The Eternal Nature Of Gender

[Zoidberg]

The discussion on another thread got me thinking about gender issues and why the Church has positions on a lot of things concerning gender, but does not actually define what gender is. So we have the Proclamation to the world, which everyone seems to agree is official doctrine, right, since it's issued by the First Presidency? It says that gender is an essential characteristic of our premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. Then we have the infamous letter from said First Presidency that urges the members to take part in limiting the free agency of their brothers and sisters (I'm still having huge problems with it), which basically means that "homosexuality is a sin" is also official doctrine, not to mention the scriptural references condemning gay men. The CHI also gives the guidelines for dealing with transsexuals (SRS while being a member can be grounds for excommunication, a new convert transsexual is not to hold the priesthood or receive a temple recommend). The priesthood/temple ban makes sense since all of it is tied to gender. I've always wondered if there actually have been new transsexual converts. It would be interesting to see how they fit into the Church and why they would join in the first place. So, then, since we have all these bans that are tied to gender, it poses a question of what gender a certain individual is in the eyes of the Church. It seems that it's neither male or female. Here's a hypothetical situation: an mtf post-op transsexual person joins the Church. They convert and start believeing everything the Church teaches. They read the Proclamation to the World. They realize that gender is part of their eternal identity. They feel remorse that they tried to change it. They decide that they were wrong, and their eternal identity and purpose is to be male. They start living as a man again. They start thinking that the whole SRS deal was just a mutilation, not really a gender change. But they know they are innocent since they did it before they were given the law, and now that they realize they're really a man, they can eventually receive the priesthood. Right? WRONG! Why? Because they have undergone elective sexual reassignment surgery. Doesn't matter that they didn't know their gender was eternal (Of course, I realize that this situation would likely never occur, but the guidelines in the CHI are pretty clear, so that's the only way it could happen were someone to revert back to living in their pre-op gender). Now, if a person just doesn't know that guideline, they changed the gender on their ID, so for all intents and purposes they are now legally the opposite gender from when they were born, and they don't bother mentioning it to the missionaries or their bishop, so no one knows they're transsexual, they can still get the priesthood/temple recommend.

Another interesting thing is that the Church has no position whatsoever on intersex people. None. The only thing that's ever been said was Spencer W. Kimball calling them "relatively few accidents of nature". That's nice, but a little elaboration in the light of "eternal gender" would have been nicer.

So now let's look at some of the more important characteristics of gender (amount of terminal hair and average height aside). First, there are the chromosomes, of course. Second, there are primary phenotypical sex characteristics. Third, there is presense of reprodutive organs characteristic of either male or female. Fourth, there is attraction to opposite sex. And, last but not least, a person identifies as either male or female.

This last point is very important. The Church has no position on corrective surgery for intersex people. So, then, if it is done at birth based on the decision of medical professionals and the parents, no one is going to excommunicate the child. I also imagine that if a child who was born with ambiguous sexual characteristcs and was judged to be a girl later grows up feeling they are a man and wants to undergo SRS, the Church would probably not object or discipline this individual because the surgery would still be corrective (to correct the consequences of the wrong decision made at birth). So all of this information leads to a very logical question: how does the Church know what gender a person is, and if they don't, what makes them authorized to excommunicate, discipline, condemn and limit the rights of individuals who don't fit into the traditional picture? Because they sure act like they know what they're doing in the case of transsexual and gay people.

If gender can be known by looking at the chromosomes, what about all the people with chromosomal disorders, especially the mosaics who have cells with both XX and XY and who knows what other combinations? If gender can be known by looking at, pardon me, pee-pees and hou-hous, what about the people whose pee-pees and hou-hous don't fit into the traditional picture or who have both a pee-pee and a hou-hou? The same goes for gonads: what if a person has both ovaries and testes, which has happened? what about the attraction to the opposite sex? Maybe if homosexuality really is a defect (which I personally do not believe, just to clarify, just examining the Church's perspective), the defect is manifest NOT in the same-gender attraction, which is God-given, but in the person's self-identification as the same gender with the people they're attracted to? Maybe their self-identity and their body are "an accident of nature", not the same-gender attraction? (i.e., a gay man will be a woman in the afterlife). The same goes for transgender people. Maybe their bodies are an accident, and their self-identity is God-given? So, then, if all this were true, the only problematic case would be transsexual people who are attracted to the same sex as the sex they themselves identify with (an mtf transsexual attracted to women). Then, if in the pre-existence and the afterlife there were/will be only people who are either male or female, and attracted to the opposite sex, what would that transsexual person be? We wouldn't know.

