky's point from a couple pages ago:
quote:I love (healthy) marriages. I love (healthy) families. I think that they are both incredibly beneficial things for the individuals in them, the people around them, and society as a whole. If there is any one thing I think we can do to make society better, it is to promote the growth of healthy marriages and by extension, families.
I see no reason why gay couples should be denied or at the very least severely disadvantaged when it comes to these incredibly valuable things. I see nothing about them or their relationships that makes them as a group incapable of having healthy marriages and families and I see nothing that would change the great benefits I see to bad things in cases where the marriage is same sex.
Other than the language you use, I would agree. I think it's wonderful when people find someone they can depend on, both for them and for society. Just because I disapprove of the sexual relationship doesn't mean that I view the social stability that comes with the relationship as a bad thing.
To my perspective, much of the problem comes not from the increasing social acceptability of homosexuality, but from the decreasing role of local community. I posit that 100 years ago in <edit>New England (and elsewhere as well, I just had a particular image of such a couple in my head when I wrote this)</edit>, there were many same-sex couples whose sexual relationship was opaque from the community, but who would have been afforded by the local community at least some if not most of the privileges currently being fought for. In the move to more impersonal communities, where medical care, estate settlement, and other important functions are being provided by people unacquainted with the individuals involved the legal institution of "marriage" became a convenient way to make those decisions. The legal function and the social function were joined. If we really want to support all long-term, committed loving relationships, we should divorce these two functions from each other. Because the state shouldn't care, for the purposes of providing legal privileges, whether my partner is my lover.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: The one protest sign that I thought was amusing said, "You have eight wives; why can't I have one?" When a more accurate assertion would be, "You gave up your eight wives to live under the same social order as everyone else. Don't ask me to do the same thing!"
Wasn't that a decision by your church based on your leadership's understanding of God's will?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?
Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?
The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?"
An Excellent Article by Cal Thomas, a conservative writer.
He says Religious Conservative should be more like Christ and stop relying to use the government to change everything.
posted
Who is they? I could very well be confused about the reasons for the current doctrine regarding polygamy. I thought it was a church leadershio decision rather than people making individual decisions to alter the pattern of their families.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I do think the protests in LA and elsewhere are a little tacky. hat those who disagree with us are worthy of spite.
There are more Homosexuals in California than any other state in California. It's like their Home State.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it's going to be interesting to see the prop 8 opponents protesting right next to the traditional anti-Mormon "Christian" protesters in SLC at the next general conference (my memory may be faulty - whatever the big meeting is that people report on here when it happens).
I wonder which group will be more obnoxious. Maybe they'll distract each other.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "they" is those doing the protesting. If people want to recognize that it was divine revelation then to stop polygamy then, then you have to allow for the possibility that it is divine revelation now to stop same sex marriage.
If you don't think the current stance is revelation, then the Mormons elected on their own to stop polygamy.
There is the scenario that the past decision was revelation but the current one is not, but I seriously doubt that those spreading lies about the present existence of polygamy believe that.
If you think church leadership decided for church members and people didn't have to decide on their own whether or not to follow, then you don't recognize that people make their own decisions. Clearly, that polygamists exist still today that call themselves Mormon proves that church leadership doesn't impose choices on people.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder which group will be more obnoxious. Maybe they'll distract each other.
That would be fantastic. I'd love to see the dilemma worked out - who do they hate more? Mormons or homosexuals? Who do they hate more? Mormons or Phelpsians?
I suppose it is possible they could unite and decide to hate Mormons better together than apart. How heartwarming that would be.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Puppy: Do you think it was right when the government imposed their religious beliefs on Utah and the Mormon faith back then? Do you think it's right for the Mormons to turn around and do the same thing to another group? As I've said before, the Mormons are behaving like abused children who grow up to abuse the next generation.
We all must stand up for each others rights if we are to keep our own.
But at the same time you have to understand the rage coming from the gay community. They were not the ones who threw the first stone here. The Mormons are reaping what they have sown.
It is my hope that some time SOON, Prop Hate will be overturned, The DOMA will be repealed and the Mormons will stop pushing hate against gay people. There's a lot of beautiful things about the Mormon faith. But it's tough for people to see that when anti-gay hate is what you put on display.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's tough to see how someone can argue that they are for social justice and freedom for all when they are waving around anti-religious hate and lies.
In this very thread Thor has regretted that there isn't more persecution of the church. If that's how they are making their case, it is failing to be convincing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think the protests in LA and elsewhere are a little tacky. When there are insulting protests staged against homosexuals, the Mormons aren't there.
