Wiggle room for changing church teachings on homosexuality

[california boy]

I found this response interesting concerning wiggle room.It is not all as black and white as many would like it to be.

True hermaphroditism is a genetic condition that even people like Dave cannot deny. Occasionally people are born with both ovaries and testicles. They are mosaics, probably due to fraternal twinning with a male and female morula which then merge into a single fetus which has both XY and XX cell lines.

Can a true hermaphrodite marry?--because no matter whom they marry, they are entering into both an opposite sex and a same sex marriage. Is it wrong for them to even have a crush on another teenager, since that would constitute same sex attraction? Can they get a temple recommend?-- because it's a bit confusing to know which side of the endowment room they should sit on. Can they be ordained to the priesthood and pass the sacrament with their male cells, or do their female cells preclude priesthood ordination? If they adopt a child, are they recorded as the mother or father on the genealogical record? I guess the true hermaphrodite just has to be celibate and single, and attend Relief Society and Priesthood Meeting on alternate Sundays.

There is a known case of conjoined twin girls who have two heads, two thoraces, but only one abdomen and one pelvis, with a single set of sex organs. They could not be surgically divided as infants, since both would have died, so the parents opted to let them both live in this bizarre conjoined state. Since the two girls are two distinct beings with different personalities and thoughts, if they marry, can they both marry one man, or is that polyandy? If they marry two different men, does the one twin commit adultery while the other has sexual intercourse with her legally and lawfully married husband? Both, by simple laws of physics, must be present, using their common sexual organs for any intimacy that would occur.

Does a kid with Tourette's syndrome who involuntarily blurts out profanity just need Jesus in his life, or are his actions really beyond his control? (Didn't Paul say he wouldn't be tempted beyond his ability to resist?) Is Tourette's a mental illness or is it just a person choosing to be wicked?

If a person is genotypically XY, but has androgen insensitivity and looks and appears like a woman, is she spiritually a woman or spiritually a man? Can she be ordained to the priesthood since she has a Y chromosome? Does spirit match genotype or phenotype? And back to the true hermaphrodite, since there were two eggs fertilized by two different sperm, are there two spirits in the same body (one male and one female)?

Sexuality isn't tidy, no matter what BKP or anyone else in the church believes. For every "normal" you can provide me, I can provide you with a counterexample within the range of human genotype and phenotype. BKP seems to think that "God would never make you that way. How could he? He loves you!" But God makes the conjoined twins and the true hermaphrodites. So he must not love them, because according to BKP, they wouldn't be "born that way" if a loving God had anything to do with it.

The church hierarchy clings to their 'scriptural science' even when real science disproves their claims. When the papyri from which the facsimiles from the Pearl of Great Price were copied were actually found and translated (yes, they still exist), we learned that they have nothing to do with Abraham, but in spite of irrefutable scientific proof to the contrary, the church still believes that Joseph's 'translation' of the book is accurate, even when his very translations can be proved to be inaccurate. We concoct circumnavigations around the truth in order to keep believing the story which scripture tells us. Like the medieval church, we insist that the earth is the center of the universe and charge Copernicus with heresy for saying otherwise.

The beauty of the LDS faith is that some day in the not too distant future, a man who is 20 or 30 today will become the prophet, and with the ease of a single proclamation, declare that God now blesses monogamous same sex relationships and awards those righteous individuals their place in the second degree of the Celestial Kingdom. A few curmudgeons will spew and rant and leave the church, but the majority will secretly rejoice, just as we did with the revelation about blacks and the priesthood, and the church will go on, stepping along nicely as always, only a few short decades behind reality.

[Deborah]

If God allowed gay marriage, it would no longer be moral behavior since the sex would be within the bonds of matrimony

Except God doesn't allow "gay" marriage and won't, especially in the church where eternal marriage is encouraged. Even if the law of the land changed it would not change the stance on homosexual behavior as the marriage would not be valid in the church.

But this brings up an interesting point. If the state makes a law that legitimizes gay marriage, that opens up all kinds of doors where a gay couple can sue a Bishop for not marrying them. Think it can't happen? It already has where a photographer was sued and lost for turning down photographing a gay wedding.