An advocate of the existence of polygyny in the Celestial Kingdom asked me one time if it would be fair to people if they were worthy, but there were not enough spouses to go around for monogamy (she was firmly convicted there would be more women than men there, of course). So it got me thinking. Then there would either be polygyny or polyandry. Or.... Or maybe there is such a gender as "male and female"? And, depending on what gender is lacking in the CK, they can act as either male or female? And there will be enough partners for everyone to be in a monogamous relationship? I know this sounds insane, but given everything above, I'm actually beginning to believe it's the most logical assumption if there is, in fact, gender distinction in the afterlife. As for the Church's position on the LGBT people, I feel like they should stop condemning and leave for God to sort out the gender problems, because we can't with our limited, inferior understanding. Thoughts?

[captain-jack]

I don't know of anything that has specifically been stated to define it. But I assume that from the book of Moses, where it refers to Adam as our earthly father, then we can assume that fathers are male. Again, in Moses it calls Eve the mother, and such as Eve being female, well you get it. So I assume, and it's my opinion, that from that example, the first mother and father of Earth, that the gender roles are defined as what sex they are.

Funny though, m-w.com doesn't define it to say one sex or the other:

the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

[Maidservant]

Sexuality and gender is one of the deepest mysteries of the universe. It looks like you are well into the 'question' part of the journey, and I wish you God's blessings as you travel the knowledge that will be unfolded to you. In the gospel there is the mystery and promise and gift of healing of all of our brokenness. There is much that is broken in this world and in our individual selves in the energies and realities of sexuality and gender -- we are ill and not whole and we have need of a Physician.

I find it interesting at the very least that we have struggled for so long in the world from infectious diseases and have been destroyed by them right and left. Then, finally, and certainly through the influence of the spirit, the children of God finally grow to the point where we have overcome infectious diseases. But at that point, when we are free of those chains, it is revealed to us much deeper struggles with chronic diseases, cancers, mental illnesses, etc. And as we have come to this day and age, when we are beginning to understand and free ourselves from these things, to me it is as if God is saying, "All right, there is more to learn. What will you do with the struggles of sexuality, the illness, the brokennness, the chains, the destructions, the questions, the deaths, the unknowns? Now is the time for you, my children, to learn this." Believe me, this mighty struggle we personally and societally are having as to gender and sexuality will result in healing and in understanding. The deeper the knowledge, the more great and dangerous the struggle -- the more casualties as well. For casualties, we have the atonement. Christ's work is not done in your life or mine, thankfully.

Happy seeking, my friend.

[Zoidberg]

I don't know of anything that has specifically been stated to define it. But I assume that from the book of Moses, where it refers to Adam as our earthly father, then we can assume that fathers are male.

That's going somewhere. So, if one is a father, or even capable of being a father, they are male, right? And if one is a mother or is capable of being a mother, this person is a female. What about the infertile people? What are they? Women with Turner's, who only have one X chromosome and don't even menstruate? What are they? In a gay union, a person may actually be, or is capable of being, a father or a mother. Then what's the problem?

[No Touch]

Then we have the infamous letter from said First Presidency that urges the members to take part in limiting the free agency of their brothers and sisters (I'm still having huge problems with it), which basically means that "homosexuality is a sin" is also official doctrine, not to mention the scriptural references condemning gay men.

I didn't get far through this post before getting stuck here - how exactly are we limiting anyone's free agency? Are we imprisoning homosexuals who carry on their lifestyle, and preventing them from the preferred social interactions? I have huge problems with this accusation.

[Zoidberg]

Happy seeking, my friend.