The homosexuals aren't trying to take anything away from you. The church can't get behind the "yes on 8" campaign in a big way and then when people get upset about that claim to have a "live and let live" attitude about things. The "yes on 8" campaign was a greater violence to gays who want to be married than any protest is to the LDS church.
quote:Personally, I would not have voted for Prop 8, so having a lot of vitriol directed at me because I'm part of a minority religious group doesn't feel that great.
Are they protesting at your house? It seems to me that the vitriol is being directed at the church.
quote:Mormons weren't the only supporters of Prop 8 by a long shot, and the fact that we're being singled out this way simply shows that the opponents of Prop 8 know how to scapegoat a minority as well as anyone.
Quite the opposite. The LDS church is being singled out not because it is an impotent minority, but because it provided by far the most support for the Prop 8 campaign in terms of time and dollars contributed.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this very thread Thor has regretted that there isn't more persecution of the church. If that's how they are making their case, it is failing to be convincing.
Surely you realize that most of us godless lefties find his outbursts just as rediculous as you do. I stopped responding to anything from him weeks ago.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's tough to see how someone can argue that they are for social justice and freedom for all when they are waving around anti-religious hate and lies.
In this very thread Thor has regretted that there isn't more persecution of the church.
Can you link it?
I don't want Persecution of any Church.
All the Larger Churches and Religions have their major flaws.
Members of their church can believe their church is perfect or is the sole source of God's Voice, but it is not right or fair for the members of that church to ask all American people or the American Government to believe that it is perfect, or the one true carrier of the Word of God.
Churches can grow as large as they like, but they cannot and should not be able to force their morals or beliefs on others.
I agree with the Cal Thomas approach, work on BEING really great people and let people flock to you. Showing up on someone's door step and them asking them to believe what you believe is not the same thing.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The "they" is those doing the protesting. If people want to recognize that it was divine revelation then to stop polygamy then, then you have to allow for the possibility that it is divine revelation now to stop same sex marriage.
If you don't think the current stance is revelation, then the Mormons elected on their own to stop polygamy.
There is the scenario that the past decision was revelation but the current one is not, but I seriously doubt that those spreading lies about the present existence of polygamy believe that.
If you think church leadership decided for church members and people didn't have to decide on their own whether or not to follow, then you don't recognize that people make their own decisions. Clearly, that polygamists exist still today that call themselves Mormon proves that church leadership doesn't impose choices on people.
Thanks for the clarification on "they".
I would make one correction to the rest of that paragraph. It is possible to acknowledge that the Church made a decision based on the church's belief that it was divine revelation without sharing that belief. One can believe that polygamy was ended because the church leadership believed that they had received divine revelation to that end and that the church's leadership also believes that they have received divine instruction regarding SSM without believing that either of those things are actually true. I should have been more careful with my phrasing.
I believe that it is also possible for most or many church members (not just LDS, but for many churches, mine included) to be heavily influenced by such pronouncements from leadership without all members abiding by them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The "they" is those doing the protesting. If people want to recognize that it was divine revelation then to stop polygamy then, then you have to allow for the possibility that it is divine revelation now to stop same sex marriage.
If you don't think the current stance is revelation, then the Mormons elected on their own to stop polygamy.
There is the scenario that the past decision was revelation but the current one is not, but I seriously doubt that those spreading lies about the present existence of polygamy believe that.
If you think church leadership decided for church members and people didn't have to decide on their own whether or not to follow, then you don't recognize that people make their own decisions. Clearly, that polygamists exist still today that call themselves Mormon proves that church leadership doesn't impose choices on people.
Thanks for the clarification on "they".
I would make one correction to the rest of that paragraph. It is possible to acknowledge that the Church made a decision based on the church's belief that it was divine revelation without sharing that belief. One can believe that polygamy was ended because the church leadership believed that they had received divine revelation to that end and that the church's leadership also believes that they have received divine instruction regarding SSM without believing that either of those things are actually true. I should have been more careful with my phrasing.
I believe that it is also possible for most or many church members (not just LDS, but for many churches, mine included) to be heavily influenced by such pronouncements from leadership without all members abiding by them.
OK quick question, is the google ad below a photoshopped pic of John McCain giving a peck on the cheek to Joe Biden?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I forget it, Kmbboots said something important:
quote:Boris, a large part of the reason that people are afraid is because of the scary ad campaign funded in part by LDS members.