[Daniel2]

Except God doesn't allow "gay" marriage and won't, especially in the church where eternal marriage is encouraged. Even if the law of the land changed it would not change the stance on homosexual behavior as the marriage would not be valid in the church.

But this brings up an interesting point. If the state makes a law that legitimizes gay marriage, that opens up all kinds of doors where a gay couple can sue a Bishop for not marrying them. Think it can't happen? It already has where a photographer was sued and lost for turning down photographing a gay wedding.

Deborah,

No, it can't happen that an LDS bishop would be forced to marry a same-sex couple (see every state where same-sex couples are allowed to wed for evidence that no clergy have been 'forced' to perform same-sex weddings against their beliefs or will).

The oft-repeated scare-mongering photographer example you raise is false and has been debunked many, many times--even by Latter-day Saints.

I'm fine if you disagree with same-sex marriage as a matter of personal belief, but one shouldn't perpetuate falsehoods to try to scare people into getting your way. Dishonest means don't justify the ends.

My view,

Darin

[Jaybear]

Except God doesn't allow "gay" marriage and won't, especially in the church where eternal marriage is encouraged. Even if the law of the land changed it would not change the stance on homosexual behavior as the marriage would not be valid in the church.

Your bishops marry couples who for whatever reason, are not being sealed for all eternity.

Assuming God changed his mind about homosexuality being an abomination, are you saying that your God does not have the power to solemnize or bless a gay marriage in your church?

But that said, if you know that God won't change his mind, then I suppose if and when the Brethren announce a new change to the policy/doctrine, I will expect you to publicly denounce them as false prophet.

[LeSellers]

No, it can't happen that an LDS bishop would be forced to marry a same-sex couple (see every state where same-sex couples are allowed to wed for evidence that no clergy have been 'forced' to perform same-sex weddings against their beliefs or will).

What guarantee would you give us about this?

It is the long and sad history of legislation that, whatever the writers and supporters of it say, a law is often, and usually, turned around to do the very thing the proponents claimed would never happen. The claim, made to secure at least begrudging acquiescence to it, was made with precisely the goal denied in mind.

Seat Belt laws were originally touted as nothing more than a way to encourage people to use their belts. Now, they are a primary stop law, and have become a major source of revenue for local governments.

To secure passage of the XVI amendment, Progressives claimed it would never apply to any but the wealthiest of USmerican, and that, in any case, it would never exceed 3% of income. I pay quite a bit more than that, and I am far from being among the wealthiest of USmericans.

My antiSocial inSecurity card says it is not to be used for identification. Now, I can't even go to my doctor's office without their demanding to see my number. That same number was, and is, my military identification number. It shows up on every bank account, trading account, and used to be even identical with drivers' licenses. I had to use it for my student id number at a number of colleges, and such lists go on endlessly.

Supporters of the misleadingly named Equal Rights Amendment claimed it would not require that all restrooms be open to both sexes. Even without that nefarious clause in the organic Document, we have proponents of same-sex restrooms who claim that, in order to provide "equal access" women should be allowed to use men's and men to use women's facilities.

Your words sound lofty, but history shows them to be vain, and just another tool to garner illegitimate support for the destruction of Family and Marriage. Satan has worked his magic well. He has progressed most of the way down his desired path to undermine and thwart Father's plan of happiness.

Lehi

[Daniel2]

What guarantee would you give us about this?

The Constitution.

It is the long and sad history of legislation that, whatever the writers and supporters of it say, a law is often, and usually, turned around to do the very thing the proponents claimed would never happen. The claim, made to secure at least begrudging acquiescence to it, was made with precisely the goal denied in mind.

It's true that sometimes, we as a nation "get it wrong" when it comes to protecting religious minorities (the U.S. Government's inappropriate and aggressive prosecution of Mormon polygamists being one-such example, and Proposition 8's inappropriate and agreessive prohibition against religious minorities that support same-sex marriage, being another). But more often than not, the long arc of history bends towards justice, and we usually sort it out.

Seat Belt laws were originally touted as nothing more than a way to encourage people to use their belts. Now, they are a primary stop law, and have become a major source of revenue for local governments.

