"8: The Mormon Proposition"

[Damien the Leper]

Which are not- demonstrably- the people or organizations to whom Packer was referring.

We do. We have his remarks in full.

Please provide them in the case that I can allow for myself to be corrected.

I don't agree that we do not or cannot know.

I understand.

I'm sorry, but this is a false dichotomy.

Prove it false. Help me to understand.

Well, my friend...it failed . Though I DO appreciate the effort.

Oh, well...

The dichotomy you just promulgated implies that the first list is false, an assertion NOT in evidence. By implying that Prop 8 supporters (and others opposed to homosexual marriage are hiding thier true agenda (and substituting the "false one" above) you are engaging in the same scare mongering and deceit which you decry in 8: The Mormon Proposition.

A friend emailed me a link from which I pulled the list. I will provide the extensive argumentation:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says who marriage is to be defined by? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations are hardly a compelling reason. They're really more like an expression of prejudce than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to do so is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

2. Marriage is for procreation. The proponents of that argument are really hard pressed to explain why, if that's the case, that infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings! That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought.

3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? Why are the advocates of this argument not working to prohibit the above categories of people from raising children?

The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

4. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law (and none other than the father of the American democracy, Thomas Jefferson, very proudly took credit for that fact), and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of such an argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out through lack of procreation. If the ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into an already overburdened world. So why encourage them? The vacuity of this argument is seen in the fact that those who raise this objection never object to infertile couples marrying; indeed, when their retired single parent, long past reproductive age, seeks to marry, the usual reaction is how cute and sweet that is. That fact alone shows how false this argument really is. Let's face it - marriage is about love and commitment, and support for that commitment, not about procreation.

6. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. That one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate sexually, and thereby reduce the number of supposed heterosexual marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. So you would have freedom of choice, of choosing what kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for tightening divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.

7. Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history. But by the 19th century, humankind had realized the evils of that institution, and has since largely abolished it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?

8. Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage.

9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market gun dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so every day. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage or child protection issue.

10. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the rest constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.

11. Churches would be forced to marry gay people against their will. This one has absolutely no basis in law whatever, existing or proposed. There are many marriages to which many churches object, such as interracial marriage, interfaith marriage, the marriage of divorcees, etc., and yet no state law of which I am aware requires any church to marry any couple when that church objects to performance of that particular marriage. The right granted by the state to a church to perform marriages is a right, not a requirement, and to pretend that it would be a requirement in the case of gays, but not in the above examples, is disingenuous on the face of it.

12. If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools. Gay marriage is already legal in several states and many foreign countries, including Canada, but can anyone point to an example of homosexuality being promoted in the public schools? No. Because it hasn't happened in any significant way. What is being objected to is tolerance of gays, not genuine promotion of homosexuality. And if tolerance itself is not acceptable, what is the absence of tolerance? It is bigotry. If we do not promote tolerance in the public schools, we are accepting that bigotry has a place there. Is this really what we want?

13. Gay marriage and its associated promotion of homosexuality would undermine western civilization. Homosexuality is as old as civilization itself, and has always been a part of civilization, including this one - indeed, cross-cultural studies indicate that the percentage of homosexuals in a population is independent of culture. So even if promotion of homosexuality were to occur, it wouldn't change anything - people aren't gay because they were "recruited," they're gay because they were born that way, as the population statistics across cultures makes clear. As for gay marriage itself undermining western civilization, it is hard to see how the promotion of love, commitment, sharing and commonality of values and goals isn't going to strengthen civilization a lot sooner than it is going to undermine it. Gay marriage has been legal, in various forms, in parts of Europe for more than twenty years, and in Canada and many states in the United States for some time now, but can anyone point to any credible evidence that gay marriage itself is leading to the crumbling of western civilization? If they can, it certainly hasn't been presented to me.

14. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex. There are several problems with this argument, the first of which is that it presumes that sexual orientation is a choice. This lie is promoted so endlessly by bigoted religious leaders that it has become accepted as fact by society as a whole, and it was advanced, beginning in the 1980's, for the purpose of discrediting the gay rights movement. But the reality is that a half century of social research on this subject, consisting of thousands of studies, beginning with the Kinsey and Minnesota Twin studies of the 1950's and continuing to the present, has shown conclusively - beyond any reasonable doubt - that among males, sexual orientation is only very slightly flexible, and among females, it is only modestly more so. That homosexuality is, among males at least, congenital, inborn, and has a genetic component of about 50% and somewhat less among females. In other words, if you're gay, you're gay and there is little that you do about it.

