Prop 8 as discussed in BYU's "Daily Universe"

[krose]

Just sharing the best legal exposition against Prop8 I have seen: <youtube vid>

Thanks.

That guy is goooood.

[charity]

I'm confused - give what my best shot?

You said, "Oh, and hey, if you don't think "we make up reasons why we do something because we don't want admit we take direction from a prophet", well, just start a thread on the Word of Wisdom, or the law of chastity, and you'll find examples of rationalization and cognitive dissonance at it's finest."

I meant you could start the thread and try to prove ratinalizatin and cognitive dissonance.

[charity]

Charity, I think you were the first to mention 'morgbotism' and mindless followership. *I* certainly didn't mention it. No matter how or why one comes to the conclusion to follow the prophet, I find very few members who will admit, publically, that prophet followership is the reason for any particular stance that they take. Rather, I hear much rationalization and excuse - gay marriage is bad because of the social ills it will create, WoW is good because doctors say that caffeine is bad, law of chastity is good because it prevents disease. Those may be right things to say, but they all have an equally compelling refutation, which is equally right. And none have the power to bring about the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

Stating that you unequivocally believe that a prophet, the mouthpiece of the Lord, told you that gay marriage is wrong, that the Word of Wisdom is correct, and the law of chastity is an eternal principal, and so on and so on, that, and only that, has the power to bring about the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Nothing else.

That is not mindless followership, or morgbotism, or sheeple-ism, or anything else other than courage and conviction.

H.

The prophets, from Joseph Smith to the present, have all told us we are to seek for our own confirmation of the spirit that what they is say right. That is enlightened followership.

[LDSToronto]

The prophets, from Joseph Smith to the present, have all told us we are to seek for our own confirmation of the spirit that what they is say right. That is enlightened followership.

Yes, but you yourself admitted to not doing this every time. And I have sought confirmation with respect to same-sex marriage, and received a personal revelation and insight into scripture that is contrary to what the church teaches, but would bring about a world of peace. Does that mean that I am wrong, and should seek the default position of followership, or that I should do my own thing for this one disagreement?

H.

[frankenstein]

I have plenty of reasons to oppose homsexual behavior, not related to any religion. I am a limited Darwinist. Continuation of life on this planet precludes homosexual attractions and behavior. Two males will never produce offspring. I thought everybody knew that.

What is your other thread?

a homosexual relation couple is incapable of reproduction with the assistance of a 3rd party, this is true. What is not universaly true is that homosexuals do not want to reproduce. Many homosexual want to reproduce. What is also not true is that reproduction can only happen by a heterosexual copulation. As there are many instances of same sex couples who have "produce" or rather aided in the reproduction of offspring. The desire to reproduce is of the nature of living beings. Reproduction would still occur even if the whole population was homosexual.

So even if we take religion out of the picture, darwinism does not provide a rational basis against homosexual couplings, as any concerns raised by darwinism are easily dispelled.

[Sky]

Yes, but you yourself admitted to not doing this every time. And I have sought confirmation with respect to same-sex marriage, and received a personal revelation and insight into scripture that is contrary to what the church teaches, but would bring about a world of peace. Does that mean that I am wrong, and should seek the default position of followership, or that I should do my own thing for this one disagreement?

H.

Are you sure that your personal revelation came from God? How exactly would it bring about a world of peace?

I guess I don

[Andrew Callahan]

An opinion peice from my alma mater's newspaper, BYU's Daily Universe. The last paragraph, in particular strikes me as startingly honest. I'm impressed:

In addition to the few words of praise I mentioned prior to postint the text of the article, I also wanted to say that the very fact that BYU published this letter has earned (in my own admittedly human-and-therefore-subjective viewpoint) the church more credibility for academic freedom than I've given them in recent years--so, a huge KUDOS to opening the dialogue by allowing Mr. Crall

The letter or op-ed piece or whatever it is/was, is no longer available on the website at the URL it was previously at: http://universe.byu.edu/node/10417 and even if registered and logged in (as the page now asks one to do) the piece does not appear to be available.