Thanks a lot. I think I'm nearing the end of my journey, though, because the more I learn, the more I am compelled to say like, I believe, Aristotle: I only know that I know nothing. And this realization makes me want to share it with other people. Not in a suppressive, "don't ask controversial questions" way. I just want the Church to stop condemning people for something we may not have a very good idea about, or at least be consistent and define their positions on gender and intersex people, if they want to take such a radical stance on transsexuality and homosexuality, even to the point of working to limit people's free agency, which just scares me so much. When that letter came out and when I found out the Church was funding efforts against gay marriage in California and other states, I felt totally betrayed. What's happened to Satan being the only one who wants to take our free agency away?

[Zoidberg]

I didn't get far through this post before getting stuck here - how exactly are we limiting anyone's free agency? Are we imprisoning homosexuals who carry on their lifestyle, and preventing them from the preferred social interactions? I have huge problems with this accusation.

Not an accusation, a fact. I also suggest that you read the rest of my post. Anyway, issuing a restrictive amendment to the constitution limits people's free agency to work for indtroduction of certain legislation, right or wrong? What about the 11th article of faith, which, let me remind you, is scripture and, therfore, official doctrine? It says that "we claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all" men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they want." I read all these artcles in the Meridian magazine that said "it only seems unfair, but what about all the other people who will never get married? Is it fair to them?" What kind of an argument is that? Everybody who advocated for the so-called "defense of marriage" presumes that everybody in this country (including the gay people, I imagine) assumes that being gay is somehow deficient/immoral. This assumption is ridiculous. There are a lot of people whose conscience does not dictate that homosexuality is a sin or bad for society, or bad for the survival of the human race (because, of course, everyone believes that preserving the human race is our greatest duty in the first place - sarcasm). Now, if the government allowed gay people to get married, how would it jeopardize your marriage (if you are married)? My marriage? Will they take away some of our rights and benefits and give it to the gay couples? Will they take away all those orphans we want to adopt, and give them to the gay people, since there is such a ridiculous amount of children available for adoption in the world that nobody knows what an orphanage is (sarcasm again)? What are those people defending marriage from?

What about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being inalienable rights? Well, our Judeo-Christian society has grudginly allowed gay people to live (they used to be stoned, remember?) What about the other two? Two gay people married does not take away my liberty to marry whomever I want and have all the benefits associated with it. Why can't they have the liberty to introduce legislation that would allow them the same liberty? What about the pursuit of happiness? What if a gay person falls in love with someone abroad? They can't just send petition for a fiance's visa for them (which is the easiest to get of all immigrant visas, I'm telling you this from my own experience). Often it is the only way for a person to immigrate to the US, it is extremely difficult (I guess there is another way if you live on the same continent, but there is also this other hemisphere everyone always forgets about) to immigrate otherwise if you have no family ties. So now the gay person is separated from their soulmate and has to face the possibility that they might never be able to live in the same country. And the Church actively urging us to push the Marriage Amendment (which everyone agrees is restrictive) IS working to take away people's free agency to be free and pursue their happiness.

[No Touch]

Not an accusation, a fact. I also suggest that you read the rest of my post. Anyway, issuing a restrictive amendment to the constitution limits people's free agency to work for indtroduction of certain legislation, right or wrong? What about the 11th article of faith, which, let me remind you, is scripture and, therfore, official doctrine? It says that "we claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all" men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they want." I read all these artcles in the Meridian magazine that said "it only seems unfair, but what about all the other people who will never get married? Is it fair to them?" What kind of an argument is that? Everybody who advocated for the so-called "defense of marriage" presumes that everybody in this country (including the gay people, I imagine) assumes that being gay is somehow deficient/immoral. This assumption is ridiculous. There are a lot of people whose conscience does not dictate that homosexuality is a sin or bad for society, or bad for the survival of the human race (because, of course, everyone believes that preserving the human race is our greatest duty in the first place - sarcasm). Now, if the government allowed gay people to get married, how would it jeopardize your marriage (if you are married)? My marriage? Will they take away some of our rights and benefits and give it to the gay couples? Will they take away all those orphans we want to adopt, and give them to the gay people, since there is such a ridiculous amount of children available for adoption in the world that nobody knows what an orphanage is (sarcasm again)? What are those people defending marriage from?