The Real Reasons extensive:

1. Just not comfortable with the idea. The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is neccessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority.

2. It offends everything religion stands for. Whose religion? Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them, and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

3. Marriage is a sacred institution and gay marriage violates that sanctity. This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion anyway.

Even if one accepts the presumption of the United States as a bible-believing, Christian nation as an acceptable legal doctrine, as many conservative Christians insist, and the bible should be the basis for the sacred institution of marriage, perhaps those Christians should get out their bibles and actually read them for a change. Including all the inconvenient passages that not only permit but can even require polygamy, involuntary marriage and the like.

How about Deuteronomy 25:5-10, for example: "When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. But if the man has no desire to marry his brother's widow, then his brother's widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say 'My husband's brother refuses to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me. Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying 'I have no desire to marry her,' then his brother

[selek]

Please provide them in the case that I can allow for myself to be corrected.

If I'm not mistaken, a link was provided earlier in the thread (but I'm too lazy- and busy- to run back and check).

Prove it false. Help me to understand.

You implied that a government that properly reflects the views of its citizenry is one that is "of some people, by some people, and for some people". That's a false dilemma.

There is a difference between mob-rule (pure democracy) and a government that reflects and supports the values of its citizens.

Much has been made of the idea that we live in a democracy- despite the fact that the idea is patently false. We live in a Constitutonal republic- one in which the voice of the people is supreme, and yet in which certain Constitutional rights cannot be abrogated.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ONLY so much as the PEOPLE are willing to live according to its rules.

I hope this helps.

It does not. The cut-and-paste you offered was a rationalization and a strawman- the efforts of an adovocate of homosexual marriage to provide (and refute) his version of the Pro-8 position.

He was not arguing in good faith (since he was trying to refute those arguments).

In short, he set up a bunch of bottles that were easily knocked down.

Please show evidence. I'm not necessarily skeptic but would like to be (better?) informed.

It'll take some time to find all the links, but they have been discussed and referenced in other threads of this type. If memory serves (and it may not) USU and Consiglieri are the ones who originally posted them.

That was harsh!

It was also intended as a general, rather than personal directive.

Jesus through his self-proclaimed learnings began to proselyte a revolutionary gospel contrary to that of the orthodox Jews, Pharisees and Sadduccees of his time.

Agreed- from their perspective, his positions were largely heretical. It is interesting to note, however, that they weren't quite as revolutionary as you might think.

Had he been preaching something totally alien to the beliefs of the Jews-at-large, he wouldn't have found as sympathetic an ear among the Jews and would've been brought up on charges much sooner.

Perhaps Jesus was merely an inquiring mind with no real ties to the Father. His story of virgin birth and miracles is not exclusive as there were others unrelated to him and his geographical area that held the same story.

Perhaps, but largely irrelevant.

Joseph Smith began to proclaim a restoration of lost truths (i.e., proxy baptism, celestial marriage, the endowment, multiplicity of deities, etc.)

Same story. If Joseph's story and claims had been totally alien, people would have been far less receptive. It is interesting to note that in both Jesus and Joseph's case, much of the opposition arose from those who stood to suffer either financially or politically (or both) from thier teachings.

Conclusively, Jesus and Joseph could be and are considered cultists in ancient and modern circles. However, this is mere speculation on the behalf of religion critics.

I cannot, however, say that Jesus is NOT the Christ and that Joseph Smith was NOT a prophet. That would be bearing false witness from my own spiritual experience.

Does that help?

Not really. I'm still not sure what you were driving at to begin with.

I agree with you however, that those who had reason to discredit Jesus and Joseph could have found excuse to use throw out the charge of "cultist".

[selek]

I missed this one earlier, so I'll respond now.

CFR. Is what is stated above your opinion or can it be substantiated by documentation and fact?

If you use the search bar, you can find the links to the "Second Manifesto" here. I believe there's also a full article at both FAIRLDS.org and the FAIR Wiki.

These issues have been discussed, without excommunications.

As to Quinn's particular travails, I'll refer you to Narrator's forth opus- USU provides a couple of good links, if I'm not mistaken.

Refusal to consider any other point of view demonstrates ignorance and the promotion of an agenda.