In fact, back last spring, the California Supreme Court decided to permit same sex marriages. That surprised me and others, as few had expected the court to make that ruling, but nobody was very surprised because the legislature had twice voted to legalize SSM. Even if Schwarzenegger had vetoed those bills, everyone assumed California would sooner or later get a governor who would sign something similar. So according to the polls, nobody much cared except for gays. Perhaps two out of three approved, and one out of three disapproved, but only the largely Mormon-financed ad campaign created the present level of fear and hostility. And any damage suffered by either side has to be weighed against the fact that the California legislature will almost certainly put a measure to repeal Proposition 8 before the voters in a very few years, and it will probably pass. So in all likelihood those Mormons who donated and worked for Proposition 8 will have achieved nothing lasting except to identify themselves as members of the Church of Hate, which should I think be of concern to their leaders. That is not likely to help missionary efforts in California, and a proposal to shut down all the California wineries would have just as good a chance of success in the long run. But of course people can disagree with my estimate of the probabilities, or think that doing what is useless is still morally required.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The DOMA will be repealed and the Mormons will stop pushing hate against gay people. There's a lot of beautiful things about the Mormon faith. But it's tough for people to see that when anti-gay hate is what you put on display.
Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"? If not, I pity your lack of imagination. If so, I'm betting we can have this conversation without you accusing my people of motives that (1) they do not universally have, and (2) are irrelevant to whether or not this legislation is valid or good.
quote:Do you think it was right when the government imposed their religious beliefs on Utah and the Mormon faith back then? Do you think it's right for the Mormons to turn around and do the same thing to another group? As I've said before, the Mormons are behaving like abused children who grow up to abuse the next generation.
While I don't think my ancestors were hurting anyone through their practice of polygamy, and the vitriol directed against them was out of proportion, I do believe that polygamy is a vastly inferior system to monogamy, and that society benefits, as a whole, from enforcing monogamy (both through the structure of the laws, and through social sanctions against cheating and promiscuity). I don't have any problem with the fact that Utah was not allowed to be a part of the union without disavowing polygamy.
So I don't think that the government "abused" my ancestors, and I don't see the Church's support of traditional monogamy as "abuse", either. Every social system has people who benefit more or less than they would under a different system. My church's position has nothing to do with hating someone and everything to do with promoting a system that they believe carries the greatest benefit for society as a whole.
For example, if it were demonstrable that a society that disallows a certain form of marriage (not gay marriage, specifically, but any system, including polygamy, hetero monogamy, or whatever) has a statistically higher chance of raising more well-adjusted and successful children, then it might be a perfectly fair thing to ask those who would benefit from that form of marriage to give up what they want in favor of a better outcome for everyone, across the board.
I don't think that we're able to demonstrate such a thing about gay marriage — certainly, we can't do so scientifically, having never tried it experimentally. But if someone, for whatever reason, believes the scenario I described above to be the case, I think it's perfectly possible for them to support a ban on a particular marriage practice without being motivated by hate.
Did that make sense? Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mormons who donated and worked for Proposition 8 will have achieved nothing lasting except to identify themselves as members of the Church of Hate, which should I think be of concern to their leaders. That is not likely to help missionary efforts in California, and a proposal to shut down all the California wineries would have just as good a chance of success in the long run. But of course people can disagree with my estimate of the probabilities, or think that doing what is useless is still morally required.
While I wouldn't have used these words, this is a fair approximation of why I would not have voted for or supported Prop 8. From my perspective, it seems like the downsides far outweigh the potential benefits.
But I also don't have a complete perspective on the consequences of either choice, so I support the church leaders' decision, in theory. I just don't understand it, and would have trouble acting on it, directly, myself.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
SenojRetep said, "In the move to more impersonal communities, where medical care, estate settlement, and other important functions are being provided by people unacquainted with the individuals involved the legal institution of "marriage" became a convenient way to make those decisions." This seems to me exactly correct, which is why the demand for SSM exists mostly in large cities rather than small towns. And perhaps better solutions could exist, but the political situation gives no other solution a chance. Saying otherwise is like asking why Proposition 8 was not amended to say explicitly that existing SSMs would be dissolved, rather than leaving everyone to wonder. That was because the whole campaign would have had to be started over, and assuredly failed.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"?
Sure. But favoring traditional marriage (well, the current version of traditional, anyway) is not the same thing as preventing others from enjoying the same recognition from the state that you enjoy.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"?
When you (generic you) actively work to subvert someone's civil rights, I don't think you could be accused of SECRETLY hating them.
But allowing your premise for the moment.. How would the result be any different if they DID hate gays?
quote:While I don't think my ancestors were hurting anyone through their practice of polygamy, and the vitriol directed against them was out of proportion,
My ancestors too. My fathers side of the family is Mormon going way back. In fact, I have a distant cousin who is the governor of Utah.
quote: I don't have any problem with the fact that Utah was not allowed to be a part of the union without disavowing polygamy.