A skeptic might suggest that the praise due the church for "more credibility for academic freedom" MIGHT not be as appropriate as the OP suggests. Of course there is no reason listed for why the article is no longer available, but it COULD be because some person in authority found it was incompatible with the mission of the church. There could, of course, be many other reasons why it is no longer available, and it is unfortunate that there isn't a note of explanation as to why this one was removed. There has been discussion about this article on a number of boards on the Internet, and it makes me wonder if perhaps that led to its removal.

[Chris]

I also wanted to say that the very fact that BYU published this letter has earned (in my own admittedly human-and-therefore-subjective viewpoint) the church more credibility for academic freedom than I've given them in recent years--so, a huge KUDOS to opening the dialogue by allowing Mr. Crall (a man I don't know from Adam, but whom has my respect) to voice his opinion on a subject that many view as a dead-horse.

But now it's removed from the website. Original link: http://universe.byu.edu/node/10417

[krose]

I have plenty of reasons to oppose homsexual behavior, not related to any religion. I am a limited Darwinist. Continuation of life on this planet precludes homosexual attractions and behavior. Two males will never produce offspring. I thought everybody knew that.

Yeah, and what about all those retired people who insist on conjugal relations, flaunting their Viagra and Cialis in our faces? Not only is it disgusting to think about, but two elderly people will never produce offspring. Why do we support this type of behavior by allowing people to be sexually active (we even grant them marriage licenses!) long after their childbearing years?

We humans are in serious danger of extinction. If we don't do something to control the actions of these selfish individuals, we may dwindle to nothing before we can even make a measurable dent in the planet's inexhaustible natural resources. Before we know it the pandas and polar bears will have taken over our dwindling habitat.

[thesometimesaint]

frankenstein:

Your logic is faulty. Two same sex humans can not reproduce, by definition. With a sufficient population of homosexuals extinction becomes a real possibility. I don't see that as happening anytime soon.

[semlogo]

Just sharing the best legal exposition against Prop8 I have seen:

He's spot on. You can disagree with gay marriage from a moral perspective, from appeals to tradition, appeals to revelation, etc. All of those are great. But legally, Prop 8 never had a leg to stand on.

[frankenstein]

frankenstein:

Your logic is faulty. Two same sex humans can not reproduce, by definition. With a sufficient population of homosexuals extinction becomes a real possibility. I don't see that as happening anytime soon.

what then is the standard of truth for the term "reproduction"

here is what wiki lists

Sexual reproduction

Sexual reproduction is a biological process by which organisms create descendants that have a combination of genetic material contributed from two (usually) different members of the species

so how is it that homosexuals can not contribute to the process of reproduction, when the process only requires the combination of genetic materials, which combining does not require heterosexual copulation?

[belledame2]

On April 6, 1961, Sterling W. Sill, an assistant to the Twelve, said this in General Conference:

"The Lord's reason for bringing us to these (utah) valleys in theirst place was not primarily to establish us in aa condition of wealth and ease; HE PROBABLY DID NOT INTEND THAT WE SHOULD EVER EXCEL AS A FINANCIAL COMMUNITY OR OAS A SEAT OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE."

Frankly, I think the meddling in Prop 8 goes against thisj.

[cinepro]

But now it's removed from the website. Original link: http://universe.byu.edu/node/10417

These guys are probably behind this.

[phaedrus ut]

But now it's removed from the website. Original link: http://universe.byu.edu/node/10417

I suspect someone has a scheduled meeting with the Honor Code office and their bishop right about now.

Phaedrus

[Lars Umlaut]

For your consideration:

BYU censors letter to the editor critical of Prop 8

[birdgirl]

I hope Cary gets his diploma before they decide he is not worthy.

[LDSToronto]

Are you sure that your personal revelation came from God?

When it was confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is true, I felt a certain way... I felt the same way when this was confirmed to me. Plus, it meets the standard as outlined in Moroni 7:16-17.