To secure passage of the XVI amendment, Progressives claimed it would never apply to any but the wealthiest of USmerican, and that, in any case, it would never exceed 3% of income. I pay quite a bit more than that, and I am far from being among the wealthiest of USmericans.

My antiSocial inSecurity card says it is not to be used for identification. Now, I can't even go to my doctor's office without their demanding to see my number. That same number was, and is, my military identification number. It shows up on every bank account, trading account, and used to be even identical with drivers' licenses. I had to use it for my student id number at a number of colleges, and such lists go on endlessly.

I don't believe seat belt laws or social security cards are relevant comparrisons to government enforcement of bishops to marry couples that they don't wish to marry (something that hasn't happened, EVER, to my knowledge--whether that couple was straight or gay).

Supporters of the misleadingly named Equal Rights Amendment claimed it would not require that all restrooms be open to both sexes. Even without that nefarious clause in the organic Document, we have proponents of same-sex restrooms who claim that, in order to provide "equal access" women should be allowed to use men's and men to use women's facilities.

As you point out, the ERA didn't pass, so I'm not sure what your beef is, here. Unless you expect the free speech of those who disagree with you on the bathroom thing should be silenced...?

Your words sound lofty, but history shows them to be vain, and just another tool to garner illegitimate support for the destruction of Family and Marriage. Satan has worked his magic well. He has progressed most of the way down his desired path to undermine and thwart Father's plan of happiness.

Lehi

Well... we can agree on one thing: my words certainly are meant to garner support for my view of Family and Marriage--though we disagree on the legitimacy of my claim, as well as the view of what it means to "destroy Family and Marriage". Many claim that restricting the title of marriage to opposite-sex couples, alone, is what "preserves" it. Such individuals are, in my view, like the selfish child who's greedy clutch may ultimately crush and destroy a beloved toy he refuses to share with others, and then capriciously accuses other children who expressed interest in his toy for causing it's destruction.

As I said, I think history shows my words to be pretty sound. In the long history of marriage in this country, please point to a single instance where a clergy member has been forced by the United States government to serve in his ecclesiastical office to perform ANY type of civil marriage against his/her will.

Darin

[Deborah]

The oft-repeated scare-mongering photographer example you raise is false and has been debunked many, many times--even by Latter-day Saints.

CFR

LAWSUITS

LAWSUIT

[Deborah]

But that said, if you know that God won't change his mind, then I suppose if and when the Brethren announce a new change to the policy/doctrine, I will expect you to publicly denounce them as false prophet.

Well, let's see. I always knew that blacks would someday have the Priesthood, whether this life or the next. However, I see no way that marriage between 2 people of the same sex can be sanctioned as it would defy the purpose of marriage in eternity and would be against what is considered unnatural behavior by the laws of God. So no I don't see God changing his mind or a prophet announcing such so your assumption is bunk.

[Daniel2]

CFR

LAWSUITS

LAWSUIT

I apologize, Deb, that my original wording about the point of what I was saying evidently wasn't clear.

You made the claim that, "If the state makes a law that legitimizes gay marriage, that opens up all kinds of doors where a gay couple can sue a Bishop for not marrying them. Think it can't happen? It already has where a photographer was sued and lost for turning down photographing a gay wedding."

To which I responded that, "No, it can't happen that an LDS bishop would be forced to marry a same-sex couple (see every state where same-sex couples are allowed to wed for evidence that no clergy have been 'forced' to perform same-sex weddings against their beliefs or will)... The oft-repeated scare-mongering photographer example you raise is false and has been debunked many, many times--even by Latter-day Saints."

Let me clarify:

You made a claim that the passage of same-sex marriage laws could lead to an LDS bishop being forced by the government to marry same sex couples, then used the fact that a photography business had been successfully sued as an example to prove what could happen.

I then responded that bishops wouldn't be forced to marry same-sex couples, and that the photography example had been 'debunked' many times, even by Latter-day Saints.