So because you're fine with yours (and my) ancestors losing their rights, people who are still alive should be happy to lose their rights as well?
quote: So I don't think that the government "abused" my
I do. And I'm trying to stop the same abuse from being piled upon people today.
quote: ancestors, and I don't see the Church's support of traditional monogamy as "abuse", either. Every social system has people who benefit more or less than they would under a different system. My church's position has nothing to do with hating someone and everything to do with promoting a system that they believe carries the greatest benefit for society as a whole.
Hey, what does it matter if we strip a few people of their rights so long as it helps society as a whole? Doesn't matter that they haven't done anything wrong, we're making an omelette here! Crack those eggs!
And what if the people who think religion is child abuse manage to get a majority? Will you happily lay down your rights when they vote for the society that THEY think is best?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"?
There is an old saying, "When words do not match behavior, look at behavior." It doesn't matter so much as to what people feel when they vote to deny gay marriage, it is the behavior that supporters are responding to.
The act of denying equality is hurtful. Allowing equality in SSM does not hurt my marriage or your marriage.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pix, do you think it's possible for someone to favor traditional marriage without secretly "hating the gays"?
Hate is rather a strong word. I do think that there are few anti-SSM activists who are not repulsed by teh buttsechs, secretly or otherwise. But in any case, just the arguments that you and BlackBlade have given here, about believing that in the long run homosexuality is bad for people, shows that, hate or no hate, you are certainly willing to make choices for gay people based on what you think is their good. This is not the way adult citizens are generally treated.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do think that there are few anti-SSM activists who are not repulsed by teh buttsechs, secretly or otherwise.
I'm sure there are plenty of pro-SSM activists who are, secretly or otherwise. Seems kind of a non sequitur to me though. The debate (thankfully) doesn't seem to be about what kind of sex people are having.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's one thing to support SSM despite the ickiness, and another to fight against it because of it. There is arguably some virtue in the former, not so much in the latter.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... shows that, hate or no hate, you are certainly willing to make choices for gay people based on what you think is their good. This is not the way adult citizens are generally treated.
Yes it is. Whenever anyone takes a position on an issue that affects other people, he is making choices for someone else. Is the moral to not take positions on issues that affect someone else?
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you (generic you) actively work to subvert someone's civil rights, I don't think you could be accused of SECRETLY hating them.
But allowing your premise for the moment.. How would the result be any different if they DID hate gays?
If there isn't a difference, in your mind, then why don't you debate about the results, and not about the purported motivations, since the former is the actual source of contention, and the latter is unhelpful, inflammatory, and usually wrong?
quote:So because you're fine with yours (and my) ancestors losing their rights, people who are still alive should be happy to lose their rights as well?
I hope you realize that I'm not actually arguing for the banning of gay marriage. I'm arguing that you should not assume that people who oppose gay marriage do so out of hate or bigotry, and that making such an assertion raises tensions and lowers the level of discourse without actually accomplishing anything.
When I make these arguments, I'm trying to show that they can be valid without the assumption of hate. Not that we should necessarily act on them.
My personal position is that gay couples should have every right currently offered to straight couples, but that the word "marriage" should be set aside from government use to allow different subcultures to define it different ways as they see fit. Pretty different from the Prop 8 position.
lem:
quote:It doesn't matter so much as to what people feel when they vote to deny gay marriage, it is the behavior that supporters are responding to.
Then please, let's argue behavior, and stop exclusively using language that goes to motivation.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, one of the reasons I care so much about this "motivation" discussion is the fact that once this debate has moved on, and gay marriage is commonly accepted in the US (which I think is 95% likely to be the outcome within the next couple of decades), my church will still not perform them.
This won't be because of "lingering bigotry". This will be because our doctrine teaches that human sexual dimorphism, and the custom of marriage, were explicitly designed by God to reflect the way things work in the eternities, and that those aspects of eternal life are immutable. They weren't arbitrarily made up by God as a funny human thing. They're a permanent part of the reality that exists beyond our view.
Unless our doctrine changes in a fundamental way, I don't see gay marriage becoming a part of Mormon life. Which should be fine — we're a minority religion, and people who disagree with our doctrine aren't required to believe it. They have a lot of other options.
But if it becomes "common knowledge" that the only reason to deny gay marriage is because of hate and bigotry, then we will be accused of hate and bigotry and held in very low regard, despite the fact that many of us (and by then, the vast majority of us) won't deserve it at all.
So I'd really like this argument to be about practice, and not about motivation, to avoid applying a stigma to my people that, whatever you might think about us today, will NOT be fair in the future.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: You know, one of the reasons I care so much about this "motivation" discussion is the fact that once this debate has moved on, and gay marriage is commonly accepted in the US (which I think is 95% likely to be the outcome within the next couple of decades), my church will still not perform them.