Bringing up that article of faith makes no sense, as the issue is not a religious issue. It is not the perogative of the majority of Americans (or the Church) that same-sex unions should be considered marriages. It in no way inhibits any free agency of those involved. They may still do as they wish, can have all the ceremonies they want, live together freely without government persecution.

What about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" being inalienable rights? Well, our Judeo-Christian society has grudginly allowed gay people to live (they used to be stoned, remember?) What about the other two? Two gay people married does not take away my liberty to marry whomever I want and have all the benefits associated with it. Why can't they have the liberty to introduce legislation that would allow them the same liberty? What about the pursuit of happiness? What if a gay person falls in love with someone abroad? They can't just send petition for a fiance's visa for them (which is the easiest to get of all immigrant visas, I'm telling you this from my own experience). Often it is the only way for a person to immigrate to the US, it is extremely difficult (I guess there is another way if you live on the same continent, but there is also this other hemisphere everyone always forgets about) to immigrate otherwise if you have no family ties. So now the gay person is separated from their soulmate and has to face the possibility that they might never be able to live in the same country. And the Church actively urging us to push the Marriage Amendment (which everyone agrees is restrictive) IS working to take away people's free agency to be free and pursue their happiness.

Not receiveing a stamp of approval on your lifestyle from the government doesn't take away free agency. All it takes away is government approval (which was never there in the first place).

[Hammer]

I guess if you want to throw out scripture and statements from prophets and listen to the world on these issues, they could get you quite confused as to what is gender or if there is even any such thing. We are all just ITs according to the world, who have been born to a specific IT identity.

and-- there is no devil and there is no sin-- just aulternative life styles.

[Zoidberg]

Bringing up that article of faith makes no sense, as the issue is not a religious issue. It is not the perogative of the majority of Americans (or the Church) that same-sex unions should be considered marriages. It in no way inhibits any free agency of those involved. They may still do as they wish, can have all the ceremonies they want, live together freely without government persecution.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. Believe it or not, there are religious gay people who want to worship God who, they believe, allows or approves their unions. That would make it a religious issue, wouldn't it? I believe a lot of people want gay marriage to be "marriage" and not just a "civil union" with the same benefits because they value what marriage is in the eyes of God and want the significance and commitment of a marriage. the Church has the right to excommunicate homosexuals or whoever they want, but they shouldn't impose their opinions on the whole secular country while climing that having free agency is a part of God's plan. Let me also remind you that the Church has spoken out on civil unions, as well, and expressed an opinion that the benefits of marriage should not be allowed in them, as well as they themselves. As for the majority, well, slavery should never have been abolished, huh? The majority always rules and should rule.

Not receiveing a stamp of approval on your lifestyle from the government doesn't take away free agency. All it takes away is government approval (which was never there in the first place).

Uh-huh, and not being able to receive a stamp of approval because a restrictive amendment (which was never there in the first place) is made to the constitution doesn't take away free agency, either?

[Hammer]

Oh, it makes perfect sense. Believe it or not, there are religious gay people who want to worship God who, they believe, allows or approves their unions. That would make it a religious issue, wouldn't it? I believe a lot of people want gay marriage to be "marriage" and not just a "civil union" with the same benefits because they value what marriage is in the eyes of God and want the significance and commitment of a marriage. the Church has the right to excommunicate homosexuals or whoever they want, but they shouldn't impose their opinions on the whole secular country while climing that having free agency is a part of God's plan. Let me also remind you that the Church has spoken out on civil unions, as well, and expressed an opinion that the benefits of marriage should not be allowed in them, as well as they themselves. As for the majority, well, slavery should never have been abolished, huh? The majority always rules and should rule.

Uh-huh, and not being able to receive a stamp of approval because a restrictive amendment (which was never there in the first place) is made to the constitution doesn't take away free agency, either?

Agency-- true freedom only comes through total submission to Christ. No man can give or take it from you.

[captain-jack]

That's going somewhere. So, if one is a father, or even capable of being a father, they are male, right? And if one is a mother or is capable of being a mother, this person is a female. What about the infertile people? What are they? Women with Turner's, who only have one X chromosome and don't even menstruate? What are they? In a gay union, a person may actually be, or is capable of being, a father or a mother. Then what's the problem?