A clearer explanation would have been this: it's inappropriate to apply the New Mexican case involving the successful prosecution by a same-sex couple of a photography business that refused to provide services for their committment ceremony as an analogous example of what could happen to LDS bishops if same-sex marriage is passed for several reasons (many of which are obvious, even from the links you provided, Deb):

a) That case was not dependant upon same-sex marriage, in any shape or form, as same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in New Mexico (in fact, even Civil Unions aren't).

b) That case had to do with a public business violating a state non-discrimination ordinance which governed offering public services. The key here is "public"--a target audience that a business in NM caters to. Religions, however, do not serve or target "the public," nor are they governed by the same contractual laws that govern businesses. This case, then, did NOT involve any legislation about "same-sex-marriage," which hadn't even passed, nor was it recongined, in NM.

c) As previously said, Religion does not serve the public good in the same way that businesses are set up to do, nor is it bound by the same legal regulations and/or non-discrimination ordinances. As such, LDS bishops (or the LDS church) are not bound by the laws that govern businesses, as religions do not "sell" marriages, and could not be prosecuted for abstaining from performing a marriage ceremony against their will or beleif.

I hope that helps clarify.

Thanks,

Darin

[LeSellers]

The Constitution [is a guarantee that no LDS bishop will be forced by the state to perform a same-sex "marriage"].

Since almost no one in power recognizes that the Constitution is a valid restraint on governmental action, this is scarcely a shadow.

It's true that sometimes, we as a nation "get it wrong" when it comes to protecting religious minorit... But more often than not, the long arc of history bends towards justice, and we usually sort it out.

Long after the damage has been done, and the outcome is not to return to freedom, it's a partial return, at best, and those affected bear the cost of both defense and restoration.

I don't believe seat belt laws or social security cards are relevant comparrisons to government enforcement of bishops to marry couples that they don't wish to marry (something that hasn't happened, EVER, to my knowledge--whether that couple was straight or gay).

That is hasn't happened yet is no protection that it will not happen in the future. The fact that these (amid a myriad of other examples) laws were sold using the lie that it won't go beyond this limit is more than ample evidence that, at some point, any law that "recognizes" (I'd say forces) same-sex "marriage" as identical to marriage can be interpreted by progressive judges to mean that anyone acting as an agent of the state (as anyone who performs marriages does) must perform all marriages the state recognizes, irrespective of the person's convictions. Catholics hospitals must allow abortions, Christian pharmacists must dispense abortion pills., etc. Religious convictions are not bulwark against the state;s demanding that the person act as the state dictates.

As you point out, the ERA didn't pass, so I'm not sure what your beef is, here. Unless you expect the free speech of those who disagree with you on the bathroom thing should be silenced...?

No, just that even without the supposed cover of the amendment, the proponents of such "equality" have pressed forward with their agenda. We can only imagine what would have happened had the amendment been ratified. This in spite of the fact that the proponents had promised, using the same terms you used above, that there would never be same-sex restrooms.

we can agree on one thing: my words certainly are meant to garner support for my view of Family and Marriage--though we disagree on the legitimacy of my claim, as well as the view of what it means to "destroy Family and Marriage". Many claim that restricting the title of marriage to opposite-sex couples, alone, is what "preserves" it. Such individuals are, in my view, like the selfish child who's greedy clutch may ultimately crush and destroy a beloved toy he refuses to share with others, and then capriciously accuses other children who expressed interest in his toy for causing it's destruction.

Experience with those who want to "share" the toy give one great cause to disregard their protestations of innocent play.

The owner of the toy may not be innocent of causing the toy harm, but that is no reason at all for another child to demand that he give it up, all the more when the erstwhile "borrower" has shown a proclivity toward destroying toys in the past.

As I said, I think history shows my words to be pretty sound. In the long history of marriage in this country, please point to a single instance where a clergy member has been forced by the United States government to serve in his ecclesiastical office to perform ANY type of civil marriage against his/her will.

While they may not be about marriage, per se, we have a host of similar situations, involving adoptions (now controlled by the state, but one the province of family and church), abortion (another moral and family-centered issue) and others where the state has intervened and coerced people into denying their personal beliefs. There is absolutely no reason to accept the mealy-mouthed promise that it will not be the case. No one has shown that it won't happen, and that's because, as a matter of political principle, no current legislature can tie the hands of future legislatures and certainly not judges.