This won't be because of "lingering bigotry". This will be because our doctrine teaches that human sexual dimorphism, and the custom of marriage, were explicitly designed by God to reflect the way things work in the eternities, and that those aspects of eternal life are immutable. They weren't arbitrarily made up by God as a funny human thing. They're a permanent part of the reality that exists beyond our view.
Unless our doctrine changes in a fundamental way, I don't see gay marriage becoming a part of Mormon life. Which should be fine — we're a minority religion, and people who disagree with our doctrine aren't required to believe it. They have a lot of other options.
But if it becomes "common knowledge" that the only reason to deny gay marriage is because of hate and bigotry, then we will be accused of hate and bigotry and held in very low regard, despite the fact that many of us (and by then, the vast majority of us) won't deserve it at all.
So I'd really like this argument to be about practice, and not about motivation, to avoid applying a stigma to my people that, whatever you might think about us today, will NOT be fair in the future.
Somehow I was unable to state all these ideas in multiple posts. I need to work on being succinct.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: While I wouldn't have used these words, this is a fair approximation of why I would not have voted for or supported Prop 8. From my perspective, it seems like the downsides far outweigh the potential benefits. ...
Bingo.
I think that this is one big reason why despite having a leaning towards legal same-sex marriage, I haven't really specifically singled out the Mormon Church. The likely unintended consequences of their move are enough for me.
Its "ok"* for the Catholic Church to adopt such a public stance against same-sex marriage (though I would note with some amusement that their efforts seem to go to waste in Quebec). Their size and diversity ensure that not every Catholic is stained.
* (in the sense that they will overcome)
However, the Mormon Church is small enough and marginal enough that the perception will stick. People from across the country (even internationally) will wonder what happened in California, will find out, and their perception of Mormons which at best is often "that wacky Christian sect with all the missionaries" will change to "that wacky Christian sect with all the missionaries and really hates gays." All they've really done is take the heat. The proposition won't last, but the stigma will.
It is kind of unfair, but most unintended consequences are.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Its "ok"* for the Catholic Church to adopt such a public stance against same-sex marriage (though I would note with some amusement that their efforts seem to go to waste in Quebec). Their size and diversity ensure that not every Catholic is stained.
* (in the sense that they will overcome)
I don't think it is okay. The Catholic Church had been more conspicious in its absence from the news on this, though. It seems that the more noteworthy involvement had been about Catholics who have taken stands against Prop 8 contrary to official Church teaching.
As you said, large and diverse.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I don't know if you understood this, and if you did, thats fine. But to elaborate, I meant "ok" in the public image sense (the Catholic church won't be permanently tarred as anti-same sex) rather than the moral sense)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I can understand churches not wanting to marry gay couples but do they really have to go after Civil Unions? All it is is a legal contract that gives them tax benefits, let em gave it. Leave "real" marriages up to individual demoninations some will recognize em' some won't. Let the ones that will do it.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I can understand churches not wanting to marry gay couples but do they really have to go after Civil Unions? All it is is a legal contract that gives them tax benefits, let em gave it. Leave "real" marriages up to individual demoninations some will recognize em' some won't. Let the ones that will do it.
As far as I know Blayne, nobody in this thread or even the Mormon church has stated their intention of revoking civil unions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a proposal being drafted for civil unions in Utah as we speak. Let's see how they react.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There's a proposal being drafted for civil unions in Utah as we speak. Let's see how they react.
What's a civil union? Would it (to my earlier recommendation) be open to roommates, and others in committed, non-sexual relationships?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were a bunch of protests over Prop 8 last weekend. Mostly in California, one in SLC, and one in Chicago. I love my city.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For instance, Vermont's Civil Union law specifically limits civil unions to same-sex couples who aren't immediately related (first-cousin or closer). I think this is unfairly discriminatory.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would it (to my earlier recommendation) be open to roommates, and others in committed, non-sexual relationships?
I imagine they're hammering the language out now, precisely to address this sort of nitpicking.
Why do you think it's nitpicking?
I think it fundamentally changes the nature of what a "civil union" should be understood to be: from a validation of a sexual relationship (in which I don't see why the government should be involved) to an easy way of extending a class of legal privileges to anyone in a committed, socially-stable, long-term relationship.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There were a bunch of protests over Prop 8 last weekend. Mostly in California, one in SLC, and one in Chicago. I love my city.
Also Seattle and NYC (NYC may not have happened yet, but I know it was planned.)
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