Please know this is my opinion, nothing more.

It is not the natural law, while emotionally a woman may be able to play the parental role of a father, she lacks the...physical parts...that are associated with a father figure. A man may be able to have the motherly aura, he still lacks what is needed to give birth. A woman with Turner's, is still a woman. She can still be a mother to a child, though she does not give birth to one. Though there are road blocks and curve balls to the idea, in my belief it still stands.

Again, that is my opinion I've drawn from my experience.

[Hammer]

Please know this is my opinion, nothing more.

It is not the natural law, while emotionally a woman may be able to play the parental role of a father, she lacks the...physical parts...that are associated with a father figure. A man may be able to have the motherly aura, he still lacks what is needed to give birth. A woman with Turner's, is still a woman. She can still be a mother to a child, though she does not give birth to one. Though there are road blocks and curve balls to the idea, in my belief it still stands.

Again, that is my opinion I've drawn from my experience.

True. We also need to add that having a child doesn't consitute a women's gender. He physical make up does.

Those who may have confusing physical make up are what God intended them to be for whatever purpose. But it doesn't confuse what others are.

A girl can be a tom-boy--- a guy can be gentle and soft spoken and hate heavy masculine things. Does preferece and personality change gender? NO.

[charity]

I just want the Church to stop condemning people for something we may not have a very good idea about, or at least be consistent and define their positions on gender and intersex people, if they want to take such a radical stance on transsexuality and homosexuality, even to the point of working to limit people's free agency, which just scares me so much. When that letter came out and when I found out the Church was funding efforts against gay marriage in California and other states, I felt totally betrayed. What's happened to Satan being the only one who wants to take our free agency away?

1. The Church does not condemn people, the Church condemns behaviors. Have you read the new pamphlet on sexual orientation?

2. The Lord and the Church condemn sin. The Lord has revealed that homosexual behavior is a sin. That behavior is condemned.

3. No one's agency is limited or curtailed. We always have the option of disobeying commandments. When people talk about limiting agency, what they usually mean is not only that they want to chose their behavior, but they want to chose the consequences of that behavior, too. You can exercise you agency and chose not to obey the law of gravity and jump off a bridge. You can't chose to land sofly. You just have to be willing to live with the consequence of hitting the rocks at full speed.

[Helmuth]

And the Church actively urging us to push the Marriage Amendment (which everyone agrees is restrictive) IS working to take away people's free agency to be free and pursue their happiness.

No it's not. Liberty is the absence of forceful interference from other people. A man has liberty to the extent he can make decisions and take actions unimpeded so long as those actions do not violate others' right to the same liberty. So what liberty is this "Marriage Amendment" obstructing? None! Gay people can still make whatever living arrangments they wish with each other. It simply denies them a government-issued permission slip, a permission slip they do not need.

The amendment would impinge on states' rights. Right now the question is decided by the individual 50 states, but with the constitutional amendment it would be a one-size-fits-all policy for all of the United States. But it would not violate individual rights. It would certainly not "take away people's free agency to be free and pursue their happiness". In what way would they be coerced against? What choices would be aggresively prevented? Again, none! No one has a natural human "right" to possession of a made-up governmental piece of paper. Indeed, who would want such a "right"?

The push for this constitutional amendment does have a bit of a farcical flavor to it, considering that the Constitution is pretty much a dead letter at this point. Congress has no compunctions, for example, passing a law forbidding two parties to make a mutually satisfactory agreement involving the payment of less than $5.15 per hour of labor, even when such a ridiculous law is not authorized anywhere in the Constitution (and, in case you were not taught this, anything not specifically authorized is explicitly and emphatically and repeatedly forbidden). They have no compunctions violating the money-coining requirements of the constitution, nor maintaining a unconstitutional standing army, nor carrying on undeclared, unconstitutional wars, nor creating a multi-trillion dollar retirement ponzi scheme, nor protecting the "rights" of rare rats and bugs of all kinds, nor thousands of other blatant violations. So I see no reason why they cannot simply pass a bill saying:

"Whereas...Whereas...Whereas...Be it resolved: Only a man and a woman can get married in the USA. Oh, and that applies to citizens living overseas as well. Oh, and the man must pay the wife the equivalent of $5.15 per hour for any household services performed. Oh, and that payment is taxable income and don't you forget it."