We have the historic examples of the antiScoial inSecurity numbers and seat belt laws (which are a tiny few of the possible examples) that illustrate this principle: the state always grows at the expense of individual liberty. Franklin Roosevelt, as governor of New York, on 16 July 1929, told a conference of governors that the federal government has a tendency to usurp state powers. A decade later, he was the usurper and at that point, it was not only alright, it was necessary. Your naïve assumption (we assume it is naïve, and not a calculating manipulation on your part, although it is on the part of Satan) that this will not happen is wholly whistling past the graveyard.

Lehi

[Deborah]

c) As previously said, Religion does not serve the public good in the same way that businesses are set up to do, nor is it bound by the same legal regulations and/or non-discrimination ordinances. As such, LDS bishops (or the LDS church) are not bound by the laws that govern businesses, as religions do not "sell" marriages, and could not be prosecuted for abstaining from performing a marriage ceremony against their will or beleif.

Sorry I misunderstood. I find this statement interesting because religion in fact does serve the public good, mostly through charitable work which relieves the burden of the state. I do understand this probably isn't the meaning you applied to it. I don't see how a private enterprise can be interpreted as serving the public good since businessmen are in business for the purpose of making personal profit. If they choose to deny profit by not serving a certain segment how does that hurt the "public good"?

However, I disagree with anyone who says that churches wouldn't be bound by the same law as business; we've already opened the door and once the door is opened it has a way of further opening into areas not intended. I find it shocking and disturbing that privately owned business is subject to such laws, especially when the parties involved can find someone else who will want to do business with them. I can understand state owned entities being subject to such laws. BTW, LDS do not charge for use of their buildings for marriages. However, other churches do; so does that make them a business, "selling" marriage? How will the law be interpreted in such cases?

[Skylla]

Jaybear: Stop the race baiting. You're out of the thread.

Skylla

[Skylla]

Remember when Mormons wanted to practice their own unique form of marriage which the majority of people in the rest of society thought was odd or even morally responsible, and the Mormons did it anyway and were subsequently driven out of their homes for this and other reasons, and how later they petitioned the U.S. Government to allow them to practice their so-called marriages, but the Government said no? Yeah, that was right too, huh?

Just as I believe the LDS were unjustly denied their rights to engage in polygamy, and mixed-race couples have been denied their rights to engage in miscegenation (something which Brigham Young considered a sin which could only be forgiven through the shedding of the participants' blood), homosexuals are unjustly denied their rights to have their committed relationships afforded the same legal protections and status afforded other couples engaging in consensual domestic partnerships commonly referred to as marriage.

I find your (mordecai) particular religiously based prejudice against homosexuality revolting and despicable.

Personal commentary needs to stop. If you can't refrain from doing so, you will be removed from the thread.

Skylla

[AmorLibertas]

Personal commentary needs to stop. If you can't refrain from doing so, you will be removed from the thread.

Skylla

My apologies to anyone offended by my comment, especially Mordecai :-)

[semlogo]

Except God doesn't allow "gay" marriage and won't, especially in the church where eternal marriage is encouraged. Even if the law of the land changed it would not change the stance on homosexual behavior as the marriage would not be valid in the church.

But this brings up an interesting point. If the state makes a law that legitimizes gay marriage, that opens up all kinds of doors where a gay couple can sue a Bishop for not marrying them. Think it can't happen? It already has where a photographer was sued and lost for turning down photographing a gay wedding.

Deborah - maybe He does and maybe He doesn't. God has not spoken on the subject yet.

[semlogo]

:rofl: :rofl:

Trying to split homosexual behavior, which is a sexual sin, away from sexual sin, isn't "splitting hairs"?

:rofl: :rofl:

Carry on!

Straight sex on your wedding night is fine. Straight sex an hour before you get married is a serious sin. Is that splitting hairs?

[semlogo]

Wow, even in context, there's nothing there about prostitution. In all seriousness, please. Don't tell me what the Greek says again. What a whopper that was.

What we can infer here is that clearly, the Jews didn't accept homosexuality and it's just a historical fact that they had no "gay marriage." So, in the end, homosexual relations are a type of fornication, seeing as they had no "gay marriage." Case closed.