I guess I don

[Sky]

When it was confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is true, I felt a certain way... I felt the same way when this was confirmed to me. Plus, it meets the standard as outlined in Moroni 7:16-17.

What if I *am* right and the Brethren *are* wrong? Is that possible? We know the Brethren are fallible, it's possible that's been confirmed to me, isn't it? And if so, does that mean I should not voice my opinion?

H.

To answer your questions, please read Elder M. Russell Ballard

[spinner]

For your consideration:

BYU censors letter to the editor critical of Prop 8

Disappointing, if not surprising. In any case, props to them for publishing the letter in the first place.

[phaedrus ut]

Disappointing, if not surprising. In any case, props to them for publishing the letter in the first place.

Is it really more admirable to publish then censor rather than never to have published at all?

BTW the Daily Universe posted their justification for removal:

The Daily Universe made an independent decision to remove the student viewpoint titled

[JarMan]

Well, Charity, let me ask you this (and it's a hypothetical, so please play along): Imagine that tomorrow, you woke up and read that the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve Apostles released a statement saying that the church supports same-sex marriage, so long as temples remain sacred places and no bishop will ever be forced to marry a same sex couple, tell me, would your personal stance on same-sex marriage change, assuming that today, you are against same sex marriages?

I know this question wasn't directed to me, but I'd like to answer it anyway. My personal views would not change one bit if the church leadership changed its view on the issue.

If it does not change, is that evidence that you feel the prophet is wrong?

Yes. In this hypothetical the prophet is hypothetically wrong.

[cinepro]

Disappointing, if not surprising. In any case, props to them for publishing the letter in the first place.

No, no props for publishing the letter but then retracting it. That's weak sauce.

[toon]

While I don't find it offensive, I think it's inaccurate (and condescending) to say that the "real reason" LDS supported Prop 8 was because the Prophet said so. Some may have, but i suspect a large number, if not the vast majority, would have taken the same position even if Church leadership had remained silent on the issue. Perhaps more accurate would be to characterize the opposition as religious in nature. But having religious reasons to support something is entirely different than saying that the reason is because a Chuch leader said so.

Moreover, the fact that the Defendants did not present those arguments does not mean that they were necessarily invalid. And even if those arguments were not legally valid, it doesn't mean that people, including Church leaders, did not rely on them in good faith as a basis for their position.

And I say this as a believing member that voted against Prop 8.

Re the removal of the letter. When I was at BYU, I looked to the Daily Universe more as a source of entertainment (with silly controversies being the best form of that) rather than good journalism.

[Jaybear]

While I don't find it offensive, I think it's inaccurate (and condescending) to say that the "real reason" LDS supported Prop 8 was because the Prophet said so.

Agreed. He opens him self up for criticism by overgeneralizing. I am sure he will make a fine doctor, but he is not persuasive advocate.

Some may have, but i suspect a large number, if not the vast majority, would have taken the same position even if Church leadership had remained silent on the issue.

I agree. Most religious people supported prop 8. Most nonreligous people opposed Prop 8. But I sincerely doubt that the average LDS family would have shelled out money to pass a law that has no impact on their life, but for the request from SLC.

Perhaps more accurate would be to characterize the opposition as religious in nature. But having religious reasons to support something is entirely different than saying that the reason is because a Church leader said so.

Agreed. To me, the obedience fact only comes into play for those who spend money and time on the campaign.

Moreover, the fact that the Defendants did not present those arguments does not mean that they were necessarily invalid. And even if those arguments were not legally valid, it doesn't mean that people, including Church leaders, did not rely on them in good faith as a basis for their position.

The fact that God hates homos is a valid reason for you to vote for Prop 8. You can vote for Prop 8 for any reason. Its not, however, a legally valid reason for passing. We should try to pretend that we live in a secular country.

Re the removal of the letter. When I was at BYU, I looked to the Daily Universe more as a source of entertainment (with silly controversies being the best form of that) rather than good journalism.

What is more embarrassing to BYU ... the letter, or the censorship of the letter?