[Zoidberg]

Please know this is my opinion, nothing more.

Ditto. I also often feel inadequate because I have some strong convictions that I feel need to be expressed and want to change the world in a non-violent way. I do get into heated debates, though even though I want to be more Christ-like and peaceful. However, even Christ expressed rage when he saw merchants in the temple, for instance. But I think we should just let people have freedom. It is not the natural law

What about those two gay zebras in the Hogle zoo? I saw them with mine own eyes

while emotionally a woman may be able to play the parental role of a father, she lacks the...physical parts...that are associated with a father figure. A man may be able to have the motherly aura, he still lacks what is needed to give birth. A woman with Turner's, is still a woman. She can still be a mother to a child, though she does not give birth to one.

Actually, a woman with Turner's CAN give birth to a child since most of them have their uterus intact. But they have to use donor eggs. So she can't be a mother to this child (the child does not have her genes), even though she gave birth to it.

As for condemning behaviors, are behaviors separate from people? Also, please read my first post again to understand what perspective I'm coming from. I've read the new pamphlet and I like it much more than all the previous statements on this issue. the trouble is that those previous statements are not easily forgotten. Another musing: in the minds of a lot of people, transsexual people, for instance, are the same as gay people. This is not true. Also, an interesting factoid: transsexual people can get married to someone of the same gender as their gender of birth. It's legal. Which makes the whole gay marriage ban kind of pointless, don't you think?

There are certain people the Church is making no effort of teaching/converting to the truth. And certain people have "no law", if there is a law. If someone wants to get married to a person of the same gender who was raised in the Church, for instance, and "knows the truth" and "realizes the consequences", and still wants to marry a person of the same gender, why should they be prohibited from doing so? It does not take away the rights or freedom of any other person, so why try to prevent them on a secular level?

Hammer, I understand your point of view. However, you cannot ignore the fact that this country is officially NOT a theocracy. We can't legally oblige everyone to submit to Christ. And it wouldn't work, anyway. You can't shove freedom down someone's throat. If gay people are wrong, let them have their choice and not decide what's good or not good for them.

Also, just to stop a flow of comments that come from people that, I suspect, are not reading my first post, the only attempt to violate people's free agency on the Church's part I was referring to was the letter from the First Presidency urging people to support the marriage amendment. They are free to condemn homosexual behaviors all they want, we have freedom of speech. This and trying to institute an amendment that would forbid gay people to marry are two completely different things, which, I hope, everyone realizes. Also, I'm very excited to hear more opinions on the definition of gender issues from people.

Also, hammer, if you think that people with confusing physical make up are what God intended them to be, keeping in mind the eternal nature of Gender as outlined in the Proclamation to the World, are you then allowing the possibility that there may be more than two genders? Or that there is no way to know on Earth what an intersex person was in the pre-existence or will be in the hereafter? So, then, how should they live their life on Earth?

[captain-jack]

True. We also need to add that having a child doesn't consitute a women's gender. He physical make up does.

Those who may have confusing physical make up are what God intended them to be for whatever purpose. But it doesn't confuse what others are.

A girl can be a tom-boy--- a guy can be gentle and soft spoken and hate heavy masculine things. Does preferece and personality change gender? NO.

I quite agree, I don't like sports and I hate mowing lawns. I don't work on cars, but my wife does all of those. I don't mind playing sport, I'm on a softball team at work. But that doesn't confuse us as to who is the wife and who is the husband. That she will be the mother and I the father of our children, when we have them. It doesn't make us any less of mother/father for how we are.

[SLC]

1. The Church does not condemn people, the Church condemns behaviors. Have you read the new pamphlet on sexual orientation?

2. The Lord and the Church condemn sin. The Lord has revealed that homosexual behavior is a sin. That behavior is condemned.

3. No one's agency is limited or curtailed. We always have the option of disobeying commandments. When people talk about limiting agency, what they usually mean is not only that they want to chose their behavior, but they want to chose the consequences of that behavior, too. You can exercise you agency and chose not to obey the law of gravity and jump off a bridge. You can't chose to land sofly. You just have to be willing to live with the consequence of hitting the rocks at full speed.