Of all the times in the NT that it's mentioned, there is only one that could rightly be referring to gay relations in general. But the attribution does not follow what we know about causes, ergo it is invalid.

Did you read the link carefully? It seems to me that you did not.

Eating lobster is an "abomination" per Jewish law. Just like homosexual relations.

[semlogo]

Yes. Everywhere it refers to fornication or adultery since all homosexual actions or relationships are of one form or the other depending on the particular circumstances.

Also, "none else".

Just like whenever the Bible talks about not eating blood, they're also talking about not taking blood transfusions. Is that right?

[semlogo]

Actually, Paul talks about homosexuality being caused by idol worship. But he's speaking about homosexuality in itself (Rom 1:26-27). There is no allusion here to any particular type of homosexuality nor homosexuality in a certain context. Paul simply asserts that homosexuality, being unnatural and "vile," is caused by idol worship.

Do you think idol worship really will make you catch "the gay"?

[semlogo]

If scriptural passages from the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are too ambiguous for people to accept that God does not approve of homosexual relationships, we also have the words of modern, living prophets who speak by the power of Holy Ghost which confirm that for us. To me, that ought to be enough.

But the truth is that many people just don’t want to believe it. It doesn’t matter how many scriptures or modern day General Authorities are quoted as saying it is wrong because they don’t want to hear that. It’s like going in circles. Like anything else, people on both sides of the debate can easily come up with justifications for why they believe they are right and the other side is wrong.

In the end, it comes down to who you choose to believe. Everybody (whether they are faced with this challenge themselves or not) has to use the best information they have available and think about it for themselves as well as ponder and pray about it, and come to the conclusion that they believe is right.

Modern apostles and prophets speak their opinion all the time. I think we all know that. But without a specific revelation, it won't be anything more than opinion.

[semlogo]

Seriously, Jaybear, are you comparing custom to a moral behavior? They are not the same. Morality has always been constant with God, though it has certainly changed in the eyes of the world.

No it hasn't. Polygamy is a perfect example.

[Vance]

Straight sex on your wedding night is fine. Straight sex an hour before you get married is a serious sin. Is that splitting hairs?

One is BEFORE you are married, the other is AFTER you are married. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Seriously, you have NO argument.

Carry on!

[Daniel2]

This post is sort of directed at no one in particular, and sort of to everyone, specifically.

Most often on the subject of homosexuality here on the board, I try to avoid emotional appeals, in part because I don't think most members of the church don't really recognize the love between spouses of the same sex, and they have a really hard time being moved by thought of loving intimacy between two husbands or two wives. Accordingly, I often try to stick to the shallower waters of the more emotion-less approach.

In some ways, that's kind of unjustly crippling to the whole discussion about same-sex dynamics. While the politics of 'family' can certainly be discussed on an intellectual level, I personally feel there's something profoundly absent when the subject of love, affection, and family are discussed purely in a stridently academic, emotionally-detatched fashion... I'd imagine that that self-imposed restriction on emotional aspects of same-sex affection, when trying to approach Latter-day Saints about what same-gender affection is like for me, would be sort-of like expecting a missionary to introduce the gospel with potential investigators without ever being able to share his thoughts, feelings, or personal 'testimony' on the subject.

With that acknowledgment out of the way, I'm going to wax into emotive territory for a moment...

The subject of homosexuality on this board is saddening to me on many levels. Usually because it devolves into an academic treatis (and often personal insults) on what Leviticus has to say in condemning some sex act; or whether or not a word meant "prostitution"; or the civil rights and politics of personal rights vs. religious rights; etc.

And I've often found myself wishing that some, like Deborah (who I picture in my head as being a kind, caring, loving, and generous person) could have the potential to see the love I've felt as a gay man in the same way and fashion that I've experienced it.

And then I realized that the missing element that doubtlessly-good people like Deb aren't seeing--and perhaps never will see--is the crucial element, from my perspective. That missing element that changes everything about one's perspective. It's exactly the element that I once recall Gordon B. Hinckley speaking of in a talk he once gave that still resonnates with me, today:

I wish to talk about something in which all of you are interested--something for which all of you long, which you need, and without which the world can indeed be a lonely and a dreary place. I do so because this is Valentine's Day.