And that, IMO, is where Quinn and the others ran into trouble. They were so convinced/enamored of thier positions and opinion- and were determined to promote them at any cost- that they were no longer interested in what the Church or others had to say, or what the fallout of thier positions might have been.

They were determined to be right at any cost- leaving the Church little choice but to end its association with them.

Does that mean that any exploration into a given subject matter automatically receives the banner of proselytizing?

Not at all. It doesn't become proselyting until you begin demanding that others accept your position as the correct one- no matter what reasoning or evidence they hold to the contrary.

Did any single person listed state: "This is Church doctrine and truth!" or did they say: "This is what took place historically." There is a huge margin of difference.

I agree. But from what I've read and reviewed, it was more often, "The Church must accept my position and interpretation or else!" It was most often "I'm right and the Church is wrong" or "The Church must accept my findings as definitive or they're a bunch of anti-intellectual poopy-heads".

And yes, the last is an exaggeration- but only just.

Agreed. If the faith-promoting agenda is not promulgated by its supposed adherers then discipline should be mandatory.

I'm REALLY hoping this is sarcasm.

I don't know of a single Mormon who believes in an unreasoning or blind faith. We are commanded repeatedly to take our questions to the Lord. To study. To pray, and to reason.

We are warned against being slothful servants who must be led in all things.

So, in your opinion, is endorsing (let alone subsidizing)behavior which will have a demonstrable negative effect on marriage overall, is of dubious (at best) societal benefit, and which the vast majority of society finds morally repugnant to be considered progress?

I would not consider that progress, no. If it could be demonstrated, on the other hand, that there were real, tangible benefits to society to both marriage and society overall, then I would have to rethink my position.

It could be used to teach a lesson.

Perhaps. But IMO, the cost could be far higher than either of us anticipate. It is historical precedent that once a government no longer serves its people correcting the trend can only be done at great cost in lives and treasure. Jefferson may have been right about the tree of liberty, but I'd prefer my landscaping to be a little less blood-intensive.

Norm and status quo hold very little meaning to me. To attempt use those to promote an argument shows that the discussion is diminishing and losing value.

And yet change for its own sake is usually every bit as destructive.

Maybe not. But show me otherwise. Perhaps there seems to be a frontal stereotype that should be eliminated. Perhaps at the next GC in October, President Monson should stand up and say: "Be critical and mindful of every word spoken in Conference by the church leaders".

I believe almost exactly that quote was offered in the last General Conference. We, as a people, are commanded to be thoughtful and diligent in all things.

It's my opinion that the church is wrong. It is yours that it is not. It is cyclical. We are going to show sides of our arguments that the other is going to consider erroneous and irrelevant.

Wait. You mean we haven't ALREADY?

Perhaps we need another radical movement.

Or perhaps we need to return to our true roots- to the faith and understanding which established this country, this faith, and allow them to do so again.

ERA wasn

[wenglund]

In bold above: who are you speaking for? Yourself? Are you repeating the General Authorities? It seems as though it is a narrow minded repitition of Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness and Packer's To the One. Those are far from credible witnesses as to the lifestyle(s) of homosexuals. GRANTED, gays and lesbians haven't done the best job of trying to change opinion.

I am speaking for religionists and secularists with common sense and eyes wide open, who care about what is in the people's best interest and who prefer to see society progress rather than digress.

In italics above: Says who? The nation's founding fathers? Billy Graham? Pat Robertson? GW Bush? LDS church authorities? You? Not a single one holds a valid voice of reason concerning the subject because they haven't provided a logical reason as to why those rights should not be granted. Not one of them has spoken for God on the matter. However, we may disagree moreso on the LDS authorities but that represents a lobbying bias.

Slip as deep as you wish into denial, but you have it exactly backwards. The SSM advocates are the one's demanding change and demanding to be given rights and sanctions by the states that they have never had. As such, the burden rest with them and not with their opponents, as it has with most all legislative innitiatives, to make a case and demonstrate that, terms of cost/benefit, it is in the states interest to selectively extend that right or state sanction in the case of SSM. The advocates know they can't reasonably make such as case (as evidenced by the fact that they haven't made a cost/benefit case in their favor) and so they are left to resort to disinformation, appeals to emotion, appeals to popular culture, and judical fiat.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The_Monk]

I saw a new and lengthy review of this from an LDS perspective at http://www.patheos.com/community/mormonportal/2010/06/28/review-8-the-mormon-proposition/

Not interested in discussing, but thought I'd throw it out there.