Excellent post!

[Zoidberg]

No it's not. Liberty is the absence of forceful interference from other people. A man has liberty to the extent he can make decisions and take actions unimpeded so long as those actions do not violate others' right to the same liberty. So what liberty is this "Marriage Amendment" obstructing? None! Gay people can still make whatever living arrangments they wish with each other. It simply denies them a government-issued permission slip, a permission slip they do not need.

I agree with you Helmuth, but the implications of this amendment would still indirectly influence the rights of gay people in the future. I personally think that if we could live without any government, that would be ideal. However, that is out of the question. And in a heavily regulated society such as ours, a slip of paper would give certain benefits I referred to earlier. The benefits gay people currently do not have in this country. And the amendment would ensure they never did. Interestingly enough, the first woman that attempted to run for president did it before women could even vote. Because it wasn't expressly prohibited. Of course, how could the founding fathers even conceive an idea that a woman might actually want to do that?

I agree the constitution is dead. So is the marital institution in the form it currently exists. Which only increases my puzzlement with the reasons the Church got involved into this farce in the first place, since the only good kind of marriage can only be had in the temple, anyway. But the benefits the State gives to people who are legally married are helpful in dealing with all the other laws the same State imposes. Like the immigration laws, for instance. And talking strictly in the context of making this one amendment and not changing any other laws, I still believe it is a violation of liberty and definitely the pursuit of happiness. What liberty? The liberty to advocate for a law that does not infringe on any other laws. Pedophiles advocating for marriages to 9-year olds would be quite different, for all those concerned with the fact that "if we allow gay people to marry, all those other guys will want the same rights, as well".

[Helmuth]

I agree with you Helmuth, but the implications of this amendment would still indirectly influence the rights of gay people in the future.

In what way? Which rights? I am (somewhat) open to that possibility, but cannot for the life of me think of any rights that would be infringed upon by this. Gay people can still live together. They can have marriage ceremonies, even marriage ceremonies performed by a clergyman if they can find one who'll do it. They can wear wedding bands, declare undying love for each other, etc. I suppose they can raise children if they can somehow procure some willing ones to come live with them. Why should it matter to them whether they are "legally" married or not? Unless their brain is caught in some sort of state-worship where they think that the government's (usually idiotic) opinion on something is the correct opinion (because they're the government!) and should be their opinion as well.

Now maybe the insurance company doesn't recognize gay marriage as a real marriage and so the gays get charged more. Tough! Cheap insurance is *not* a right! Find a more gay-friendly insurance company. But don't complain about "rights" and "free agency". And don't accuse Church leadership of violating these nonexistent rights. Explain to me exactly how the First Presidency is "attempt[ing] to violate people's free agency" by encouraging the passage of the marriage amendment. Or, retract the accusation .

Name a right that not being able to "legally" marry would violate. Or, name a right that the amendment would indirectly influence the government to violate in the future.

I personally think that if we could live without any government, that would be ideal. However, that is out of the question.

Must...control...self....

Look, read http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp . That's all I'm going to say.

[Mighty Curelom]

I know this sounds insane, but given everything above, I'm actually beginning to believe it's the most logical assumption if there is, in fact, gender distinction in the afterlife.

It is insane.

You're overlooking the simplest explanation.

[No Touch]

Oh, it makes perfect sense. Believe it or not, there are religious gay people who want to worship God who, they believe, allows or approves their unions. That would make it a religious issue, wouldn't it? I believe a lot of people want gay marriage to be "marriage" and not just a "civil union" with the same benefits because they value what marriage is in the eyes of God and want the significance and commitment of a marriage. the Church has the right to excommunicate homosexuals or whoever they want, but they shouldn't impose their opinions on the whole secular country while climing that having free agency is a part of God's plan. Let me also remind you that the Church has spoken out on civil unions, as well, and expressed an opinion that the benefits of marriage should not be allowed in them, as well as they themselves. As for the majority, well, slavery should never have been abolished, huh? The majority always rules and should rule.