On this day, when I was a little boy, we traded paper hearts at school, and at night we dropped them at the doors of our friends, stamping on the porch and then running in the dark to hide. Sometimes we would tie a fishing line to a valentine, and when the would-be receiver would go to pick it up we would pull the string. That happens in life with some of us.

Almost without exception these valentines had printed on their face the words, "I love you." I have since come to know that love is more than a paper heart. It is the very essence of life. It is the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. But it is not at the end of a rainbow; it is at the beginning, and from it springs the beauty that arches across the sky on a stormy day. It is the security for which children weep, the meat and drink of youth, the adhesive that binds marriage and the lubricant that prevents devastating friction in the home; it is the peace of old age, the sunlight of hope shining through death. How impoverished are those who lack it, and how rich those who have it!

For most of you here today, it is one of the reasons for your presence on campus. You are here because of the love of your parents, whose interest is your present and future happiness. You say you are here to gain an education, and I hope that is true. But in your hearts you know you are also here to find a companion, that someone with whom you hope you can fall in love, later marry, and then live happily with forever after. This is not an idle, idyllic dream. It happens. I know it happens; I have experienced it. And you know it happens and you hope and pray it will happen to you.

I am one who believes that love, like faith, is a gift of God. I agree with Pearl Buck, who said: "Love cannot be forced, love cannot be coaxed and teased. It comes out of heaven, unasked and unsought" (The Treasure Chest, p. 165).

Some of you have taken classes to prepare you the better for that hoped-for time. They may help qualify you, and each of us needs all the help he can get. But I am inclined to agree with Sydney Harris, the columnist, who wrote:

One of the grand errors we tend to make when we are young is supposing that a person is a bundle of qualities, and we add up the individual's good and bad qualities, like a bookkeeper working on debits and credits.

If the balance is favorable, we may decide to take the jump [into marriage]. . . . The world is full of unhappy men and women who married their mates because . . . it seemed to be a good investment.

Love, however, is not an investment; it is an adventure. And when the marriage turns out to be as dull and comfortable as a sound investment, the disgruntled party soon turns elsewhere for adventure, . . .

Ignorant people are always saying, "I wonder what he sees in her," not realizing that what he sees in her (and what no one else can see in her) is the secret essence of love.

In my quotation of the above, I'm aware that many Latter-day Saints who read this post of mine will doubtless be immediately thinking of the scripture that says, "Wo unto them who call 'good' that which is evil"!!!

However, once one stands in the majesty, awesomeness and genuinely-tranformative power or Love--not just passion, or lust, or sex--but real, self-sacrificing, enobling, enriching, life-changing, I'd-give-everything-I-am-for-you Love---arguing over the semantics can seem so very... small, I suppose.

Arguments and debates over the morality of same-sex affection will continue to rage on. And most of you may never make the connection that the love and affection that I feel is just as real and tangeable and special to me as the love you feel for your husband or wife. In the midst of these debates, I'll remember with gratitude President Hinckley's words. They're a gentle reminder of how important, elusive, and special the "secret essence of love" truly is.

Darin

[Deborah]

Deborah - maybe He does and maybe He doesn't. God has not spoken on the subject yet.

Yes he has.

[Mordecai]

As to its relevance, you were the one that brought up the idea that no one was being arrested for engaging in homosexual activity prior to or during the years of struggle for "Gay Rights".

That's not exactly what I said. Way to distort my statement. I simply said, "No one is being arrested for homoesexual behavior," which is 100% true.

Blacks and Whites aren't different?

When it comes to marriage? Not different at all.

Not really sure where you're going here.

You suggested that a gay union is the same as a straight union. I'm simply asking a question. According to the consensus, they are different. The word "diversity" is the buzz word from the left to imply that differences are really important but also really good. Apparently, you can't answer a simple question. Is a man different from a woman? Yes or no.

Diversity is not a requirement for marriage...

If a man is different than a woman, historically, diversity has been a requirement of marriage.