"Religious" gays can hold any ceremony they like and live in whatever arrangement they like. Their freedom to do this is not impeded by laws. Hell, if polygamists could receive the same treatment they would go out of their minds happy. The funny thing is that in our society gay marriage, which had never been practiced in any society outside of the last 10 to (I'll be generous) 30 years in any culture in the history of the human race and planet Earth, is more acceptable than the marital practices of Abraham and Israel.

The Church has no ability to impose anything. If it could, we would live in a very different country. But it has a right to hold a position on a subject that it considers a moral issue.

Uh-huh, and not being able to receive a stamp of approval because a restrictive amendment (which was never there in the first place) is made to the constitution doesn't take away free agency, either?

No it doesn't. Not having the government's "stamp of approval" does nothing to inhibit a homosexual from living and practicing what they practice. All it does is deny them benefits that are intended to encourage people to make commitments in relationships that can produce children, thereby increasing those children's odds of having a unitde family, even if for the wrong reasons. And considering that Homosexuals can not through their regular actions produce children, that does kind of make sense.

[Deborah]

Gender I believe, based on all that I have read, is eternal and is what we are as spirits. However, we live in a mortal world where all kinds of "accidents of nature" can happen, where many social and psychological factors come into play and where world philosophies can cause already unsettled people to be led further astray. When I volunteered in the hospital nursery we had a baby with no sexual organs and indistiguishable chromosomes. Surely no one thinks that little spirt is in its innate form defective. But the mortal body is not perfect and is subjec to all manner of distortion. Those who deal with the aberrations have a struggle in this life, but all these things will be corrected in the hereafter. God knows what each person must struggle with and God alone can be the judge of how a person lives his life.

[Zoidberg]

God knows what each person must struggle with and God alone can be the judge of how a person lives his life.

I totally agree with that! However, is there any way to know in this life what gender this child is? According to the Church, just because someone believes they are of a certain gender does not make them so (transsexuals). Then the child you mentioned choosing to be, say, a woman, might be wrong and will actually be a man in the afterlife. What I'm saying that the Church has no way of knowing what "eternal gender" we have been assigned by God in some cases, then why do they claim to know it for sure in other cases, like the cases of transgender persons? I would like to see a revelation on this. If there is one, why don't they just come out and say it, that would settle all the questions.

What "simplest explanation" am I overlooking? What I'm saying is that the Church sometimes has NO WAY to tell if a person's "eternal gender" is male or female (and most people, like you, interpret the Proclamation to mean there are only two genders, right?). Am I wrong on that? If you want to say I'm wrong, please provide an official Church position on intersex people. I have been unable to find any information on it. And I strongly suspect it's because there is none.

Helmuth, read my other posts. There are plenty of rights straight people can get now that gay people can't. The FMA was aimed at preventing further legislative initiatives to introduce gay marriage. Right or wrong? First they woul have to repeal the amendment, which would make it a lot more complicated. Now gay marriage would not be unconstitutional. The FMA was aimed at making it unconstitutional. What rights? Rights for a tax break, rights to petition for your future partner to immigrate to the US, rights for adoption to both partners that married people or people who intend to marry currently have. All this stuff is meaningless in a word without state control, but we do not live in such a world. I'm sure there are a lot of kids in foster care who would like to live with a gay couple, but the government won't let them. Because the current adoption laws are aimed at discriminating against gay people. You can adopt if you're single, but not if you are cohabiting. So one of the gay couple has to lie to adopt, and only this person will have parental rights. As in: if this person dies, their partner doesn't get the child, the child is now in the state's custody. Yes, right now the rights named are non-existent. The FMA was aimed at making it impossible for those rights to ever be introduced. Right or wrong? And the people who choose to believe that gay people should have the right to get legally married would definitely see how it would be an act to limit people's free agency at no benefit to the rest of the world (some restrictive laws are in place to protect the rights of other people. This was not the case). If that's not enough to make you see my point of view, further discussion is probably pointless.

Also, if you guys want to claim I'm overlooking the simplest explanations, please read my first post. You may also want to look into the intersex condition and chromosomal disorders. When I first read the Proclamation, I thought nothing of it, either. Now that I have done some research, it doesn't look so simple anymore.

[charity]

zoidberg, you keep getting rights and privileges mixed up.