The primary job of government is to secure, protect and defend the individual rights of those under its protection.

Actually, job #1 at the Federal level is to protect the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic and #2 promote the public good. Underpinning the Constitution was the principle that Providence and nature's God were above man, and that no government cold be above that. The God given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can't morally be taken by man. The government is obligated to serve God by protecting God-given rights. Of course, reason and nature were also principles that should not be undercut by man, so it stands to reason that whims, like the idea that a gay union is the same as a marriage, should not be adopted by the gov't.

It is to do so impartially, that is without respect for anything that might distinguish one individual from another, whether sex, race, religion, creed, national origin, age, etc.

This is only a founding principle insofar as the definition of justice agrees with this. For example, the state does consider gender when it matters, e.g. with maternity leave.

Government is NOT supposed to give preferential treatment to one individual or group of people over another.

They give preferential treatment to some behaviors over others, as they should. That is a founding principle.

As such, the statutes which govern the special protection of rights, or extension of privileges or protections to domestic partnerships should not be afforded one group of consenting adults and not another.

So an adult father can marry his adult daughter? Really?

It is this rationale (albeit expressed differently) which caused the end of anti-miscegenation laws...

The rationale in Loving v. Virginia involved determining whether marriage was a right or not and why. The arguments had nothing to do with homosexuality but involved procreation and tradition, two things that are odds with homosexual unions being a right. Furthermore, the laws were designed to control reproduction. They represented eugenics, so it was a completely different issue. Again, gays are not being arrested for acting like gays. The Lovings were arrested simply for living together as husband and wife in the wrong state.

As I stated before, it is neither obvious, nor false...

Read the decision from Loving v. Virginia, where it discusses why marriage is a right. You'll see that legally, there are big differences. That you choose not to acknowledge doesn't change the obviousness of the differences.

Society may be protected from the individual committing further crimes, but justice is not served by depriving the individual of their liberty.

I think a whole slew of judges and lawyers would disagree.

Why would you think that would be justice? Do you consider causing misery to those who have caused misery justice? How does that restore what was lost? How is making one man blind because they made another man blind justice? How is making one man lame because they made another man lame justice? How is killing one man's child because they killed another man's child justice? That's patently absurd in my opinion.

It's justice because the law is designed to cause people to fear to break the law. As they say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." The idea is that society, as a whole, agrees to the laws and punishments and criminals are caused to be fearful of committing crimes. Now, I will concede that when the gov't fails to scare criminals and educate them to stop them from committing crimes, that's an injustice. But insofar as a perpetrator knew the law and knew what they were doing was wrong and knew there would be consequences, suffering those consequences is justice. They reaped what they sowed, basically.

You know very well the intended meaning behind the words "equal protection and treatment"...

Don't use the word treatment next time, if you want to avoid absurdity. That's not in the Constitution and never was. Yet, every time I have this debate, people throw in that bonus word. It doesn't belong in this debate and has nothing to do with equal protection. It's you who doesn't seem to know the difference. I was correcting your absurd comment. I was mocking the absurdity of your use of the word. So stop.

I doubt in matters of serious importance it would matter and would simply be a minor injustice we must all put up with to live in a society with so many other greater benefits.

I don't think it's a minor injustice at all. It is a breach of the very basic principles of government to promote the public good and be representatives of the people, reason and justice. There are consequences to opening such a door, where the gov't begins to control language and in consequence, thought. We don't need Big Brother looking over our children's shoulder, "fixing" how they think by making adjustments to the language.

However, when it comes to people meteing out justice according to what they believe another person deserves, I am less than sanguine, as evidenced by our disagreement about sending to prison someone who is unable to restore what they have taken from another.

I'm not a fan of prison either. I'm inclined to go with corporal punishment in some cases. Whatever causes people to fear committing crimes. I think prison is often counterproductive. That said, our society has laws that are agreed upon to prevent or punish criminals. When criminals commit those crimes, they know the consequences. They shouldn't commit the crime, if they don't want to do the time. In other words, they are, in that sense, reaping what they sowed. Not a perfect system by any means, but I can't say that sending a perpetrator to prison is an injustice.